Another
Olympics is underway. For the next two
weeks, we’ll be reintroduced to sports that will seem compelling while the competition
is underway, only to then be forgotten for another four years.
But there is
one sport that has held my interest for a long time and will continue to do
so. That is the challenge of reconciling
Olympic facilities with the communities in which they’re located.
Finding a nexus
between urbanism and the Olympics may seem a stretch, but over the past few decades
city building has become a key selling point for many Olympic bids. From Barcelona in 1992 to Sydney in 2000 to
London in 2012, the prospect of leaving the host city a stronger and more
functional place has been a factor in securing the Olympic bid and in
convincing the citizens to accept the financial costs.
But blending
urbanism and the Olympics is neither an easy nor a quick task. Although it required two decades for the rips in the civic fabric to heal, Barcelona
is now considered perhaps the most successful Olympics at advancing the host
city. The Sydney Games provided some
civic benefits, but the location of the venues at the urban fringe limited the
value of those benefits. And it is far
too early to judge how the aggressive city building aspects of the London Games
will succeed.
Meanwhile,
the Beijing Games of 2008, with their focus on dramatic architecture with little
thought to the long-time use of the buildings, may be the greatest failure yet of
Olympic city building.
Looking back
at my archives, I find to my surprise that I wrote five posts around the time
of the London games about the Olympics and urbanism. In reviewing them, I find that they stand up
well, mostly because I found great articles to link. I wrote about the Olympics and the city, Olympic bidding, and three posts (1, 2, and 3) looking back at the London experience
and the Olympics in general.
But all the
Olympics noted above were Summer Games. And
there is a fundamental difference between Summer Games and Winter Games. The Summer Games are the far bigger endeavor,
but the sports don’t have geographic limitations and can usually be located in the
larger cities that typically locate at lower elevations. In larger metropolitan areas, Beijing’s
failure notwithstanding, there are more opportunities to retask Olympic buildings
to community uses.
The Winter
Games, which require convenient access to an alpine area, offer a more
restricted pool of civic candidates. And
the smaller size of many cities in the pool makes the assimilation of the
Olympic structures more problematic.
Nowhere is
this challenge more clearly delineated than between Vancouver 2010 and Sochi
2014. Vancouver, favorably located close
to world-class Whistler ski area and with a metropolitan population of 2.3
million was able to mount the Olympics for a cost of $7 billion and was able to
absorb the Olympic facilities with only a few hiccups.
In
comparison, Sochi also had good alpine proximity but had a population of only
350,000, barely larger than Santa Rosa here in the North Bay. Over $51 billion was required to ready Sochi
for the Olympics.
Nor are cost
and population are the only differences.
Vancouver committed to doing the Olympics on a financially frugal
basis. Existing settings were touched up
where possible. And every newly
constructed structure had a post-Olympic use determined before the first shovel
of dirt was turned. Brent Toderian, who
was the Vancouver Planning Director during the Olympic planning and who has
often been cited in this blog, is perhaps the best spokesman for the Vancouver
approach.
In an
article published in the days after the London Olympics, Toderian lays out much
of what made the Vancouver
effort successful. He
provides a roadmap to civic involvement, creative re-use, and planning
processes that should have informed all future Olympic efforts.
But the roadmap
described by Toderian seems to have been misplaced by Vladimir Putin, who
instead decided to use the Sochi Olympics to showplace the return of a post-Soviet Russia to the world stage. If his goal was to show grandiose but
unevenly executed visions, cronyism, and missed deadlines, he succeeded
brilliantly. And at only seven times the
cost of the Vancouver Games.
This photo survey of seven years of site
development illustrates the mixture of success and misdirection. Overall, the sense is that the Sochi
facilities are more likely to go the way of the Beijing Bird’s Nest than of the Vancouver Convention
Center, pictured above, which was a key Olympic venue and remains in daily use.
And early
stories coming out of Sochi about the incompleteness of many new facilities
further illustrates the Sochi missteps.
As Katie Baker of Grantland writes, many of
the early arrivals in Sochi are reporters who are accustomed to the occasional
rough edge. But as spectators begin
arriving, expecting a first-class Olympic experience and finding some of the
Sochi shortfalls, the spotlight may be further shifted away from the athletes.
Overall, the
conclusion is unavoidable that Vancouver played the game well, further cementing
the city in the firmament of urbanism.
Sochi is nowhere close.
I don’t
expect to approach the five posts that I wrote about the London Games, but I
will return to the Sochi Games at least one more time. And, my concerns about the city planning aspects
notwithstanding, I also expect to enjoy much of the competition. Who’s willing to provide my quadrennial reintroduction
to curling?
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