Transportation Investments in Olympic Host Cities
The Olympic Games and Urban Development
Download 103.9 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The Olympic Games as a Catalyst for Urban Development
- Host Cities and Urban Development through History
- Transportation Infrastructure Investment
The Olympic Games and Urban DevelopmentEvolution of the Modern Olympic GamesThe evolution of the Modern Olympic Games can be related in terms of size and cost. As each Olympiad passes, the cost born by the host city and country is immense. In Athens, 1896, there were 245 athletes from 14 countries that participated (Olympic Museum and Studies Center, 3). The next time Athens hosted an Olympic Games, in 2004, there were 10,625 athletes from 201 countries (IOC, 2008). The cost of the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens was approximately €9 billion euro (Embassy of Greece, 2008). The growth of the Olympics has had a profound effect on the Olympic Host City. Due to the escalating costs of hosting an Olympic Games, the IOC established a Olympic Games Study Commission to “analyze the current scale and scope of the Olympic Games…to propose solutions to help manage the inherent size, complexity, and cost of staging the Olympic Games in the future” (Pound, 2003). In the last few decades, however, this complexity has grown beyond the organization and implementation of the Olympic Games. Rather, organizing an Olympic Games has increasingly been used as an opportunity for urban renewal and economic development. This includes the increased economic activity as a result of tourism, the construction of sport facilities in previously under-provided areas, and the justification for new investment in transportation infrastructure and urban design (Essex and Chalkley, 2002). The popularity of the Olympic Games among the countries of the world has much to due with the television broadcast of the Games. Since the 1960 Olympics in Rome, television has had an increasingly important role in displaying the Olympics and its ideals to the world. The 2000 Sydney Games attracted over 20,000 journalists and was watched by over 3.7 billion television viewers. This coverage has led to increasing popularity and participation among the countries of the world. In 1988, 159 NOCs participated in Seoul’s Summer Olympics. By the time of Sydney’s Olympics in 2000, there was 200 NOCs participating (Pound, 2003). As the popularity of the Olympics has grown in terms of participation and spectators, a place to house Olympic athletes and officials was needed close to the Olympic venues. This need was recognized long ago, back in 1932. The first Olympic Village was constructed for the 1932 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The Village was built on 250 acres and contained several hundred dwellings, a post office, amphitheater, hospital, fire station, and bank (Abrahams et al, 2008). In contrast, the Olympic Village planned for London’s 2012 Olympic Games will provide lodging for 17,000 people with shops, restaurants, a hospital, media facilities, and direct transportation to central London via train (London 2012). In both cases, the Olympic Villages were constructed adjacent to much of the sporting venues, thus creating the term “Olympic City.” As the size and scale of the Olympic Games has increased, the need to house and transport the athletes and officials, media and visitors has increased. And with the world watching the Olympic Games in ever increasing numbers, the host city has increasingly used the Olympic Games as a catalyst for urban development, to put its best face forward.
