The Olympics and
sustainable urban regeneration
Bob Digby
University College School
London
Introduction
Several Olympic bids now have been used to regenerate
urban areas. Barcelona began the process in the mid1980s, and now London’s vision for 2012 is the
regeneration of one of the poorest parts of the UK.
Developments like this are –
• Usually large-scale
• Developed centrally by governments with a mix of private
capital and government investment.
• Presented as projects for environmental remediation
(e.g. Sydney 2000) or socio-economic regeneration
(e.g. London 2012).
But are such ‘urban flagship’ developments sustainable?
Properly analysed, they can us to understand how and
why urban developments might be considered
‘sustainable’ or not.
This presentation asks whether these kinds of
regeneration are –
• successful; i.e. do they achieve what they set out to
achieve?
• truly representative of what we mean by
‘sustainability’?
Sydney’s 2000 Olympics gave a
new dimension to urban
regeneration:
• Olympic projects were seen as
a way of regenerating urban
areas
• Environmental transformation
could take place in parts of
Sydney that were polluted with
toxic waste
© Greenpeace
• ‘Sustainable principles’ were
applied to produce Sydney’s
so-called ‘Green Olympics’
This is what the IOC say …..
their criteria for sustainable development
The Olympics should provide …
“sustainable environmental legacies, such as
•
•
•
•
rehabilitated and revitalized sites,
increased environmental awareness,
improved environmental policies and practices,
further encouragement and facilitation of strong
environmental actions, technology and product
development in a city, country and beyond, through the
educational value of good example.”
Source IOC website (2005) Mission Statement
According to the IOC:
To be successful, the Olympics should have
‘environmental protection and, more importantly,
sustainability’ as prime elements of Games planning and
operations.
‘positive legacies’ that last well beyond the Olympics
themselves
Source IOC website (2005) Mission Statement
The Olympics: a major
commitment
• There are 7 years from the time a city is
awarded the Olympics in which to prepare
• Schedules are tight and difficult to meet –
e.g. 2004 Athens Olympics
• The Olympics involve host cities in
massive investment and expense; costs
are substantial, and implications great,
e.g. for mass tourism and accommodation
The Olympics - a major undertaking
E.g. The 16 days of the London 2012 Games will involve • 11 000 athletes in 300 events, with 5000-6000 coaches &
officials, attended by 4000-5000 other members of the
Olympic community.
• Over 7000 sponsors.
• In the Paralympics alone, 4000 athletes and 2500 officials,
equivalent to Manchester’s Commonwealth Games in 2003.
• 20 000 newspaper, radio, TV, & internet journalists.
• Over 9 million tickets in total, and 500,000 spectators a day
at events in and around London
• 63 000 operational personnel, of whom 47 000 will be
volunteers, e.g. as stewards, marshals, and drivers.
So – the economic agenda is strong and powerful
Host cities have to be able to balance budgets; huge costs
versus the revenue benefits.
Costs
e.g. Land purchase, Construction of stadia, and transport
infrastructure, and of hosting the Games themselves (e.g.
security)
Benefits
Direct – Revenue from ticket sales, TV rights, and
company sponsorships e.g. to supply drinks or food.
Indirect – Land values after re-development
However, other indirect benefits may help make a profit:
E.g. tourist spending – in hotels, restaurants, VAT etc
Sydney’s Olympic story
© Bob Digby
Olympic Park 2000
© Google Earth
Facilities were all
together on one
site; learning
from mistakes
made at
Barcelona in
1992 where
traffic congestion
brought gridlock
because facilities
were spread over
the city
But Homebush Bay had
an industrial history that
made regeneration
costly and difficult
Homebush Bay; its industrial history
5 – worst of all,
1 Newington
4 Wilson’s Park –
Union Carbide (Australia)
armaments
a former coal gas
had a chemical plant here
Dump
–
toxins
plant, closed in
– heavily polluted with
and heavy metals
the 1970s, turned
dioxins
into a park, but
closed in the
1990s due to
2 Former brickworks
pollution
- an eyesore
3 Olympic Stadium site was a
former landfill site
contaminated with
household waste
© Google Earth
Homebush Bay; its industrial history
Wilson’s Park – polluted
by a former coal gas plant
Newington – a former
armaments dump
© Bob Digby
Homebush Bay; its industrial history
Newington in 2006 - the site of a former armaments depot and
toxic waste dump, described by a firm of US consultants in the
early 1990s as containing “the worst contamination ever seen”.
Homebush Bay; its industrial history
2005 Newington suburb: the former Olympic Village
In the 1990s, dioxin
pollution here was
6500x the safe limit
for humans
© Bob Digby
Sydney’s bid was all about clean-up – or remediation –
of a previously contaminated industrial site. One firm of
US consultants described Homebush Bay in the early 1990s
as ‘the most contaminated site in the southern hemisphere’
Greenpeace emphasised a number of aspects of ‘Green’
- or sustainable – development when they put together the
winning bid for the 2000 Olympics.
Their criteria that they used are shown in the next slide.
These criteria – they believe – form the basis of any
‘green’ development.
