Olympic Parks - Feasible Solutions for Legacy?

2008

PERSONAL PROJECT
Olympic Parks – Feasible Solutions for Legacy?

Sandra Kühni Lausanne 07.12.2008

I

ABSTRACT
Large-scale Olympic Parks encompassing several Olympic competition venues, large spectator concourse areas and a multitude of amenities are a relatively recent phenomenon. An Olympic Park area is a cluster, generally the biggest of the Summer Olympic Games, which only spectators with tickets and duly accredited staff, visitors and guests can access. It is a grouping of Olympic venues in the same security perimeter or in legal terms in the same Olympic domain. This definition of Olympic Park is based on very strict Olympic venue security and transport operational requirements. If Olympic Parks, which are highly beneficial during Games operations, are conceived as a totality, interact with the pre-existing urban network and are embedded into a wider, long-term, urban development strategy, they have the potential to trigger sustainable, vibrant and livable post-Games urban landscapes. This study aims to investigate if Olympic Parks are viable solutions for post-Games in that they can be transformed with relative ease to create high post-Olympic demand and a quality environment for people to visit instead of half-empty and costly ‘white elephants’. By comparing the four Olympic Parks of the four most recent Games in terms of location relative to city centres, spatial distribution, sport venues and transportation infrastructure, differences and commonalities among them are explored as an attempt to gain insights for future bids. Particular focus will be placed on both Olympic Parks of the 2000 Sydney Games and the 2012 London Games. Past experience shows that adequate assessments of the city’s built environment and the possibility for local inhabitants to shape the future of the Olympic Park increase the chances of its successful transition to post-Olympic uses meeting both global and local needs.

SUPERVISOR:
Philippe Bovy Honorary Professor of Transport and Mobility Swiss Federal Institute of Technology at Lausanne, Switzerland IOC – Olympic Transport Advisor
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 1/89

II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper would not have been possible without the advice and support of many people. Special thanks to Richard Cashman, Niall McNevin, John Booker and Jerome Frost for their time and expertise. Professor Bovy’s advice and insight was crucial to the final formulation of this study. Thanks also to Michelle Lemaitre for much appreciated guidance and support. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family for their patience.

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 10 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 Justification for the Research ..................................................................................................... 13 Objectives and Outline ............................................................................................................... 14 Scope and Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................ 15

Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 16 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4 Research Method ....................................................................................................................... 16 Qualitative and quantitative Research ....................................................................................... 16 Qualitative Approach.................................................................................................................. 16 Data Collection Procedure.......................................................................................................... 17 Primary and Secondary Data ...................................................................................................... 17 Collection of Primary Data.......................................................................................................... 17 Collection of Secondary Data ..................................................................................................... 18 Limitations to the Research Method .......................................................................................... 19 Interviews ................................................................................................................................... 19 Olympic Research ....................................................................................................................... 20 Summary..................................................................................................................................... 20

3

Background Information ..................................................................................................................... 21 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 Policy Developments .................................................................................................................. 21 Olympic Urbanism prior to the Sydney Games (2000) ............................................................... 22 Munich (1972) ............................................................................................................................ 22 Barcelona (1992) ........................................................................................................................ 24

4

Findings and Lessons ........................................................................................................................... 27 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 The Olympic Parks of Sydney, Athens, Beijing and London ....................................................... 27 Concentration of Olympic Activities and Transport at the Olympic Parks ................................. 29 Sydney 2000 OP .......................................................................................................................... 34

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 3/89

Table of Contents

IV

4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.1.1 4.2.1.2 4.2.1.3 4.2.1.4 4.2.1.5 4.2.2 4.2.2.1 4.2.2.2 4.2.2.3 4.2.2.4 5

Athens 2004 OP........................................................................................................................... 37 Beijing 2008 OP ........................................................................................................................... 40 London 2012 OP .......................................................................................................................... 44 Similarities and Differences between the Sydney and London Olympic Parks .......................... 47 Sydney Olympic Park (SOP) ......................................................................................................... 47 Location .................................................................................................................................. 47 Venues ..................................................................................................................................... 49 Design ..................................................................................................................................... 50 Transport................................................................................................................................. 52 Learning from Sydney ............................................................................................................. 55 The Future of the London Olympic Park ..................................................................................... 58 Location .................................................................................................................................. 58 Venues ..................................................................................................................................... 60 Design ..................................................................................................................................... 64 Transport................................................................................................................................. 67

Discussion and Implications................................................................................................................. 70 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Challenges ................................................................................................................................... 70 Findings and Future Prospects .................................................................................................... 77 Limitations of the Study .............................................................................................................. 79 Concluding Thoughts .................................................................................................................. 79

