CONNECTING CITIES
:Mega event Cities
:MEGA
EVENT
CONNECTING CITIES
: M e g a e v e n t C i t i e s
Papers by
Adjunct Professor Richard Cashman Professor Hai Ren
Hiromasa Shirai Dr Glen Searle
Darlene van der Breggen Professor Donald McNeill Dr Mark Davidson Alan Marsh Edited by Alana Hay Richard Cashman Published by
Sydney Olympic Park Authority for Metropolis Congress 2008
A publication for the
FOREWORD
The 9th World Congress of Metropolis, to beheld in
Sydney in October 2008, is a great opportunity to generate research into the future direction of cities. With this in mind, the organisers of the congress have developed a number of research publications that explore new concepts related to cities as well as the emerging cities of India and China.
In organising the Congress, we found that there was a network of researchers and commentators about cities across the globe who had very interesting issues to raise. While many of these will be presenting papers at the Congress, we also thought it would be useful to develop a series of publications that raise these issues in a provocative manner. The first of these books will be about networks—the concept of cities interacting across the globe. The second examines the spreading urban regions around many cities followed by publications that look in detail at the cities of China and India. The final book examines the impact on cities of mega events such as the Olympic Games.
Contemporary world urbanisation, particularly the rise of Chinese and Indian cities, means both opportunities and challenges for Australian cities. These publications put Sydney and other Australian cities in scenarios with global counterpart cities to benchmark their urban performance. The provocative topics are aimed to trigger fruitful debate in government, private sector and the general public regarding how to create better strategies for the future of Australian cities.
We would like to thank all contributors, sponsors and research coordinators. Without their work, these publications could not have been possible. The influence of their
contributions will be far reaching.
Chris Johnson
Introduction
…10
Chris Johnson
1
The Sydney Olympic Park Model: Evolution and Realisation …21
Adjunct Professor Richard Cashman
2
The operation of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Precinct
…45
Professor Hai Ren
3
Planning London Olympic Park as a Global and Local Place
—A Comparative Analysis with Sydney Olympic Park
…63
Mr Hiromasa Shirai
4
The Influence of Mega Events on City Structure
Under Contemporary Urban Governance:
The Example of Sydney’s Olympic Games
…87
Dr Glen Searle
5
Urbanising a Post–Olympic Landscape
…109
Darlene van der Breggen
6
Sydney Olympic Park: Centrality,
Mobility and Metropolitan Publics
…131
Professor Donald McNeill & Dr Mark Davidson
7
Marketing the Park to the Community—
Visitors and Audiences at Sydney Olympic Park
…149
HIROMASA SHIRAI
LONDON, UK
Hiromasa Shirai is an architect and a phd candidate at the Cities Programme in the London School of Economics and Political Science (lse). Prior to starting his phd project at the lse, as an architect, he was involved in various architectural and urban projects throughout the world, including the China Central Television, Beijing, China Headquarters project, which is one of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games related developments. Since 2006, Hiromasa has been undertaking his phd research project on The legacy of Olympic site for the City at the lse. Along with his research at the lse, he has been involved in the design of London Olympic Park.
DARLEnE
VAn DER BREGGEn
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
Darlene van der Breggen is Executive Director of Design at Sydney Olympic Park Authority. She has experience in public and private sectors of practice, specialising in public domain design and policy, urban renewal projects and master planning. She graduated in architecture from the University of Technology in Sydney and has a Masters of Architecture in Urban Design from the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University.
PROfESSOR
DOnALD MCnEILL
LONDON, UK
Professor Donald McNeill
joined the Urban Research Centre from King’s College London. He is known for his research in urban geography and in particular the relationship between architecture and urban space, with particular reference to skyscrapers, hotels, and airports. His latest book,
The Global Architect, will be published by Routledge in 2008. Having published widely on mayors and urban governance, he continues to research in urban politics and development in Barcelona, London and Sydney.
DR MARK DAVIDSOn
NEW HAMPSHIRE, USA
Dr Mark Davidson joined the Urban Research Centre from Dartmouth College, usa. He is an urban geographer with interests in gentrification, urban policy, metropolitan politics and social justice. His research has examined the social impacts of ‘new–build gentrification’ in London, uk. His current research includes work on issues of social sustainability in Sydney and Vancouver, the relationship between health and gentrification in new York City, the social and housing market impacts of infill development in Sydney and place–making activities at Sydney Olympic Park.
Contributors
PROfESSOR HAI REn
BEIJING, CHINA
Hai Ren, PhD is the Professor and Director of Centre for Olympic Studies in Beijing Sport University, China. He has specialised in Olympic studies and the social– cultural studies of sport. He has undertaken various research projects on the Olympic movement in China and the Beijing 2008 Olympic & Paralympic Games.
ALAn MARSH
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
Alan Marsh commenced as Chief Executive Officer of Sydney Olympic Park Authority in february 2008. Alan’s previous roles have included Deputy Director General (Office of Public Works and Services) of the nsw Department of Commerce, ceo of Darling Harbour Authority and Commissioner for World Expo 1988. As Executive Director Rugby World Cup 2003, Alan played a key role in the successful delivery of the nsw
Government’s logistical support and as General Manager of Ticketing for the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games was responsible for delivering a successful ticketing strategy for the ‘best games ever’.
DR GLEn SEARLE
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
Dr Glen Searle is Director of the Planning Program at the University of Technology Sydney. His former role was Deputy Manager, Policy at the new South Wales Department of Decentralisation and Development, Treasury, and Planning. He has also worked as a Senior Research Officer at the uk Department of the Environment Inner Cities Directorate. His monograph
Sydney as a Global City
was published by the nsw
Government in 1996. He is Chief Editor of the ‘Urban Policy and Research’ journal.
RICHARD CASHMAn
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
Richard Cashman is an Adjunct Professor and Director of the Australian Centre for Olympic Studies at the University of Technology, Sydney. He published The Bitter–Sweet Awakening: The Legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, in 2006 and will publish (with Simon Darcy) Benchmark Games: The Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games, in 2008. He has published numerous papers on Sydney Olympic Park.
I N T R O D U C T I O N / C h r i s J o h n s o n
NEW
EVENT
HORIZON
Cities seem to have a fascination
with mega events. Just look at the
list of past venues for the Olympic
Games—Seoul, Barcelona, Atlanta,
Sydney, Athens and Beijing. But even
more significant is the list of cities
bidding for future mega events.
London has won the right to host the 2012 Olympics with Tokyo, Chicago, Madrid, Rio de Janeiro, Baku, Doha and Prague bidding for 2016. Participants in the race for the 2020 Olympic Games include Istanbul, Delhi, Cape Town, Melbourne, Brisbane, Toronto and many more.
Cities are also bidding for the 2018 Commonwealth Games. The list of bidding cities includes Auckland, Lagos, Canberra and Toronto. The 2018 Asian Games have Jakarta, Hanoi, Manila, Singapore and Dubai all bidding.
