For a final
look at the 2012 London Summer Olympics, I have a couple of stories with surprise
twists. Urban successes that resulted
from unsuccessful Olympic bids. I’ll
conclude with a story again illustrating the difficulty of mounting an Olympic
Games in a democracy. And I’ll add a
final “North Bay Lesson”.
In
Stockholm, a bid for the 2004 Summer Olympics was unsuccessful, but the momentum
begun with the bid resulted in the redevelopment of Hammarby Sjostad, sited at a
derelict industrial site in desperate need of reuse. The Stockholm
government set high sustainability standards for the development and generally
met the standards, working in partnership with numerous private developers.
As reported
in Future Communities, when the city began to
develop a plan in the aftermath of the failed Olympic bid, they expected that
the primary market to be seniors who had moved to the suburbs in the 1970s and
were now eager to return to the city.
Instead, young families made up most of the new residents, requiring
more schools to be added to the plan.
Another late
adjustment was vertical mixed use, with shops added to many of the residential
buildings. The retail spaces were easily
rented. It should be surprising to many
American urbanists that the mixed-use was a late addition. In much of the U.S., mixed use is usually a
primary requirement for an urban project.
The
Stockholm government established a goal of 0.5 cars per home for Hammarby
Sjostad. The goal wasn’t met, but 80
percent of all trips are nonetheless being made by foot, bicycle, or
transit. It is a remarkably sustainable
development, perhaps more so than might have resulted if the Olympics bid had
been successful.
In New York
City, the American Planning Association reports on
the Hudson Yards project that was energized by a bid for the 2012 Olympics and
then moved ahead when the bid was unsuccessful.
Although
Hudson Yards has made good progress, hurdles remain. Opponents claim that it will result in a Hong
Kong-like density and are looking for reduced density.
Mayor
Bloomberg likens the project to Canary Wharf which, considering the concern of
many East Londoners that Canary Wharf is a pocket of gentrification surrounded
by continuing blight, was perhaps not the best way to advocate for the project.
I don’t know
enough to judge whether Hudson Yards is truly a good urban fit for New York
City. I suspect that it’s sized more to
the need for office space than to the support of urban life. But I also suspect that it’s a better project
than would have resulted if the Olympic bid had been successful.
North Bay
Lesson: Even when an initial urban scheme fails to come to fruition, look to
harness any enthusiasm and momentum in support of another vision. The region might be better off with the fallback
solution.
And finally,
to underscore the difficulties into which a New York City Olympics would have run,
the New York Times reports on the donation of a
proposed velodrome for Brooklyn Bridge Park, an acclaimed public place that is
still under development. Neighbors are
questioning the traffic impacts, the size of the structure, and the
accommodation for what they consider an elitist sport. They may be right, but what does their
opposition tell us about what would have happened had there been a need to
build a velodrome for the Olympics?
Next time, I
promise to leave the Olympics behind, at least until the 2014 Sochi Winter
Games.
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