6

References ........................................................................................................................................... 81

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 89 Appendix 1: Nine Precincts for Sydney Olympic Park ............................................................................. 89

V

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1: Aerial View of Olympic Park, Sydney Games 2000 .......................................................... 12 Figure 2: Aerial View of Olympic Park, London Games 2012 ......................................................... 12 Figure 3: Olympic Park, Munich Games 1972 ................................................................................ 23 Figure 4: Munich City with Olympic Park ....................................................................................... 24 Figure 5: Olympic Park, Barcelona Games 1992............................................................................. 26 Figure 6: Barcelona City with Olympic Park ................................................................................... 26 Figure 7: Olympic Park, Sydney Games 2000 ................................................................................. 35 Figure 8: Sydney City with Olympic Park ........................................................................................ 35 Figure 9: OAKA Olympic Park Complex, Athens Games 2004 ........................................................ 37 Figure 10: Athens City with Olympic Park ...................................................................................... 38 Figure 11: Olympic Park, Beijing 2008 ............................................................................................ 41 Figure 12: Beijing City with Olympic Park....................................................................................... 41 Figure 13: Olympic Venue Distribution, Beijing Games 2008 ........................................................ 42 Figure 14: Transport Network, Beijing Games 2008 ...................................................................... 43 Figure 15: Olympic Park, London Games 2012 .............................................................................. 45 Figure 16: London City with Olympic Park ..................................................................................... 45 Figure 17: SOP in its Metropolitan context .................................................................................... 47 Figure 18: Land Use Plan ................................................................................................................ 48 Figure 19: Sydney Olympic Park and Surrounds in 2008................................................................ 49 Figure 20: SOP Town Centre 2006, Venue Clusters........................................................................ 49 Figure 21: Sydney Olympic Park town centre and Parklands in 2006 ............................................ 50 Figure 22: Olympic Stadium by night ............................................................................................. 52 Figure 23: SOP Train Station ........................................................................................................... 53 Figure 24: Festivities at SOP ........................................................................................................... 57 Figure 25: Boroughs around the Park............................................................................................. 58 Figure 26: Thames Gateway London .............................................................................................. 59 Figure 27: Games Master PLan, LOP .............................................................................................. 60 Figure 28: Legacy Master Plan, LOP ............................................................................................... 60 Figure 29: LOP Post-Changes .......................................................................................................... 62 Figure 30: LOP Pre-Changes ........................................................................................................... 62 Figure 31: City of Lucca with Roman Amphitheatre....................................................................... 66 Figure 32: 2012 London Javelin Bullet Trains ................................................................................. 67 Figure 33: Olympic and Paralympic Games Route Network .......................................................... 69

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 5/89

List of Tables

VI

Figure 34: Aerial Image of London Olympic Stadium - 3 April 2007 .............................................. 73 Figure 35: Aerial Image of London Olympic Stadium - 3 November 2008 .................................... 73 Figure 36: Tailgating Nation ........................................................................................................... 80

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Interviews as relevant to the Research ............................................................................ 18 Table 2: Comparison of Olympic Cities .......................................................................................... 28 Table 3: Permanent Transport Developments for Olympic Cities and Olympic Parks .................. 32 Table 4: Information on Sydney 2000 OP ...................................................................................... 34 Table 5: Information On Athens 2004 OP ...................................................................................... 38 Table 6: Information on Beijing 2008 OP ....................................................................................... 40 Table 7: Information on London 2012 OP...................................................................................... 44 Table 8: Total Olympic Venues gross seating capacities rounded to +/- 5000 seats ..................... 61

VII

ABBREVIATIONS
AISTS BOCOG CBD COOB IBC IOC International Academy of Sports Science and Technology Beijing Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games Central Business District Barcelona 1992 Olympic Organizing Committee International Broadcasting Centre International Olympic Committee – The supreme authority of the Olympic Movement. An international non-governmental, non-profit organization whose mission is to lead the Olympic Movement and promote the notion of Olympism. LDA London Development Agency - the Mayor 's agency responsible for the legacy planning of the post Games London 2012 Olympic Park and it surrounding areas LOCOG London 2012 Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games – Responsible for preparing and staging the 2012 Games. LOP LTGDC London Olympic Park London Thames Gateway Development Corporation – The key government agency responsible for delivering social and economic growth to transform the London Thames Gateway, part of Europe’s largest regeneration project. MPC NOC Main Press Centre National Olympic Committee – The IOC-recognized organizations which develop and protect the Olympic Movement in their respective countries in accordance with the Olympic Charter. NSW OCA ODA New South Wales Olympic Co-ordination Authority Olympic Delivery Authority – The public body charged with delivering the construction of the key venues, facilities and infrastructure to stage the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. OGGI ORN Olympic Games Global Impact Study Olympic Route Network – A network of roads linking competition venues and key non– competition venues, such as accommodation and gateway arrival points into the UK.