Clearly, these cities see value in hosting mega events despite their increasing costs. Cities, in their quest for global relevance see the value of mega events in terms of capturing the attention of the world’s population and the branding their city receives.
NEW
EVENT
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 BEIJING ATHENS SYDNEY ATLANTA BARCELONA SEOUL LOS ANGELES MOSCOW 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 ATHLETES MEDIA VOLUNTEERS 74,615 VOLUNTEERS 21,600 MEDIA 11,468 ATHLETES OLYMPIC GAMES 1988–2020 2000 SYDNEY 1996 ATLANTA 1988 SEOUL 2008 BEIJING 1992 BARCELONA 2016 BID Rio de Janeiro 2016 BID Tokyo 2016 BID Madrid 2004ATHENS 2012 LONDON 2016 BID Chicago Proposed 2020 Bid Melbourne Brisbane Lima Monterrey Toronto Philadelphia Istanbul Lisbon Rome Prague Budapest Copenhagen Delhi Kuala Lumpur Busan Doha Dubai Cape Town Durban
COMPETING
EVENT CITIES
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 BEIJING A THENS SYDNEY A TLANT A B AR CELONA SEOUL LOS ANGELES MOS CO W MONTREAL MUNICH ME XICO CITY TOK Y O R OME MELBOURNE HELSINKI LONDON BERLIN LOS ANGELES AMSTERD AM PARIS ANTWERP STOCKHOLM LONDON ST LOUIS PARIS A THENS 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 205 14 43 302 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 ,8000 10,000 12,000 11,468 ATHLETES 241 ATHLETES EVENTS NATIONS ATHLETES
This book focuses on the impact of mega events, in particular, an Olympic Games and the legacy that it leaves. The Olympic Games have become an increasingly large event. Beginning in 1896 in Athens with a mere 14 nations and only 241 athletes, they have this year reached a record 205 nations at the Beijing Olympics with 11,468 athletes. This number is double the 5,516 athletes that attended the Mexico Olympic Games in 1968, where 112 countries were represented.
As well as Olympic and sporting events, cities are hosting World Expos. Shanghai is determined to present itself to the world with its showcase in 2010. The World Urban forum has also moved across various cities and of course, the Metropolis Congress adds prestige to its host city.
As the Director of the Metropolis Congress 2008 in Sydney, I’ve seen a
fascination with the image and brand of Sydney from cities such as Mumbai, Kolkata, Jakarta, Shanghai, Guangzhou, São Paulo, Barcelona and many more. It is an event city that is increasingly becoming the focus for events and the resulting publicity around the world. It is the city that is becoming the attractor of tourism and a city’s identity is often an important by–product of one or more mega event.
The chapters in this book explore the way three cities have or plan to use an Olympic Games as the catalyst to globally position their city. Beijing, the most recent host city, is positioned by Professor Hai Ren particularly in relation to post–Games use. London the 2012 city, is analysed as a global and a local place by Hiromasa Shirai from the London School of Economics. A series of experts discuss the Sydney experience and the impact of the mega event on the city itself.
WORLD
EXPO CITIES
www.expomuseum.com1970 OSaka
JapaN
1974 SPOkaNE
USa
1975 OkINaWa
JapaN
1982 kNOXVILLE
USa
1984 NEW ORLEaNS
USa
1985 TSUkUba
JapaN
1986 VaNCOUVER
CaNada
1988 bRISbaNE
aUSTralIa
1992 SEVILLE
SpaIN
/ GENOa
ITaly
1993 DaEjEON
SOUTh KOrEa
1998 LISbON
pOrTUGal
2000 HaNOVER
GErmaNy
2005 aICHI
JapaN
2008 ZaRaGOZa
SpaIN
2010 SHaNGHaI
ChINa
2012 YEOSU
KOrEa
2015 MILaN
ITaly
FIFa WORLD
CUP HOSTS
www.fifa.com2002 SOUTH kOREa/jaPaN
2006 GERMaNY
2010 SOUTH aFRICa
2014 bRaZIL
2018 MEXICO? QaTaR?
UNITED STaTES?
ENGLaND? SPaIN?
NETHERLaNDS/bELGIUM?
RUSSIa? CHINa? jaPaN?
aUSTRaLIa?
It is this impact that will be of particular interest to Beijing and London. Richard Cashman, in his chapter, explains the International Olympic Committee’s (ioc) adoption of the Olympic Games Global Impact (oggi) programme in 2001. This operates over an eleven year cycle and specifically looks at long term legacies through economic, social and environmental impacts of the Games on a specific city. He outlines the evolution of Olympic precincts and compares the decentralised model (Barcelona 1992) with the centralised model (Sydney 2000). Cashman indicates that legacy was not part of bidding criteria at the time when Sydney won the Games. Sydney, eight years on, is building momentum on its next generation of urban development.
Glen Searle outlines the evolution of Sydney Olympic Park after the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games through the development of a number of Master Plans and visions for the future. These incorporated significant new developments for commercial, retail and residential space in a manner that reinforced the structure of the new South Wales Government’s original Master Plan 1995 for development of the Homebush Bay area. Searle relates Sydney Olympic Park to current planning theory and the trend towards more fluidity of spatial relationships rather than traditional fixed Master Planning. An example of this is the possibility of a new metro rail line that could connect Sydney Olympic Park, Parramatta and Sydney’s central business district.
Darlene van der Breggen explains the urbanising of Sydney Olympic Park with particular reference to the natural landscape, the sports icons, the axial corridors and the spaces between. Mark Davidson and Donald Mcneill examine Sydney Olympic Park as a place and particularly its degree of centrality to Sydney. They focus on mobilities in relation to access to the site and stress the importance of broadly interpreting legacy to include the large amount of parklands and wetlands. Alan Marsh, ceo of Sydney Olympic Park Authority, outlines the importance of engaging local communities and leveraging brand and marketing opportunities provided by the legacy of a mega event such as an Olympic Games. He stresses some of the achievements, including the enormous remediation project, the environmental leadership and waste water recycling system. Marsh then outlines the current markets and uses of the site.
It is clear in reading the chapters on Beijing and London that planning for long–term use is an element integrated into the planning for mega event city developments, particularly for an Olympic Games. London has built long–term legacy into its planning, as is now required by the International Olympic Committee.
There is, of course, a dramatic difference in city population between Sydney, London and Beijing. The larger the city, the easier it is for the mega event to be incorporated into long term planning for a city. The smaller the city, the more impact a mega event has in terms of determining the region’s future structure. The keen interest, however, in major cities competing to hold mega events demonstrates the value they see in lifting themselves within the global city stakes. It seems that to become globally competitive a city needs to host mega events—the biggest of these being the Olympic Games.