These urban development structures may or may not conflict with the host city’s own plans for urban development, but the Olympic Games provides the vehicle for expedient development. Since the 1960’s, many of the Olympic host cities have followed this structure that guides urban development. The primary structure involves the physical development of sport and leisure facilities that are needed to successfully host the Olympic Games. These structures can already exist in a city or be newly constructed. Venues of this type can be subdivided into stadiums, halls, multi-purpose and training facilities. The construction (or reconstruction) of stadiums has been a feature of urban development since the first Olympics in 1896. Many large cities usually have a large stadium which is normally used for the opening and closing ceremonies, track and field, and soccer. These facilities should have a capacity of at least 80,000. The Olympic hall would is a smaller venue that hosts volleyball, basketball and gymnastics. These facilities can have a capacity of up to 25,000. Multi-purpose facilities are even smaller and are often found in convention centers. Similarly, training centers can often use multi-purpose and smaller halls for their needs (Preuss, 2004). The secondary structure of housing and recreation are necessary in the hosting of the Olympic Games. The Sydney Olympics in 2000 had 15,000 athletes and 6,000 media and press. Requirements for housing have been provided by “Olympic Villages,” with post-Olympic use generally turned over to the private sector for affordable housing (Preuss, 2004, Chalkley and Essex, 1999). Olympic host cities generally try to use Olympic Villages as a way to regenerate an area of the city. Due to the large spaces required for Olympic venues and housing of athletes, many host cities have usually chosen sites that are underutilized and near the center of the city. Cities such as Munich, Seoul, Barcelona, Sydney, and Athens have all chosen underutilized sites near the center of the city for Olympic facilities (Preuss, 2004). The tertiary structure, however, is probably the most important as a requirement for hosting the Olympic Games. Airports and rail stations are necessary as gateways to the outside world. Roads and public transport are necessary for movement and mobility around the city. Infrastructure investment is probably the single most important cost of the Olympic Games and is vital. It is correct in stating that without a strong tertiary structure, any city bidding for the Olympic Games will fail in its bid. Host Cities and Urban Development through HistoryIt is argued that there are four phases in the history of the Modern Olympic Movement regarding urban development (Chalkley and Essex, 1999). During the first phase from 1896-1904, the Olympic Games were small in scale and poorly organized, with no investment in new venues. The second phase, from 1908-1932, saw the investment of new venues and facilities specifically for the Olympic Games and the development of the first Olympic Village in Los Angeles for the 1932 Olympic Games. The third phase, from 1936-1965, saw an expansion of the Olympic Village concept, using its post Games legacy to alleviate affordable housing problems. Infrastructure development began during this phase. The fourth phase, from 1960-present, saw an expansion in the popularity and athletic competition of the Games. New sport facilities were constructed and substantial urban infrastructure works were built. The Games were recognized as a potential catalyst for urban development schemes. The Games were also recognized that they may have become too large to afford. It is this last phase of the Games that this report is interested in. The first host city to truly use the Olympic Games as a catalyst for urban development was Rome. The Rome Olympics of 1960 was the first city to regenerate an existing area of the city for an Olympic Village and Park. In the course of redevelopment, Rome built new highways and tunnels, a new water supply system, airport facilities, and a new road. The Olympic Village had all of the amenities of a real village, including a bank, post office, shopping center, and hospital. After the Olympic Games, the Olympic Village was used for low income housing (Findling, 2004). Following the example of Rome, the Olympic Games in Tokyo in 1964 expanded on the urban development theme. The main Olympic Village, Yoyogi, situated on an old Japanese Imperial Army drilling ground was turned into a village for the athletes. In addition to the municipal-like services provided in Rome, Tokyo also provided a unique transportation center, which operated as a sophisticated bus station. This center provided bus service to 73 different destinations, along with supplementary shuttle buses to some of the main venues. Additionally, more than 700 bicycles were provided to the athletes, thus making Tokyo one of the forerunners to the IOC’s new policy of sustainability (Organizing Committee, 1964). Additional investments were made in harbor revitalization and tourism infrastructure, including the development of new hotels (Chalkley and Essex, 1999). The 1972 Olympic Games in Munich also used the Games as a catalyst for urban development. The site of the Games, a 700 acre abandoned airstrip, was planned for redevelopment over a period of 20 years. However, with the Olympic Games, the development was completed in five years. The Olympic Village was converted