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 7/89

Abbreviations

VIII

ORTA PPR SOCOG SOP SOPA UDLF

Olympic Roads and Transport Authority for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games London 2012 Parklands and Public Real – Scope and Programme Sydney Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games Sydney Olympic Park Sydney Olympic Park Authority London 2012 Olympic Park Urban Design and Landscape Framework

Sandra Kuehni

10

1 INTRODUCTION
............................................................................................................................................. The first modern Olympics were held in Athens in 1896 with 241 athletes from 14 countries competing in 9 sports. In contrast, the Athens Olympic Games in 2004 involved 10,625 athletes from 201 countries and 28 sports (IOC, 2008). Revived by Baron Pierre de Coubertin (1863 – 1937) just before the turn of the 20th century (London Business School, Michael Payne, 2008), the modern Olympics are hosted in different locations every four years bringing together the athletes of the world ‘as a means of promoting and diffusing the Olympic spirit of freedom, progress and equality’ (Chalkley & Essex, 1999). The next Summer Olympic Games will take place in London, United Kingdom, from 27 July to 12 August 2012. Looking back across Olympic history, the Games have developed in much more than just a sporting competition. The impact on the host cities grew along with an increasing number of sports, athletes, global media coverage and sponsorship commitments. From the 1970s onwards, the Summer Games have become a spectacular festival or in the words of Cashman and Hughes (1999), ‘the world’s largest peacetime event’. One of the most significant long-term benefits associated with hosting the Olympic Games is that of fundamental structural changes such as the construction or upgrading of new sports and multi-functional venues and the modernization of the transport system. The Olympic city may benefit from new roads and tram lines, enlarged airport capacity and/or new hotel and convention facilities. Given the immutable deadline for completion, the Games provide cities with a unique opportunity and justification for urban transformation. As a result, cities have actively used the Olympic Games to design and transform urban space as a means of economic development. In the past, urban space has usually been the result of and not the catalyst for economic growth. By ‘raising infrastructural standards to levels appropriate for international tourists’ (Chalkley & Essex, 1999), the Olympic Games may enhance the image of the city and attract new residents, tourists and businesses. Beriatos & Gospodini see the main task of urban governance in ‘the creation of urban conditions sufficiently attractive to lure prospective firms, to attract investments and to safeguard and enhance the city’s development prospects’ (2004). In an increasingly competitive urban environment, cities become ‘interchangeable entities’ that are ‘played off one against another’ (Beriatos & Gospodini, 2004). In the beginning of the Olympic movement, the IOC was opposed to use the Olympics as a means of urban improvement. Chalkley and Essex (1999) quote Coubertin who criticized the London Games of 1909 by saying that the Olympics ‘must be more dignified, more discreet, more intimate and less expensive’. In 1928, Coubertin dispraised the Olympic construction as being ‘the result of local, and too often, commercial interests, not Olympic interests at all’
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 10/89

Sandra Kuehni

11

(Coubertin, 2000). The IOC has changed its attitude over the last 20 years and is now more willing to support urban transformation efforts. Since 1992, Olympic cities have been working towards sustainable development as a result of the adoption of Agenda 21 at the Rio Earth Summit. At the International Conference on Olympic Games and Architecture in 2001, Balderstone (2001, May), a former member of the IOC Sport and Environment Commission, stated that the Olympic Movement and the Games have become ‘a catalyst for comprehensive and strong environmental plans and actions for a city, many of them non Olympic specific, particularly in regard to land rehabilitation and redevelopment’. The concentration in time, space and investment caused through the Games has helped some cities to move beyond their industrial past. Without the possibility of postponing the delivery, the Games are used as a catalyst to fast-track urban renewal and to remediate derelict sites. In fact, Essex and Chalkley (1998) argue that the ‘scale of the modern Olympics and the sums of money they now generate are such that it is difficult to envisage many of the related urban development taking place without Olympic resources and the political pressures deriving from a clear deadline’. There are major variations in the extent to which the host cities have used the Olympics in the past as a trigger to wider programmes of urban transformation. Cities have invested with varying degrees in new infrastructure developments (Preuss, 2004) & (Essex & Chalkley, 2003). For example as Preuss (2004) notes, the Olympic Games in Los Angeles 1984 required only ‘relatively minor investments’ whereas large amounts of money were invested in infrastructure for the Barcelona 1992, Athens 2004 and Beijing 2008 Games. In part this is a matter of culture, existing development and intended investment planning as well as attitudes of civic leaders and government authorities towards public expenditure. The 2000 Sydney Games were the first and foremost that clustered and concentrated the main Olympic activities in an Olympic Park around a common domain with combined service, security and transport access. For the 2008 Beijing Games, competition venues were also grouped together in an area called the Olympic Green. Finally, the 2012 London Olympic Park will arrange the major stadia and smaller venues around a central unifying concourse space. The city of London aims to create a spectacular visitor experience for the duration of the Games while at the same time committing to leave behind an economically viable post-Games Park (OP Design Principles, 2007).

