Product Concept — Killed
A community app for NYC skateboarders — with spot maps, session planning, and local lessons. I built the concept, validated nothing, and learned exactly why user research isn't optional.
Role
Sole Designer
Status
Killed — No Build
Target
NYC Skaters
Lesson
Talk to users first
The Concept
New York City has one of the most active skateboarding scenes in the world — spots like Tompkins Square Park, LES Coleman, and spots scattered through every borough. The original idea was to build a dedicated community platform that made it easier for skaters to find spots, connect with other skaters, and share knowledge.
On paper, it seemed like a clear gap. An app purpose-built for the community — not a generic map or a broad social network, but something designed specifically for how skaters move through the city.
An interactive map of NYC skate parks, plazas, and street spots — user-submitted and community-rated. Include surface type, obstacles, and crowd levels.
Organize or join skating sessions, events, and meetups. Browse who's skating where today, coordinate times, and build a local crew.
A space for local skaters to offer beginner lessons, share tutorials, post trick tips, and connect with people who want to learn from real NYC skaters.
The Fatal Flaw
I designed this entire concept without a single user interview. My assumptions about what skaters needed were based on what I thought an outsider would want — not what people actually embedded in the culture were asking for.
When I actually looked into it — and eventually talked to skaters — the gaps became obvious immediately.
My Assumption
Skaters struggle to find spots and need a centralized map to discover new places to skate.
Reality
Exploring the city is the point. Discovering a new spot on your own is a core part of the culture — not a problem to be solved.
My Assumption
Skaters need a platform to connect — they don't have good ways to find sessions and meetups.
Reality
Group chats and Instagram already handle this — and skate communities are tight-knit enough that they don't want or need an app for it.
My Assumption
There's demand for structured lessons and people want to learn from local skaters through a platform.
Reality
YouTube and going to the park are how people learn. Informal, in-person learning is already the norm and it works.
Why It Failed
"A big part of skateboarding culture is going out and exploring on your own — I was trying to systematize something that people value precisely because it's unsystematic."
Culture mismatch. Skateboarding has an ethos of independence, self-discovery, and anti-corporate aesthetics. A structured, app-mediated community platform cuts against all of that. The thing I thought I was building for the community was actually something the community would reject.
Existing solutions were good enough. Group chats, Instagram, and word of mouth already handle coordination. Online tutorials already handle learning. There was no real gap — just my perception of one from the outside.
No domain expertise. I'm not a skateboarder. I had no authentic insight into how the community operates, what friction actually looks like day-to-day, or what they'd even want from a product. I was designing from assumption, not observation.
Zero validation before design. I built the concept, thought through features, and got excited about the idea — all before talking to a single potential user. By the time the fundamental cultural insight surfaced, I'd already invested significant time in the wrong direction.
What I Took From This
Killing a product early — before writing a line of code, before pitching it, before sinking six months into it — is the right decision. That's what good product thinking looks like. But more importantly, this failure changed how I approach every new idea.
Talk to users before designing anything. Not "talk to users at some point in the process" — before you've decided what you're building. The conversation should shape the concept, not validate it.
Understand the culture you're designing for. Technical features don't exist in a vacuum. Culture, values, and existing behavior patterns determine whether a product fits or fights the community it's trying to serve.
Existing solutions are part of the landscape. Group chats and Instagram weren't legacy systems to displace — they were working solutions that actually fit how skaters communicate. That matters.
Excitement about an idea is not validation. The concept felt compelling. The features made sense. None of that meant there was a real problem to solve. Conviction and insight are different things.
Killing early is the right move. Every week spent building the wrong product is a week you can't get back. Recognizing a flawed premise — and stopping — is exactly what the process is supposed to do.
Projects that shipped, and the thinking behind them.