I'd rather see our government spend $135m on this than a stadium upgrade for the Mariners

@2 So punk.

@2, @4: Because if we don’t build a replacement skate park, skaters will just stop skating, right? And even if they didn’t, they’d skate only in places that are no more dangerous than a dedicated park.

There are good spots under I-5 to build skate parks. Roof already included.

Wasn't Seattle supposed to build a bunch of "skate dots" and 26 pieces of "skateable art" all around the city years ago? Did those promises ever come to fruition?

When did skate punks become welfare queens?

I worked with the original group trying to get a park in Seattle in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which culminated in the first iteration of SeaSk8 (which I agree is a horrible name that was chosen by some of the dads who helped us back then). There have now been 4 iterations of the park (the original one moved when the Sonics built their practice facility). Although I'm not that sad to see this one go -- it's much more "street" oriented than those of us who originally worked on the project envisoned -- it would also be nice to not have to keep tearing shit down and rebuilding it. Some parks (I am thinking Nashua, NH) have a clause that states that the old park can't be torn down until the new one is up and functioning. It would be nice to see that happen here as well. And of course indoor would be good.

@2 As part of our original research into feasibility we did searches for lawsuits involving skateparks (in the late 1980s we had to look at the 1970s mostly -- there were few parks after 1980 (Del Mar, Upland, Kona, Ocean City)). We found virtually none. This is one of the things that allowed for the explosion of parks in the 1990s, along with the growth of the skateboarding industry, classifying skateboarding as a hazardous activity that means cities don't face liability (similar to skiing), and increased visibility such as the X-Games. We also did research on injuries. Most skating injuries are minor -- scrapes and bruises. Skateboarding has fewer injuries requiring hospitalization than golf per hours of activity (although golf obviously skews toward older people), football, and many other activities.

@8 I guess at the same time that baseball players, basketball players, tennis players, soccer players, football players, bicyclists, and any other activity that gets public facilities built for them to use became welfare queens. That being said, research (and also by simply driving by and looking) shows that skate parks get used much more than other public facilities such as tennis courts.

It's weird how it they add a tennis court or a basketball court or an extra swingset at a playground, nobody even notices. But a skate park or dog park! Opinions! People have OPINIONS! To EXPRESS! Because!

@9) You are correct, there are zero options for anyone. The only thinking man's solution is to do nothing always.

This seems to be your GO-TO answer for all things.

@12

Perhaps there are fewer people allergic to basketballs, or sensitive to the noise and marijuana pollution from swingset enthusiasts?

@15:

I think it's more like, middle-aged conservative white guys can pretend they MIGHT want to use a tennis or basketball court, even if they haven't set foot on one in a good decade, but most know they don't have the balance and agility to do anything other than look like a complete idiot - and a painfully bruised one at that - trying to shred in a skate park, so they tend to dismiss skaters as just a bunch of surly kids hopped up on the Mary Jane.

@16 Ah... got it, thanks, that clears things up wonderfully.

The Battery Street Tunnel should be a skate park.

@16

That's basically it, yes, but with more uncollected dog poop.

@2 and @10 It has basically been impossible to hold the city liable for injuries at free skateparks since about 1997 when they added skateboarding to RCW 4.24.010.