Legacies from mega events can be more than the physical. Sydney has made a major contribution in the area of sustainability. At a time when climate change was hardly discussed, Sydney championed environmental initiatives. It is now home to one of the world’s largest waste water recycling systems, a solar powered suburb, best practice approach to environmental sustainability and the largest remediation project in Australia.
It could be argued that the enduring legacy of the Sydney Olympic Games will not be its success in delivering some of the world’s greatest events but perhaps that our ‘green games’ made other major cities more aware of their own nascent environmental and urban regeneration issues.
Olympic precincts and parks are a relatively recent
phenomenon. The creation of a dedicated Olympic
precinct has important post–Games legacy implications.
Part of the justification for the investment is that it will
be of long–term benefit. The attachment of the
Olympic name to a park or a precinct is a
reminder of the site’s significance
The Sydney
Olympic park mOdel:
iTS evOluTiOn
and realiSaTiOn
RichaRd cashman
The IOC reCOgnIsed The ImpOrTanCe Of
evenT legaCy by CreaTIng The OlympIC
games glObal ImpaCT (OggI) prOgram In 2001
Olympic precincts and Parks
are
a relatively recent phenomenon.
They are a product of greater
planning and investment in
Olympic cities since the 1970s.
This is a result of the increased
size and status of Olympic Games
in this period with expanding
media coverage and enlarged
sponsorship commitments. Place
competition and place marketing
are products of globalisation; with
regions, cities and even localities
increasingly focusing on developing
internationally competitive
investment environments for
investors who possess global reach.
The Olympics are considered an
unsurpassed investment package—
big–ticket events like the Olympic
Games provide a unique opportunity
to launch large–scale projects of
urban infrastructure to advertise
and promote a city in the global
marketplace.
A comparative study of Olympic
precincts is a worthwhile exercise
particularly with the International
Olympic Committee’s (
ioc
) greater
emphasis on legacy since the Sydney
2000 Olympic and Paralympic
Games. The
ioc
recognised the
importance of impacts by creating
the Olympic Games Global Impact
(
oggi
) program in 2001.
oggi
,
which operates over an 11–year
cycle—starting two years before
the selection of the host city, to two
years after the staging of an Olympic
Games—represents a sustained
effort to collect and capture social,
environmental and economic
impacts of the Games. The benefits of
oggi
are two–fold: it assists with the
transfer of Olympic knowledge from
one Olympic city to another enabling
the
ioc
to better understand and
manage future Olympic Games.
Impacts are immensely important
because they relate to issues of
sustainability, accountability and
evaluation. At an international legacy
conference, in Lausanne in 2002,
ioc
President, Dr Jacques Rogge,
warned about the danger of luxury
developments, made in the name of
Olympic Games, becoming ‘white
elephants’ post–Olympics. It should
be noted that Sydney’s legacy plans,
which were framed in the 1990s,
occurred before the
ioc
’s greater
emphasis on legacy, making the
evolution of Sydney Olympic Park
different from that of the cities of
Beijing and London.
Urban landsCapes
Maurice Roche, in ‘Mega Events and Modernity’, noted that sports and leisurescapes—sports parks, fairs, theme and amusement parks—have become part of the landscape of contemporary cities. Such landscapes have been planned carefully to enhance commercial opportunities that are clustered around the park’s main attractions so that ‘events, architecture and landscaping help move people through and past concessions at speeds and intervals that have been carefully determined to enhance sales per capita’.
Roche elaborated further on what he calls ‘event–heritage architecture’. The Eiffel Tower was a legacy of the Paris World Fair of 1889. London’s Wembley Stadium, a product of the 1924 imperial expo, became a ‘legendary “theatre of dreams” and a site of national sport–event pilgrimage for the British public’. While most event– heritage architecture is planned, some legacy may not be foreseen. A surplus from the 1851 Crystal Palace Exhibition led to the acquisition of 87 acres of land in South Kensington where international expos have been held. Even though the Crystal Palace was burned down in 1937 the 87 acres has become the site of a permanent exhibition complex of institutions including Albert Hall, the Victoria and Albert Museum and a number of other buildings.
Landscapes provide an opportunity to explore place identity and the actors and narratives become central to the identity of a place. Designed landscapes, which are cultural products, reflect the social, economic and political circumstances of a city and give shape to a new imagining of the city. There has been a proliferation of literature in recent decades on ways of viewing urban space in a number of disciplines—anthropology, architecture, geography, history, sociology and urban planning and studies—so that the study of urban precincts has become a rich field for comparative study.
OlympIC Urban InfrasTrUCTUre befOre The 1970s
Olympic urban investment was relatively modest before the 1970s. The scale of Olympic Games was much smaller and the media coverage was relatively small. Consequently, there was less incentive for a city to undertake a large–scale infrastructure project. There were, for instance, only 3,342 athletes from 67 nations at the Melbourne 1956 Olympic Games. By contrast, 3843 athletes
from 122 nations attended the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games and approximately 4,500 athletes from 71 teams attended the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games. There was no international television coverage of the Melbourne Olympic Games so there was less opportunity for the city to promote itself internationally.
Melbourne’s Olympic investment was limited in comparison with later Olympic cities. It had no Olympic precinct as such. The Melbourne Cricket Ground became the Olympic Stadium and after the Olympic Games, resumed its previous use, primarily for cricket and football matches. Other venues were scattered around the city and the state.
In 1956, there was only a limited idea of the legacy of an Olympic Games, creating infrastructure that would be of long–term benefit to the citizens of Melbourne and Victoria. The Melbourne Cauldron, for instance, was ‘constructed quickly’ and ‘was not intended to last for longer than the period of the Games’. It languished in a warehouse for three decades after 1956 when it was rediscovered and went on display in the Australian Gallery of Sport and Olympic Museum opened in Melbourne in 1986.
The evOlUTIOn Of OlympIC preCInCTs In The 1970s
The increasing size and status of the Olympic Games by the 1970s, fuelled by the expansion of international television, provided the incentive for cities to invest more in Olympic infrastructure and to use a mega sporting event to undertake large–scale urban development. The Olympic Games provided an opportunity, as Glen Searle notes in his chapter, ‘to stimulate urban development beyond the Olympic sports facilities themselves’. Munich in 1972 and Montreal in 1976 provide interesting examples of how two cities invested massively in Olympic infrastructure to advance agendas that were considered important by the city planners.
Munich built a futuristic stadium, an Olympic Village, sports arenas and water sports sites that were linked by a subway system connecting the facilities to the centre of the city. Graphic artist, Otl Aichers, coordinated colours and developed a series of sports pictographs. Significantly, this new Olympic precinct was created on a site of rubble dumped after the post–war reconstruction of the bombed city. So Munich, like Sydney some decades later, used the event to turn a degraded wasteland into an attractive sports and recreation wonderland.
The organisers of the Munich 1972 Olympic Games wished to promote the stability and peaceful stance of the new German Federal Republic. Expanding global television revenue, combined with massive support from government agencies, underwrote ambitious Olympic developments.