after the Olympic Games into a low and middle income community (Chalkley and Essex, 1999). The 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul applied urban development in a slightly different context from previous Olympic Games. In addition to the standard Olympic Village, Seoul set out to showcase its environmental and cultural strengths to the world. Its environmental program had four objectives for the Olympic Games: “clean and orderly streets, bright and clear city, beautification with flowers, and creating a cultural environment” (SOOG, 1989). Street lights were installed or replaced, roads were fixed, trees planted (117,000!), 389 new parks opened and 152 refurbished. The cultural program included over 21 festivals and 439 organizations solicited to introduce traditional and contemporary Korean culture during the Olympic Games period (SOOG, 1989). Barcelona would take Seoul’s claim as the best Games ever and make it her own. The Summer Olympics of 1992 was a catalyst for urban development that has virtually reshaped the city. Much of the older declining industrial areas near the waterfront became acquired by the government for urban regeneration. In 1987, the redevelopment of the Moll de la Fusta wharf was the first step in the renovation of Barcelona's seafront. It was the beginning of the redevelopment of the old Port of Barcelona into a recreation area. Adjacent to the wharf were improvements made to the conversion of the old industrial and warehousing zone into a residential area. The Olympic Village was constructed on land that had undergone a similar transformation, thus opening up large parts of Barcelona’s waterfront to the city. In fact, over 3 miles of coastline was opened for public access (COOB, 1992). Carrying on the new tradition set by Seoul four years earlier, the Barcelona Games had a large cultural component as well. As a result of the Olympic Games, a number of cultural projects were launched including, renovation of the National Museum of Art of Catalonia, the Municipal Auditorium, the National Theatre of Catalonia, the Centre of Contemporary Culture, the Museum of Contemporary Art and construction of a new botanical garden (COOB, 1992). Large scale redevelopment associated with the Olympic Games has continued into the next millennium. For the 2000 Summer Olympics, Sydney took a 760 hectare (1900 acres) brownfield area in central Sydney to build the Olympic Park and Olympic Village. It addressed traffic congestion infrastructure by building a rail spur and wharf on-site to promote public transport use (SOCOG, 2001). The most recent Olympiad, held in Athens in 2004 was no exception to the idea of Olympic Games as catalyst for redevelopment. Athens spent €9 billion euro to host the Games. The host city spent much of that on transport and venue infrastructure. Athens redeveloped a parcel near its coastal area for the Olympic Village. The city also focused greatly on its transportation network. Improvements included a new international airport, a ring road, and extension of three metro lines (Athens Organizing Committee, 2005).
Many host cities see large investments in transportation. Tokyo, while not the first city to invest in its transportation infrastructure for an Olympic Games, was nonetheless known as the first city to significantly reorganize its transportation infrastructure prior to the Olympic Games for the long term benefit of its metropolitan area (Findling, 2004). Due to its dense urban form, Tokyo had to build Olympic facilities across its metropolitan region, including the Olympic Village, which had smaller satellite villages. In order to connect the Olympic Villages with the Olympic venues, spread far and wide, Tokyo realized it had to focus on transportation investments. Subsequently, $2.7 billion was spent on 22 expressway projects and 5 subway extensions for the Games (Organizing Committee, 1964). Transport during the Olympic Games needs to link the sport venues, the Olympic Village, and hotels and accommodations in an efficient manner, while also considering the daily transport needs of local residents and businesses. For a candidate city to win a bid to host the Olympic Games, the candidate city must have a strategic transport plan that accommodates these concerns. In order to facilitate the process of developing a transport plan that can spur infrastructure investment, the IOC wants to know what transport infrastructure the candidate city has in place when applying to host the Olympic Games (IOC 2012 Candidate Procedure, 2004). This includes:
By strategically thinking about how the above concerns are addressed, the host city has the opportunity to create or expedite its transport plans. And, as previous host cities have shown, the exposure to the massive numbers of visitors, as well as the logistics of the Games can justify the investment needed to improve and extend transport systems. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2012 2012 -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? 2012 -> Aa and na members Dying from Tobacco 2012 -> [Baby Crying] 01: 04 [Ching 2012 -> Unit Name / Nom de l’unité uic / ciu dates 2012 -> What We Owe Jehovah’s Witnesses 2012 -> Oceans Challenge Badge 2012 -> Canadian cycling olympians 2012 -> Greg landry, june olkowski and tom lysiak 2012 -> William goldman 2012 -> Does translocation and restocking confer any benefit to the European eel population? A review Download 103.9 Kb. Share with your friends:
|