A Bloomberg article highlights the housing issues
around the London Olympics site. The chance
to address housing deficiencies was a key element of the London Olympic bid. To show their sincerity, the London Olympic
Committee took local residents to a meeting of the International Olympic
Committee. But through the opening of
the Games, few improvements have been accomplished.
Instead, the
international economic problems and the loss of existing housing to redevelopment
have resulted in illegal “sheds with beds”, many of which have plumbing so
deficient that the 19th century blight of raw sewage running in the street has
returned.
New housing
is being built, but much of it is beyond the financial capability of the
current residents, raising the specter that “gentrification is likely to be
part of the [Olympic] legacy.”
As the
director of a London non-profit notes, “London councils are reluctant to set
aside land for cheap housing because they earn so much money by selling to
developers. Without cheap housing,
people have to move away from their families.”
Ricky
Burdett, writing for British Politics and Policy at the London School of Economics,
takes the long view of the London Olympic land-use issues. He notes the depth of the problems to be
solved in East London. The points of
concern have long included employment, housing, infrastructure, and public
health. “[The] life expectancy of a man,
for example, is five years lower in east London compared to parts of west
London.”
Burdett goes
on to argue that the land-use process around the London Olympics is generally
similar to how London land-use issues are usually addressed, only on a far
quicker schedule. “The project has
become an elaborate chess game in time and space that mirrors, in an
accelerated fashion, the normal, organic planning process that determines
London’s DNA.”
He also
noted the higher level of sustainability which London targeted, including the
possibility that the velodrome, basketball arena, and other stadiums will be
dismantled and shipped to Glasgow for the 2014 Commonwealth Games or to Rio de
Janeiro for the 2016 Olympics. “London
has invented a new planning methodology for the construction of the games and
what it leaves behind for its so-called “Olympic Legacy.”
Burdett
closes with the same warning as many others.
“But all this will only be possible if city government retains control
and ownership of the land, and puts in place checks and balances to ensure that
land values and gentrification do not push existing communities in the vicinity
out.”
North Bay
Lesson: Once again, the Olympics are orders of magnitude above any likely North
Bay land-use issues, but lessons about creating housing options for all
demographic are applicable. As someone
noted at a recent OneBayArea public meeting, those with resources can always
find places to live. But we must remain
attentive to the lower-income housing options.
Lauren Parr
of the Urban Land Institute describes the London Olympics
land-use process as working in reverse, as having a vision of where the future
of East London lay and then working an Olympics into the shorter-term
picture. From Bill Hanway of AECOM, “We
always knew what we wanted to end up with; we worked backwards.”
Parr notes
that making places for education was also important, “Historically, many of the
major regeneration projects in London have begun with educational facilities,
which are valuable in their contribution to place creation.”
North Bay
Lessons: Regardless of the size of the community, visualizing where the
community wants to be in twenty years should be a key step. In California, General Plans fill some of that
role, but the question is whether the community as a whole, and not just the
200 citizens who participate in the process, buy into the vision.
After an
extended word tour of the Olympic park, the writer notes the key design
challenge is to avoid making the park look like it was constructed solely for
the Olympics. The goal was to create
“the impression of a park in which the Olympics happens to be taking place,
rather than a relentless campus tailored to this one-off event. “
The writer
then concludes with a worry about the future of the park site and whether it
can be made to integrate with its surroundings.
“It relies on the London Legacy Development Corporation – which will
manage the park for at least the next ten years – and the nature of the
forthcoming neighborhoods to ensure that the place does not become a privatized
enclave of gated communities and sponsored mega-events, forever sold off to the
highest bidder. Any sense of the old Lea
might have been smothered for now, but it must be allowed to return to give
this place the character it needs.”
To close, the
Sustainable Cities Collective provides a summary
of the sustainability measures met by the London Games. And the San Francisco Chronicle adds thoughts on the design
of the event venues, noting that the 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium will be
reduced for 25,000 seats for future uses and that most venues will be
dismantled and taken away, so that “a ghost town of sports venues isn’t left
behind.”
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