The organisers wished to dispel the memories of the last German Olympic Games, held in Berlin in 1936, when the Nazis were in power. Unfortunately, Munich was not remembered for its fine Olympic architecture or its efficient organisation but for the massacre that took place midway through the Games; that resulted in the deaths of 11 Israeli athletes, one policeman and five terrorists.
The charismatic Mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, wanted to use the 1976 Games ‘to create a lasting symbol of la survivance, the will of French Canada to survive two centuries of English–Canadian attempts at assimilation’. While promising the ioc that the city would deliver a ‘modest self–financing Games’, Drapeau proceeded to commission extravagant monuments including an Olympic stadium with a 50–story tower, a retractable roof and an ambitious and complex design for the velodrome that included a giant arc of a roof sweeping over glass walls, rising higher and higher with no visible means of support that then sloped back to earth. Montreal ended up with ‘such monumental facilities, constructed with such little regard for their cost’ that they have become a byword for gargantuan extravaganzas.
The tales of Munich and Montreal provide salutary lessons that the best–laid plans may not produce the desired promotion of the city.
The InCreasIng sIze and sTaTUs Of The
OlympIC games by The 1970s, fUelled by The
expansIOn Of InTernaTIOnal TelevIsIOn,
prOvIded The InCenTIve fOr CITIes TO InvesT
mOre In OlympIC InfrasTrUCTUre and TO
Use a mega spOrTIng evenT TO UnderTake
large–sCale Urban develOpmenT
mOdels Of OlympIC preCInCTs
Since the 1950s there have been three main models, with many variants, of Olympic precincts.
1. No Model
The 1956 Melbourne Olympic Games had no ‘Olympic precinct’.
2. Decentralised Model
The 1992 Barcelona organisers, by contrast, opted for a
decentralised model, with Olympic developments spread over four main areas. Montjuïc, Diagonal, Parc de Mar and Vall d’Hebron. Montjuïc was an established sports precinct with a stadium (dating from 1936) and a swimming pool (1972). Diagonal was the part of the city with the largest concentration of private sports facilities. The two other areas, Parc de Mar and Vall d’Hebron were chosen because there were insufficient sports facilities there. So there was a conscious decision on the part of the Barcelona organisers to spread Olympic developments around the city.
3. Centralised Model
The Sydney 2000 Olympic & Paralympic Games’ organisers preferred a more centralised model with 14 of the 28 sports located at eight venues at Sydney Olympic Park; also the site of the Olympic Village. Sydney Olympic Park is distinctive in that its 640 hectares include 425 hectares of extensive parklands, providing much scope for both passive and active recreation.
Sydney Olympic P
ark 200
1, Olympic Games ‘mode’
The raTIOnale fOr a CenTralIsed mOdel
Sydney’s choice of this model was based on the following ingredients:
• A key objective was to create an attractive theatre for the Sydney Games. This was achieved by constructing mostly new state–of– the–art sporting facilities, flanked by a wide boulevard that could accommodate large crowds and provide easy access to the Park, mainly by rail. Vision of this impressive and vibrant precinct was beamed across the globe in September 2000, thereby promoting the city internationally.
• Another aim was to enhance the sporting facilities for the city, as Sydney lacked a major stadium to seat 80,000 and a modern aquatic centre. The Sydney Olympic Park site, formerly known as Homebush Bay, was chosen because it was 16 km west of the Sydney’s Central Business District, in an area where sporting facilities were considered most needed.
• Sydney, like Munich, chose to transform this large tract of degraded land into a clean, green, sports environment thereby promoting the idea of ‘green games’, something that appealed to the ioc which nominated ‘environment’ as the third dimension of Olympism in 1995.
• The creation of a dedicated Olympic precinct had important post–Games legacy implications. The primary justification for the investment was that it was located to the west of Sydney’s cbd, where most of the population resided, so that it would be of long–term benefit to the wider community of Sydney. The eastern suburbs, by contrast, had long been well–served by the Centennial Park/Moore Park sports precinct. The attachment of the Olympic name to a park or a precinct is a reminder of the site’s significance. The 640 hectares of Homebush Bay had been earmarked for development over three decades after the closure of the State Abattoir in 1988. Winning the 2000 bid merely sped up this timetable. While the nsw Government initiated and funded the operation of Sydney Olympic Park, it looked to the private sector wherever possible to cover the costs of construction and the operation of large
Northern W
ater F
eature, greening of Sydney Olympic P
ark
facilities, such as the Olympic Stadium. In other instances, when the government paid for the construction of a facility, such as the Sydney International Aquatic Centre (now known as Sydney Olympic Park Aquatic Centre), it sought to spread the financial load by handing over the operations of such facilities to private and public bodies, including local councils, sports associations and the nsw Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation. The proportion of public to private capital was roughly the same as the overall investment in the Sydney Games—about two–thirds public to one–third private. However, Sydney Olympic Park was created and managed (and still is) by the nsw Government, through its agencies the Olympic Coordination Authority (oca) until 2001 and the Sydney Olympic Park Authority (sopa) since then.
All but two of the sports facilities at Sydney Olympic Park were built during the 1990s and most were constructed between 1994 and 1999 as shown in Figure 1.
