I don’t
expect the North Bay to host even a part of an Olympics in my lifetime. Nor would I wish for it. But once we adjust our sense of scale, the
Olympics issues have their lesser-scale counterparts in local life. I try to connect the dots, at least from my
perspective, in the interleaved “North Bay Lesson” paragraphs.
Dezeen Magazine reports on a study by Dutch
architectural firm XML which argues that it will be increasingly difficult for
liberal democracies to host an Olympics.
The argument is that the conflict between the spending of public dollars
and benefits that accrue to private businesses is becoming too great to pass
muster in a democracy.
Dezeen also
notes that much of the Olympic finances are based on television revenues. With technology changing the way television
is viewed, it’s unclear if the television can continue to be a cash cow for the
Games.
I found the
Dezeen conclusion about the hosting of Olympic by liberal democracies to be
both credible and deeply disturbing. It
should be cause for reflection by the International Olympic Committee on what
it seeks in the awarding of bids. And land
use professionals everywhere should reflect on what it implies about the
ability to implement major projects in a democracy. Hosting the Games only in dictatorships would
be a repudiation of everything the original Greeks intended for the Olympics.
North Bay
Lesson: The Dezeen concern about public expenses versus private profits is
pertinent to urban development. In good
urban development, rehabilitation of aging public infrastructure is often inextricably
bound up with new private development.
This should be a good and worthwhile partnership. Bbut is often a point on which opponents can
focus, claiming unfair benefits to the private sector and sidetracking projects
that could benefit the community.
Simon
Jenkins of the Guardian takes a pessimistic view on the near-term
financial impacts from the London Olympics.
He argues that the recent history of mega-sporting events tells a
consistent story. “Postmortems on
Atlanta, Barcelona, Sydney, Athens and Beijing all tell of hotel slumps, unpaid
debts, empty parks and subsequent disillusion.”
He contended
that politicians, who should understand the tourism reality, have refused to
play fair with the facts. “Had the
government said from the start that London was a rich city staging the Olympics
as a costly but generous gesture to the world, there could be no further
argument.”
Jenkins
concludes that the biggest problem is London’s continuing the trend of
overly-elaborate Olympic spectacles.
“The real victims of London's mind-numbing mendacity will be the poor
and hapless citizens of Rio in 2016. They really cannot afford it.”
I think
Jenkins is generally correct in his criticisms, but overly severe. With the possible exception of Beijing, it
seems likely that most Olympics will leave behind some benefits, although it
may take twenty years for those benefits to become evident. And good planning also has a role.
North Bay
Lessons: Urbanism is best served by a slow but steady, incremental
process. Making a big splash with an
out-sized project is almost guaranteed to include missteps. Unfortunately, the land-use process offers
economies of scale to larger projects.
Communities should look for ways to provide additional encouragement to
smaller projects.
DW
reports that the post-Olympics
experience for Barcelona was positive and that good urban changes were set in
motion by the 1992 Games.
With this
argument, and the concrete examples of improvements in Barcelona life offered
by the writer, DW buttresses my suggestion above that most Games eventually
result in at least some positive municipal improvements, even if twenty years
are required.
The London Telegraph reports that the planning team
for the 2000 Sydney Games is impressed by how the London planning team didn’t
repeat a major Sydney mistake. Rather
than putting the Games at the far extent of the metropolitan area, forcing a
transit expansion, London placed the Games where a functioning transit system
was already in place. “It should be
obvious that any Olympic legacy is only as good as its connectivity.”
Transit is
essential for everyday life and especially for mega-events. It’s hard to imagine how the London Olympics
could have worked if more spectators had arrived by private car. If anything, many of the reports from London
have been about how quiet the streets have been with the spectators packing the
Tube and the locals staying home.
North Bay
Lesson: The SMART train is a good start, but transit is likely to assume an
ever increasing role in North Bay life.
On a lighter
note, after recently writing about the new font that was designed to promote Chattanooga,
I was intrigued to note that the London Olympics had their own font. And
that Rio has already created a font for 2016.
It seems to be a trend.
I want to
like the London font. It has a style
that I enjoy. And I find that many
words, such as “London”, “inspire”, and “excite”, look great in the font. But I don’t like the way “Olympics” looks. And any font in which the aesthetics varies
between words can’t be a good font. Co.design agrees,
ranking it the worst font in the world.
Probably an overstatement with Olympics underway, but still not an
endorsement.
The Rio font
seems a little more balanced, but I don’t find it exuberant enough. It seems comfortable and laid-back, which is
a good Brazilian trait. But it seems to
lack Carnival. And the Olympics would
seem require a touch of Carnival.
North Bay
Lesson: In terms of fonts, probably none.
Unless there is an unknown North Bay community of font designers, it
seems unlikely that any local community will emulate Chattanooga. But there is a lesson about how design makes
a difference, how having a coherent design is key to presenting a consistent
community image.
I don’t see
much recognition of that point in the North Bay. As an acquaintance recently pointed out,
Petaluma has a half-dozen different wayfinding systems, each with its own
aesthetic style. We can do better.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment