Selection / Rejection Report

After conducting much research on the vast aspects of skatepark design and construction, three alternative solutions were formulated. The following is an in-depth analysis of each solution, where the pros and cons of each will be assessed (see Appendix 1-A). Finally, this will be concluded with a selection of the intended final solution.
The first of these solutions is a concrete “Plaza” style park (see Alternate Solution #1), the skatepark of choice for many skaters, which resembles the local downtown streetscape. The Plaza design simulates the multi-level platforms, stairs, benches, and handrails found in front of your community’s malls and in business districts. This design, while presenting a unique difference from today’s average skatepark design and a quiet riding surface, also presents many cons. Architectural and engineering fees alone can reach $30,000 - $50,000 alone, before the ground is even broken. In addition, free-forming concrete transitions are very expensive and annual maintenance costs can be high as well. Concrete is also very prone to cracking and crumbling, the result of normal use and weather, which is very difficult to patch. These style parks are also more susceptible to destructive vandalism, with objects such as sledge hammers and tire irons. Lastly, concrete parks leave the town with no option for any relocation or redesign. Overall, it is clear that this solution should not be further pursued.
The second solution is a Vert themed skatepark (see Alternate Solution #2). The park’s main features include a large, 15 foot half pipe, as well as several banks with hubbas and rails situated near the center of the park. There are two small stair sets in entire the park, and two corner banks. The park is the smallest of the three designs, and does not present the skater with much room for creativity. The material selected for the construction of this park, X-Series, is also the most expensive and has the lowest lifespan. In the design matrix (see Appendix 1-A), this solution came up with the lowest overall score. It is very evident that this design is not the best solution.
The third solution is a “hybrid” design (see Alternate Solution #3), combining the plaza style street park with numerous vert and transition ramps. The plaza section consists of a raised platform, with stairs and banks on all sides. The stairs include single sets, double sets, and stairs to bank. Each stair set includes dual hubbas and handrails. Traveling around the park clockwise, the first ramp is a large corner bank, with a sub-bank on top. Next, the skater is greeted by a large box with triple banks, a hubba, rail and a small step-up. After that there is a bank flybox with an aluminum bench on top. The main attraction of the park is its large, double half pipe with a spine, multiple roll-ins, and hip quarter pipes off each deck. At the back of the west end of the half pipe is located a large bank, with a long sub-quarter and a small stair set with hubba. Lastly, there is a large, triple-sided flybox with a hubba, and a long curved flat rail. In addition, in the middle of the park, there is a kicker with a picnic table, a small multi-level fun box, and two flat ground rails. This solution, because of its unique fusion of both street and vert elements, provides the skater with a new environment in which to invent new tricks and unlimited lines. This design scored the highest score in the design matrix test, and the material that this solution is to be made with, Pro Series, is the finest, safest, and lowest maintenance material available. Overall, after examining the pros and cons of each of each of the other designs, the alternate solution #3 is the best option, and has been selected to be developed further.