The Olympics and sustainable urban regeneration

Bob Digby

University College School

London

IntroductionIntroduction

Several Olympic bids now have been used to regenerate urban areas. Barcelona began the process in the mid-1980s, 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

• ‘Sustainable principles’ were applied to produce Sydney’s so-called ‘Green Olympics’

© Greenpeace

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.”

This is what the IOC say ….. This is what the IOC say ….. their criteria for sustainable development their criteria for sustainable development

Source IOC website (2005) Mission Statement

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

According to the IOC:

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)

BenefitsDirect – 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 storySydney’s Olympic story

© Bob Digby

Olympic Park 2000Olympic Park 2000Facilities were all Facilities were all together on one together on one

site; learning site; learning from mistakes from mistakes

made at made at Barcelona in Barcelona in 1992 where 1992 where

traffic congestion traffic congestion brought gridlock brought gridlock

because facilities because facilities were spread over were spread over

the citythe city

© Google Earth

But Homebush Bay had an industrial history that

made regeneration costly and difficult

2 Former brickworks- an eyesore

1 Newington armaments

Dump – toxins and heavy metals

5 – worst of all,Union Carbide (Australia) had a chemical plant here

– heavily polluted with dioxins

4 Wilson’s Park – 4 Wilson’s Park – a former coal gas a former coal gas plant, closed in plant, closed in

the 1970s, turned the 1970s, turned into a park, but into a park, but closed in the closed in the 1990s due to 1990s due to

pollutionpollution

3 Olympic Stadium site was a 3 Olympic Stadium site was a former landfill site former landfill site contaminated with contaminated with household wastehousehold waste

Homebush Bay; its industrial historyHomebush Bay; its industrial history

© Google Earth

Wilson’s Park – polluted by a former coal gas plant

Newington – a former armaments dump

Homebush Bay; its industrial historyHomebush Bay; its industrial history

© Bob Digby

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 historyHomebush Bay; its industrial history

2005 Newington suburb: the former Olympic Village2005 Newington suburb: the former Olympic Village

In the 1990s, dioxin In the 1990s, dioxin pollution here was pollution here was 6500x the safe limit 6500x the safe limit for humansfor humans

Homebush Bay; its industrial historyHomebush Bay; its industrial history

© 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 1990sas ‘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?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!Before that – you have to do some research into 3 groups!

Environmental groupEnvironmental groupType in ‘Homebush Bay clean up’ into Google and follow the links – especially the Greenpeace linkandhttp://homepage.mac.com/herinst/sbeder/Search-Olympics.html

Economic group:Economic group:Type in ‘economic impacts Sydney Olympics’ into Google and followthe links

Social group:Social group:Type in ‘social impacts Sydney Olympics’ into Google and followthe links

Research these web links and feed backResearch 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?

Extract from Greenpeace ‘Olympic Report 17’ (1999)

There were real environmental success stories …..

Previously, only incineration processes could break down dioxins, often creating as much contamination as they broke down

How well did Sydney match up?

© Greenpeace

It had important economic impacts - 1It had important economic impacts - 1

Source: PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2001 Evaluation)

How well did Sydney match up?

Source: PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2001 Evaluation)

It had important economic impacts - 2It had important economic impacts - 2

How well did Sydney match up?

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

They meant that costs would have to be met by sponsorship from large companies who might not agree with ‘green’ principles

© Greenpeace

Coca Cola and McDonald’s were two of Sydney’s biggest sponsors

But it wasn’t problem-free!

• 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? 1

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