The ‘green games’, sOmeThIng ThaT appealed
TO The IOC whICh nOmInaTed ‘envIrOnmenT’ as
The ThIrd dImensIOn Of OlympIsm In 1995
venUe bUIlTdaTe (mIllIOns)COsT desIgn/ COnsTrUCTIOn Owners/OperaTOrs CapaCITy fUnCTIOn(s)
SYDNEY OLYMPIC PARK SPORTS CENTRE
(FORMERLY STATE SPORTS CENTRE)
1984 $22.3 Cox Richardson (Architect); Dept of Public Works (Builder)
State Sports
Centre Trust 4,600 Sport, cultural events, business events ANZ STADIUM (FORMERLY STADIUM AUSTRALIA, TELSTRA STADIUM) 1999 $715.6 m: ($584m Private Equity, $131.6m NSW Govt)
Bligh, Voller, Nield and Lobb (Architect); Multiplex Constructions (Builder) Stadium Australia Group 83,500 (110,000*) Football, cricket, business events, entertainment events, tourism SYDNEY OLYMPIC PARK AQUATIC CENTRE SYDNEY OLYMPIC PARK ATHLETIC CENTRE
1994 $218.8m Philip Cox (Architect); Dept of Public Works (Builder) Sydney Olympic Park Authority Aquatics 8,500 (17,500* ) Athletics 10,000 Swimming, leisure, trapeze, athletics (Olympic warm–up track) ACER ARENA (FORMERLY SYDNEY SUPERDOME) 1999 +$142.4m Cox Richardson Devine Deflow Yaeger (Architects);
ABI Group (Builder)
PBL (managed by AEG Ogden) 21,000 Business events, concerts, entertainment events, indoor sports SYDNEY SHOWGROUND ROYAL AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY 1996 Baseball Stadium ($11m) Dome and Pavilions ($377 m) Cox Richardson (Architect); Baulderstone, Thiess, Transfield, Edwards, Belmadar, Bona, Cordukes, St Hilliers, Hansen&Juncken, Lahey (Builders) Royal Agricultural Society of NSW 10,000 Royal Easter Show, football, exhibitions, business and entertainment events SYDNEY OLYMPIC PARK HOCKEY STADIUM 1985 $16m Ancher, Mortlock, Woolley (Architects); Dept of Public Works and AW Baulderstone PL (Builders)
State Sports
Centre Trust 10,000 (15,000* ) Hockey
SYDNEY OLYMPIC PARK TENNIS CENTRE 1999 $39m (nsw Govt; $7.1m Tennis NSW and Tennis Australia; $1.3 m socog)
Bligh, Voller, Nield (Architects); ABI Group (Builder) Tennis NSW 10,000 Tennis SYDNEY OLYMPIC PARK ARCHERY CENTRE
1997 $3 m Stutchbury & Pape
(Architects) Sydney Olympic Park Authority
Nil
(4,500*) Archery *Olympic Mode
figure 1
Construction and investment in venues at Sydney Olympic Park
sydney OlympIC park pOsT–2000
It is quite surprising how Sydney Olympic Park has been transformed since 2000 and how it continues to evolve. There has probably been as much investment in the Park post–Games as beforehand. The changing face of the Park’s built environment provides tangible evidence of this. An article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph on 27 August 2006 contended that ‘a second building boom at Sydney Olympic Park from 2006 to 2008 would be almost as spectacular as the first one from 1996 to 1999, when the sports precinct was created.’ These new developments are fuelled primarily by commercial developments and mark an increase in private investment in the Park. The future erection of apartment towers will further add to this boom.
It is important to note that Sydney’s post–Games planning differed from Beijing and London’s because Sydney operated in a different Olympic environment. While Sydney’s legacy plans were an attractive feature of its bid, there was no requirement in 1993 (and from 1993 to 2000) to spell out a detailed post–Games legacy blueprint. So while the pre–2000 plans for the future of Sydney
Locals enjo ying Music B y M oonlight E vent 31
Olympic Park were impressive as general vision statements, there were no specific legacy plans for implementation post–Games.
As a result Sydney Olympic Park experienced a difficult two years after the Olympic Games until Sydney Olympic Park Authority began post–Games planning in earnest. Many in the local, national and international media were highly critical of Sydney Olympic Park in 2001 and 2002 with some journalists dismissing the Park as a ‘white elephant’. David Richmond, Director–General of the oca and the first Chair of the Board of sopa commented in the Australian Financial Review on 22 August 2001, that there had been ‘limited post–Games planning before 2000’. He stated that oca had ‘commissioned preliminary post–Games planning’ in 1999 but added that he was unable to ‘divert staff from live Olympic tasks to work on post–Games projects’.
Unfortunately national and international media and scholars have promoted the immediate post–Games period view, that the Park was a failure and yet another example of an ‘Olympic white elephant’. Few have considered the many transformations of Sydney Olympic Park since then, as it has changed from a community liability to a community asset.
Despite the initial delay, significant planning has since taken place at Sydney Olympic Park with space, previously dedicated to high intensity sport, elite athletic achievement and nationalist fervour, becoming places for ‘escape, relaxation and self–discovery’, as Mark Davidson and Donald McNeill note in their chapter.
frOm OlympIC TO pOsT–OlympIC mOde
A number of venues were purposefully designed to allow for modifications and transition to post–Olympic mode operations. The capacity of the Olympic Stadium was reduced from 110,000 to 83,500. Similarly, Sydney Olympic Park Aquatic Centre was downsized from 17,500 to 8,500 seats (see Figure 1). Temporary stands were also removed at a number of venues.
enhanCemenT Of The symbOlIC sIgnIfICanCe Of The park
With the removal of the uncovered seating in the Olympic stadium, the Cauldron was refashioned and relocated as an attractive sculpture nearby in the The Overflow and has been relit a number of times on the occasion of Games’ anniversaries and other important ceremonial occasions. A forest of 400 poles in front of the Olympic Stadium, entitled ‘Games Memories’, was unveiled in 2002, to honour the Games’ volunteers. Throughout the Park there are many other reminders—street names, plaques, ziggurats and monuments—that this Park has symbolic significance. Visitors are reminded that the Park is an iconic place and is bound up in the ‘larger public imaginary’, as Davidson and O’Neill note in their chapter.
C
yclis
ts at the annual F
es
tival of C
ycling, Sydney Olympic P
ark
The Olympic Cauldron, relocated in 200
1 to Ov
erflo
w P
ark, is no
w an artwork for public enjo
yment
pOsT–games gOvernanCe
The NSW Government created the Sydney Olympic Park Authority (sopa) on 1 July 2001 to oversee Bicentennial Park, Sydney Olympic Park and Millennium Park, all of which became known as Sydney Olympic Park from that date. sopa’s mission statement included the following:
“ Sydney Olympic Park Authority will develop
and manage Sydney Olympic Park, as a
special place for sporting, elite and non–elite,
recreational, educational and business
activities for the benefit of the community.
Future development and management will
be based on the principles of recognising the
responsibility to preserve the Olympic legacy,
of supporting stakeholders, of protecting and
enhancing the environment, of maintaining
high environmental and design values while
also generating an adequate financial return to
reduce the dependency for ongoing funding.”
www.sydneyolympicpark.com.au
This mission statement was both comprehensive and broad reflecting both the wider goals of the Park after 2000 and its role as a community asset.
The Olympic Cauldron, relocated in 200
1 to Ov
erflo
w P
ark, is no
w an artwork for public enjo
yment
masTer plan 2002
The first Sydney Olympic Park Master Plan, adopted on 31 May 2002, proposed a residential population target of 3,000 on a site adjacent to the town centre. It also proposed an increase in on–site employment, particularly in the town centre, to ensure a minimum daily work force of 10,000. The plan recognised the need for leisure, entertainment and retail facilities for visitors, workers and residents. More recent plans and projections are contained in sopa’s Master Plan 2030. For example, a residential development with 685 apartments has now been approved on Australia Avenue, the entry boulevard to the town centre.
COmmerCIal develOpmenT Of The park
Sydney Olympic Park continues to attract major investment incommercial, sporting, education and hospitality development. Confidence in the Park is demonstrated by the more than $276 million of developments approved in the last 18 months alone including
two hotels, three commercial buildings, a 208–unit residential development, a specialist hospital, a new pub and a childcare centre.
The recently–released Draft Sydney Olympic Park Master Plan 2030 will guide the continued development of Sydney Olympic Park.
The Plan is a blueprint for the sustainable development of Sydney Olympic Park over the next 22 years as the precinct grows to accommodate a daily population of 28,500 workers, 14,000 residents, 5,000 students and more than 15,000 visitors.