The Greenpeace view of sustainability
for Sydney’s 2000 Olympics
Submitted as part of a competitive design bid by
Greenpeace Australia for the world’s first ‘Green Games’.
So – how well did Sydney match up to its intentions?
The next slides consider some of the environmental,
economic and social issues.
Then you can decide for yourself!
Were Sydney’s ‘Green’ principles kept to?
Before that – you have to do some research into 3 groups!
Environmental group
Type in ‘Homebush Bay clean up’ into Google and follow the links –
especially the Greenpeace link
and
http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/sbeder/Search-Olympics.html
Economic group:
Type in ‘economic impacts Sydney Olympics’ into Google and follow
the links
Social group:
Type in ‘social impacts Sydney Olympics’ into Google and follow
the links
Research these web links and feed back
Environmental
criteria
How well did Sydney match up?
Construction should be on
‘brownfield’, and not
‘greenfield’ sites.
Homebush Bay was an industrial area, and many past industries had closed. Much of
the land was derelict in 1993. But?
Existing facilities should be
used or adapted, rather than
build from scratch
Building foundations were recycled concrete and masonry from the demolition of an
old abattoir on the site. During the construction of Sydney showground, 95% of waste
was recycled. But?
Building and design should
be environmentally friendly
Mostly, non-toxic materials were used, e.g. natural fibre insulation, non-toxic paints,
glues, varnishes, polishes, solvents and cleaning products. CFCs, HFC and HCFC-free
coolants were banned, as well as chlorine-based products such as PVC and bleached
paper. Building materials were selected for their insulation, ventilation, and
recyclability; air-conditioning was avoided. But?
There should be minimal
impacts of sites and events
on nearby residents
All sports and the Village were located on one site. Barcelona’s Olympics brought the
city to a standstill, the result of coaches and athletes travelling to venues. In Sydney,
most amenities and accommodation were on site. But?
Waste should be minimised,
and recycling should occur
wherever possible
Renewable sources of energy were used, with high-efficiency lighting systems, and
control systems to minimise energy usage. Pool water was ozone-filtered to reduce
chlorine. Half the water on parts of the site were storm- or recycled water, and used for
flushing toilets or irrigating landscaped areas. But?
Native ecosystems, fauna or
flora should be protected or
re-habilitated
The edge of Homebush Bay is mangrove and salt-marsh. Mangrove and salt-marsh
environments near Olympic Park were protected. Mangroves were re-planted in some of
the contaminated land – and helped to filter pollutants naturally. But?
Olympics should be reached
by public transport; car
usage should be minimised
A new rail link was built to Olympic Park, and a new ferry terminal at Homebush Bay.
Admission tickets included the price of public transport. Cars were banned except for
Olympics officials and some workers. But?
How well did Sydney match up?
There were real environmental success stories …..
Extract from Greenpeace
‘Olympic Report 17’ (1999)
Previously, only incineration processes could break
down dioxins, often creating as much contamination
as they broke down
© Greenpeace
How well did Sydney match up?
It had important economic impacts - 1
Source: PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2001 Evaluation)
How well did Sydney match up?
It had important economic impacts - 2
Source: PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2001 Evaluation)
Sydney’s Olympics therefore did three things for ‘sustainable
development’
a) The Olympics showed that it was possible to remediate polluted
brownfield sites as part of the regeneration process
b) They showed that it was possible to stick to sustainable principles
and to make money at the same time; Sydney’s were among the
very few Olympics to make a profit
c) Urban Development could stick to – and develop further –
sustainable principles such as the use of recyclable water,
use of non-toxic building materials etc. without compromising
anyone’s standard of living
But it wasn’t
problem-free!
The high costs of
producing the
Games in Sydney
meant that certain
‘green’ principles
might not be
applied
© Greenpeace
They meant that
costs would have
to be met by
sponsorship from
large companies
who might not
agree with ‘green’
principles
But it wasn’t
problem-free!
Coca Cola and McDonald’s were two of Sydney’s biggest sponsors
And what about ‘social’ benefits? 1
•
Throughout recent Olympics, social issues have tended
to be ignored
•
There is clear evidence that socially vulnerable and lower
income groups tend to suffer in the run-up to the
Olympics.
•
The cost of the Homebush Bay clean up forced the sale
of the Olympic Village housing at market rates, rather
than creating a pool of affordable housing, as initially
planned.
•
Rent increases in the suburbs closest to the Olympic
Park in Sydney were higher than elsewhere, and
boarding house accommodation (used in Australia for those
who need secure accommodation) was re-vamped to
accommodate paying backpackers instead of people who are
normally housed there.
And what about ‘social’ benefits? 2
So in judging socially sustainable principles, decide whether the
following principles are applied:
1
Do the lowest paid have the same rights of access and
opportunities as the rest of the population?
2 Have local communities been involved in deciding what happens
in major ‘flagship’ schemes?
3 Will the least well off be able to benefit from, and not
be sidelined by, benefits of flagship schemes?
4 Have budgets for health and education been spent as they
should have been and not been diverted into the Olympics?
To conclude!
In 2000, Greenpeace gave Sydney just 5 out of 10
for the way that it adhered its sustainable principles
What do you think?
What would you give?
Try the exercises and see how well Sydney scores