The Commonwealth Bank has already started shifting 3,500 city staff—which were housed in three seven–storey towers—to the Park. The move will be complete by early 2009. The Bank will occupy 60,000 m2 of office space next to the train station. It contains 3,500 m2 of retail space, which will add street life to the town centre and a nearby town square, now under construction. Another office development of 7,200 m2 with ground floor retailing has also been agreed in the town centre adjacent to the train station.
Following the erection of two hotels before the Olympics, the Accor group announced two new hotels at the Park: the budget–level 156 room Formule1 Hotel and the five star Pullman Hotel, with 212 rooms, which opened in September 2008.
spOrTIng and edUCaTIOnal develOpmenTs
Three youth–oriented facilities have been, or are being, developed: Monster Skatepark, Monster Mountainx, and Monster bmx. The Skatepark is the first international standard skatepark in the southern hemisphere. The mountain bike facility provided new facilities for the Western Sydney Mountain Bike Club after the original Olympic mountain bike track in western Sydney was closed.
An international centre for excellence in sports science management, Sport Knowledge Australia, was set up in 2004 as a joint venture between the University of Sydney, the University of Technology Sydney and sopa. The nsw Institute of Sport’s new headquarters, which were completed in 2006, accommodates 90 staff and coaches and a sports science laboratory. A sports education campus has also been designated next to the stadium. Australia’s first international centre of excellence in sports science and sports management, the National High Performance Tennis Academy, and the Australian College of Physical Education is located opposite the Sydney Olympic Park Aquatic Centre.
CreaTIve IndUsTrIes
sopa is developing a vision of a creative industries hub as thecentrepiece of a creative industries strategy. As part of this, new artists’ studios and workshop facilities have been developed at Newington Armory, which includes an indoor performance space, an outdoor performance area, and an exhibition space.
parklands develOpmenTs
Upgrading the parklands has continued since 2000 making it more appealing to the public. Wentworth Common was opened in 2004 providing facilities for active and passive recreation and the Brickpit Ring Walk added to this when it opened in 2006. The first stage of the 20–hectare Blaxland Riverside Park was opened in March 2007.
OTher aCTIvITIes
The Sydney Olympic Park Private Hospital is to be
commissioned in 2009. It will specialise in orthopaedic surgery and in particular, sports injury and therapeutic services.
Sydney Olympic Park has progressively gained greater traction with the public. There is a variety of visitors attracted to the Park. The challenge for sopa is to balance the interests of such various groups, as Davidson and McNeill describe in their chapter.
After a slow beginning Sydney Olympic Park is being woven into the fabric of community life in western Sydney and the city more generally. In this respect it can be compared with major public development of 1988, Darling Harbour in the cbd, which also took some to gain public acceptance.
Sydney Olympic Park has moved further down the track in its goal to become more self–sufficient. Annual contributions by the nsw Government to Sydney Olympic Park Authority have been reducing since 2001. This reduction has been possible due to increasing revenue from property rents and commercial hiring, estate levies, sponsorship arrangements and car parking revenue.
4m 6m 8m 10m 9m 7m 5m 4m 6m 8m 10m 9m 7m 5m 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 8.54 million visits 5.53 million visits 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 $43.4m $43.2m $70.4m $34.0m $30.8m $31.2m $30.6m figure 2
Sydney Olympic Park total visitations 2002–2007
Note: 1. 2007 data includes Sporting Clubs and Sports participation
figure 3
Contribution of the NSW Government to Sydney Olympic Park
OlympIC parks have beCOme
an essenTIal COmpOnenT fOr
hOsT CITIes Of OlympIC games
Monster Skate Park, built and opened in 2005, attracts the youth market to Sydney Olympic Park
lessOns frOm
sydney OlympIC park
With the benefit of hindsight
greater planning for the legacy
of Sydney Olympic Park and its
implementation could have taken
place before 2000. The existence of a
long–term plan may have diminished
media criticism of the Park in 2001
and 2002 and eased the transition
from Olympic to post–Olympic mode.
Significant policy developments
have taken place since 2000 to
address a number of post–Games
issues.
sopa
has demonstrated
a measure of flexibility and
pragmatism in that some new
directions have been pursued
(notably in business and residential
development). Sydney Olympic Park
has introduced a ‘mix of uses’, the
worth of which could not have been
fully appreciated in 1993 or even
2000.
sopa
has responded to the
needs of the local community and
also pursued new audiences, such as
the youth market.
It is evident from the increased
visitation figures that the Park
has gained the confidence of the
community. However, the Park has
continuing challenges, such as its
identity, brand and the right mix
of visitors.
Sydney Olympic Park today
reflects the three dimensions of
Olympics—sport, culture and
the environment—and provides
much scope for passive and active
recreation, as well as sport. There
are also significant sports and
environmental education programs
at the Park. It has been transformed
from a precinct primarily for high
level sport, recreation and cultural
events to a sports and entertainment
suburb where people work and
live. The
ioc
should welcome
this transformation because it is
sustainable and returns something
to the Sydney community that
supported the Olympic Games so
wholeheartedly in 2000.
Sydney Olympic Park has been
transformed from a ‘wasteland of
white elephants’, as one journalist
dubbed it in 2001, to a vibrant
and lively precinct in 2008, which
has been embraced by the local
community. There is much value
then in the long–term study of
Olympic precincts to capture how
they evolve over time.
45
What is the plan for post–Games use of Beijing Olympic
Park and how will the city deal with such a large Olympic
territory? Is it still too early to say at the time when the
big carnival has just ended? This chapter presents an
overview of Beijing Olympic Park and what the city
intends to do to manage it post–Games
Professor Hai reN
Post–Games
Use of BeijinG
46
Will Beijing Olympic park BecOme a
manageaBle legacy Benefiting city
residents in the cOming years
Or turn Out tO Be a ‘White elephant’,
placing a heaVy Burden On the city?
47
The Beijing 2008 Olympic Games
held from 8–24 August and the
Paralympics from 6–17 September
featured splendid ceremonies,
outstanding sporting performances
and enthusiastic spectators. As this
chapter is published, the dream of the
Olympic Games comes to a conclusion
and the reality of the future begins.
Beijing Olympic Park has fourteen
facilities for different fifteen sporting
events. About forty four per cent of
Olympic sports were played there.
The Olympic Village accommodated
about 16,000 athletes, coaches and
officials. The Media Village, Main
Press Centre (
mpc
) and International
Broadcasting Centre (
ibc
), occupy a
total of 1,135 hectares.
Will Beijing Olympic Park of such
size become a manageable legacy
beneficial to city residents in the
coming years or turn out to be a ‘white
elephant’, putting a great burden on
the city? What is the plan for post–
Games use and how will the city deal
with such a large Olympic territory?
These are the questions asked by
governmental officials, general public,
state owned industries and private
business owners.
The post–Games use of Beijing
Olympic Park had been taken into
consideration as shown by early
sketches shown in the media during
the bidding stage, yet the city Tourism
Bureau has only recently unveiled its
tourism plan for the Park. It is obvious
that managing an Olympic Park with
such scope and so many social sectors
will be a challenge.
Will Beijing cope with the
challenge? Is it still too early to say
at a time when the big carnival has
just ended? This chapter presents an
overview of Beijing Olympic Park and
what the city intends to do to manage
it post–Games.
48
1
2
3
figure 1
plan of beijing olympic park, showing the three distinct precincts
fOrmatiOn Of Beijing Olympic park
Beijing Olympic Park, the core area for staging the Beijing 2008 Olympic and Paralympic Games, is located in the northern end of the city’s axis, running through various historical precincts. The Park consists of 1,135 hectares, divided into the three precincts, (Figure 1):
The Northern Precinct (680 hectares) has been named Olympic Forest Park. The natural landscape is the main attractant for the area. There are various hills, lakes, wetlands and about 14 scenic locations.
The Central Precinct (405 hectares) is where new Olympic facilities are located including hallmark venues like the National Stadium (Bird’s Nest) with 80,000 seats; National Aquatic Centre (Water Cube) with 15,000 seats, and the National Gymnasium with 18,000 seats. This precinct also includes the Olympic Village, Media Village, the Main Press Centre (mpc) and the International Broadcast Centre (ibc).
The Southern Precinct (114 hectares) contains former sports facilities including a stadium and a swimming pool, which were originally built for the 11th Asian Games in 1990.
49
figure 1
plan of beijing olympic park, showing the three distinct precincts
50
transfOrming Beijing Olympic park
Vision for the Beijing Olympic Park after the Games is described as a multi–functional complex based on five industries; namely, sports, entertainment, exhibitions, tourism and business services. The Park will develop certain centres for the following activities: sport tournaments, arts performance, high level conferences, cultural business, tourism, leisure and physical recreation for the public.
plans fOr pOst–games use
The staging of the Beijing Olympic Games and thedevelopment of Beijing Olympic Park has overlapped with the transformation of the city. In 2006 the Beijing government unveiled its long term plan for city’s further development, which set up four functional zones and six key industrial areas. The Olympic Park is positioned in the zone of the City’s Functional Extension and endowed with quite an important role to extend the city’s functions. The plan focuses mostly on the Olympic Forest Park (Northern Precinct) and the Olympic Centre (Central Precinct), since these two areas were created especially for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.
Olympic fOrest park
The use of Olympic Forest Park is directed towards: • Commercial service of culture and sport;
• Exhibition of Olympic culture and arts; • Physical fitness experiments;
• Demonstration of new ecological technologies for educational purposes.
The Park is ready for tourists with its various landscapes but it has been recognised that more facilities are needed to support the desired multi–functionality.
51
Olympic central precinct
The goal for this section is to build up a modern multi– purpose sporting and cultural centre. In addition to its current function as a sport centre, some additions will be applied to host mixed use including conventions, exhibitions, cultural activities, recreation, leisure activities and shopping.
The buildings temporarily used as competition venues during the Beijing Games for table tennis, badminton, fencing, wrestling, the Main Press Centre and the International Broadcasting Centre will be turned into convention and exhibition centres. Cultural facilities, such as Capital Youth Palace and Urban Planning Exhibition Hall and hotels will also be transformed for this purpose.
The Water Cube will transform into the largest public aquatic recreational centre in Beijing. The space used for sport competition will be reduced to utilise approximately 20 per cent of total capacity with the remaining space being used for various activities for fitness, training and recreation.
The Olympic Village will become a residential area with high standards of environmental sustainability. The majority of the 2,000 apartments, totalling 370,000 m2 (including auxiliaries); have been sold with residents due to move in by June 2009.
the VisiOn fOr the Beijing Olympic park
pOst–games is descriBed as a
multi–functiOnal cOmplex Based On
fiVe industries; spOrts, entertainment,
exhiBitiOns, tOurism and Business serVices
52
The Bird’
s Nes
t and W
ater Cube will be transformed pos
t–
Games
54
The plans for transforming the Park post–Games has been discussed since the early stages of bidding, with a project timeline recently unveiled. The plan describes implementation in three stages:
First Stage (2008–2010)
Venues will be adapted including the Bird’s Nest, Water Cube and National Conference Centre; to focus on tourism, business, exhibitions, show business and commercial services. A coordinated management mechanism will be set up to encourage new investment. Certain known sport events, well–known conferences and exhibitions will be procured, while transnational and domestic corporations will be encouraged to relocate to the Park.
Second Stage (2011–2015)
Focus will be on cultural, sport, exhibition, commercial and financial services. Acceleration of development and establishment of a brand identity for Beijing Olympic Park will be crucial to cement the Park as a hot spot for domestic and international investment.
there Will Be three stages
Of transfOrmatiOn
1. Venue adaptatiOn
2. fOcus On eVents and Brand
3. cOnnectiOn tO the
55
Third Stage (2016–2020)
Beijing Olympic Park will be internationally recognised in terms of its sports tournaments, artistic performances, events and products and the Park’s development will be connected to the international economy.
Obviously the project is very ambitious and its designers are optimistic, listing some favourable factors for the project, such as convenient transportation, graceful social and natural environments, increasing demand from the emerged communities on the
surroundings and excellent infrastructure.
recent deVelOpment
The first post–Games use of the Olympic Park will befor tourists. Six tourism themes have been designed and ready for initiation by the end of September 2008:
Olympic Sport Facilities Tour: mainly focused on the National Stadium (Bird’s Nest) and National Aquatic Centre (Water Cube);
Green Ecological Tour: mainly in Olympic Forest Park;
Cultural Experience Tour: using a traditional ‘Chinese Story’ with mascots, mobile shows and sponsor displays;
Cultural Creation Tour: highlights of the Olympic Games Opening and Closing ceremonies;
Shopping Tour: Olympic souvenirs and Beijing tourist souvenirs;
Night Sightseeing Tour: lighting and illumination of sporting venues and facilities.
To support the tourism programs, related auxiliaries are being created in the area such as food service, information, transportation, parking, rest areas, toilets and tour guides.
the first pOst–games use Of the
Olympic park Will Be fOr tOurists
1 2 3 4 5 6
56
adVantages and challenges fOr the transfOrmatiOn
The transformation of the Olympic Park to post–Games use will have its advantages and challenges.
adVantages
In the post–Games era Beijing Olympic Park has the following strong points:
Huge number of potential customers
Beijing is a large city of 15 million residents with increasing demands for cultural activities. Beijing Olympic Park is already attractive to the general public due to its outstanding architecture, enormous space and diversified landscapes. The population in the surrounding area of the Park is quite dense. In addition, with tourism emerging rapidly as a new industry in China, Beijing is the first tourist destination for domestic and overseas tourists.
Convenient transportation
Beijing Olympic Park is close to main transportation lines, with the fourth and fifth ring–roads crossing through the Park and subways directly to its heart. It is easy for public to access the Park using various modes of transport including rail, bus and taxi. For private vehicles there are several parking areas with relatively large capacity.
Multi–purpose venues
The Park meets the needs of various social groups, for its multi– functional design allows for mixed use activities from daily exercisers to mega events for sport and culture, small leisure activities to large conventions, exhibitions and shows.
Quality infrastructure
High quality infrastructure support system was established for the preparation of the Games, which will provide a solid support for the activities in the Park.
the park’s multi–functiOnal design allOWs Varied
actiVities frOm daily exercisers tO mega eVents
fOr spOrt and culture, small leisure actiVities tO
large cOnVentiOns, exhiBitiOns and shOWs
57
challenges
The Park’s challenges mainly lie with maintaining a balance between the Park and public surrounds.
Relationship Between The Park And Other Areas
Beijing has existing urban developments including the cbd and convention and exhibition centres in the city’s north before the Games. The relationship between the existing centres and the newly built Olympic Park may cause some issues.Relationship among the three areas
To run many facilities in three separate precincts within the Park may cause operational issues. The three areas may compete for the same resources and efforts and it may be necessary to develop appropriate cooperation and even compensation for the various stakeholders. The pursuit of profits based on marketing needs may lead to some conflicts among the three sections as well as the same trades of the Park. It is important for them to avoid functional and commercial overlap, however, this may be difficult.
Relationship among the various parties involved
There are many parties involved in running the various sporting, tourism, commerce, transportation, security and media services. They share some common interests but at the same time have different goals and resources, which may be difficult for the city to coordinate.
Shortage of mega events
Tourism may not be sufficient to run the Park in the long–term. Mega events, especially big sporting events, are crucial, especially for the Bird’s Nest. Theoretically football matches are the best choice for its size and football is attractive to many sport fans in Beijing and China. However, a continuing decline in the performance of Chinese professional leagues and the national team has resulted in a rapid fall in spectator numbers. It may not be easy then to discover suitable mega events for the Bird’s Nest.
three areas may cOmpete fOr the same
resOurces and effOrts and it may Be necessary
tO deVelOp apprOpriate cOOperatiOn and eVen
cOmpensatiOn fOr VariOus stakehOlders
59
Olympic Parks have become an
essential component for host cities of
Olympic Games. Olympic Games as
a super mega event demands a super
capacity of facilities, which results
in some difficulties for post–Games’
use once the host city returns to its
daily life. Beijing Olympic Park is one
of the most splendid and dramatic
Olympic greens in the history of the
Olympic Games.
The city must begin the
transformation of the Park to its
post–Games mode. A blueprint is
now ready though presumably it will
be adapted in time to accommodate
the operation of many direct and
indirect variables.
Will the transformation process be
carried out in the way as its designers
planned? Only time will tell.
Olympic parks haVe BecOme
an essential cOmpOnent fOr
hOst cities Of Olympic games
What are the aspirations and challenges in planning
the London Olympic park for the 2012 Olympics?
An insight into the preparation for the London
Olympic Games and what the city has
learned from Beijing and Sydney
Hiromasa sHirai
Planning london
olymPic Park
as a global and
local Place:
a comParative analysis
with sydney olymPic Park
The London bid pLaced greaT emphasis
on a sporTing Legacy for fUTUre generaTions
and how The new oLympic park in easT London
woULd be Transformed from The hearT of The
oLympic games To a LocaL sporTs precincT
It has always been a critical
issue for the host city to mediate
the global event place to the local
neighbourhood after an Olympic
Games have concluded. In particular,
for the host city which concentrates
the competition venues and creates
an Olympic precinct, this is not
confined to a matter of management
of individual sport architecture but of
integration of one urban quarter into
a broader urban tissue.
Sydney and London Olympic
Parks have much in common at the
planning stage. The two Olympic
Parks provide a hub for Olympic
venues. Eight competition venues
for fourteen sports were constructed
at Sydney Olympic Park, while there
will be ten competition venues in
the new Olympic precinct in Lower
Lea Valley. Behind employing highly
concentrated venue distribution,
setting and creating the Olympic
Park, both cities have a strong
regenerative objective to remediate
former industrial land and turn
it into a ‘green’ sports precinct.
The London bidding team, like the
Sydney one, placed great emphasis
on the sporting legacy for young
generations to come and expressed
how the newly built Olympic Park in
east London would be transformed
from the heart of the Olympic Games
to a local sports precinct afterwards.
Furthermore, it is envisaged that the
long–term objective for both cities
is not to create a mono–functional
sports precinct but to construct a
mixed–use urban quarter. While
both precincts have similar urban
objectives, there are fundamental
differences between the two parks, as
the geographical and topographical
contexts of the two Olympic
precincts vary, leading to different
spatial strategies. It is also important
to understand that the International
Olympic Committee (
ioc
) took
several actions on the legacy of the
Olympic facilities in 2001 following
Sydney’s Olympic Games and this has
had a great impact on the London’s
Olympic urban policy.
This chapter will examine how
the London Olympic Park aims to
mediate its physical arrangement
for the Olympic Games to its post–
Olympic settlement for local use and
will compare the London and the
Sydney experiences. The following
issues, in particular, will be discussed
in order to highlight different ways
that an Olympic precinct becomes
both global and local.
It should be noted that in 2008,
the planning and construction of the
London Olympic precinct is ongoing
and therefore, a final analysis of the
London Olympic Park and its legacy
is not possible. Yet, the planning
vision behind the creation of the
London precinct is evident. The
comparison with Sydney Olympic
Park provides a useful reference
point for an analysis of the London
Olympic precinct.
Figure 1
London Olympic Park, Panorama North to South Lea
Source: London 2012
geographicaL and sociaL conTexT of The London oLympic park
London Olympic Park is being built in the Lower Lea Valley, in east London, which stretches north to south as this river runs into the River Thames opposite the Greenwich peninsula. The Lower Lea Valley has been characterised by derelict industrial land and poor housing for a long time and the area was fragmented by the various waterways, overhead pylons, roads and railways. Due to the industrial land use and dominance of various civil infrastructures, much of the land in the Lower Lea Valley has been polluted. Yet, it has been historically difficult to develop the site. One of the reasons is that four London boroughs (Tower Hamlets, Newham, Hackney and Waltham Forest) share the Lower Lea Valley area and their political boundaries are crossed at the middle of the Olympic Park site. These boroughs are described as ‘some of the most deprived areas in the uk’ and have suffered from high unemployment, a low proportion of managerial and professional skills among the residents and a high crime rate.
Hence, the Lower Lea Valley (llv) and the Olympic Park site have been designated as a primary regeneration area in various planning