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 11/89

Sandra Kuehni

12

FIGURE 1: AERIAL VIEW OF OLYMPIC PARK, SYDNEY GAMES 2000 (Source: Master Plan 2002, Section 1)

FIGURE 2: AERIAL VIEW OF OLYMPIC PARK, LONDON GAMES 2012 (Source: http://www.london2012.com/news/image-library/index.php)

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 12/89

Sandra Kuehni

13

1.1 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE RESEARCH
An Olympic Park provides a unique celebratory gathering place for citizens and visitors the like. It is important as a ‘theme park, a symbol of a spirit, cultural heritage, identity of the city and a memorial for a great event’ (Liao & Pitts, 2004). Olympic Parks play an important role both during and after hosting the Games. Research by the Sydney Parks Group indicates that 55% of the population aged 18 and over visit urban parks in Sydney on a weekly basis. The most common physical activity in parks is walking, but over 50% of those surveyed appreciate parks as a ‘place to relax’ and to enjoy ‘the beauty of nature’. Factors such as population growth, changing demographics, urban consolidation, outdoor physical activities and emphasis on conservation will most likely influence demand for and supply of parks in the future (Taverner Research, 2006). High-density cities with a compact urban form seem to particularly suffer from a lack of open space. Liao and Pitts (2004) allude to the importance of preserving and increasing open landscapes in high density mega cities. The construction of Olympic Parks with public open spaces and urban green areas is therefore crucial to counterbalance the shortage of and restricted access to parkland predominant in many major cities. During the operation of the Games, the clustering of competition venues within an Olympic Park creates economies of scale since logistics and back-up services can be mutually used by different venues. Furthermore, conditions for athletes are ideal due to minimized travel. The Olympic Games Study Commission Report (Pound, 2003) recommends rationalizing the number of competition and training venues, developing venues in clusters and choosing temporary installations over permanent construction. However, the dispersion of Olympic venues throughout the city may be beneficial to reduce pressure on the environment and tension between communities. Furrer notes that a venue cluster serves organizational needs but at the same time works against the ‘logics of long-term legacy and equitable distribution of the events’ benefits’ (Furrer, 2002). Considering that cities have successfully used different models to arrange and group competition venues in the past, questions arise as to which approach is best suited for which city, especially since there are different classes and groups of cities (e.g. metropolitan, larger and smaller, geographically and/or economically located in the core or the periphery). Assuming that the impetus of the Games and the design of the Olympic Park affect the development prospects of the city, the question is raised as to whether this holds equally true for all classes of cities and if so is the large-scale, all encompassing design of Olympic Parks an appropriate model, which can easily be integrated into a city’s existing urban fabric after the Games.
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 13/89

Sandra Kuehni

14

1.2 OBJECTIVES AND OUTLINE
This paper seeks to investigate the viability of large-scale Olympic Parks and their potential for successful post-Games transformation. It will be explored how to best align Olympic Parks within a suburban network to trigger sustainable and livable urban landscape solutions for a city’s post-Games. For this purpose, the four Olympic Parks of the four most recent Games are being compared, with particular focus on the Sydney and London Olympic Parks, as they feature important similarities and differences, thereby providing a valuable basis for comparison. Differences and commonalities between these two Parks are explored as an attempt to gain insights for future bids. The discussion on the topic is intended to be exploratory and informative. For Cashman, there is much value in a comparative study of Olympic Parks. He refers to Davidson and McNeill who compared the legacies of Barcelona and Sydney (Cashman, 2008). In accordance with Cashman, Jerome Frost (2008) mentioned that London’s Olympic Park legacy plans were developed based on experiences and lessons from earlier Games, in particular those of the 2000 Sydney, 1992 Barcelona and 1972 Munich Games. For future Olympic bid cities it is important to be able to learn from previous Olympic cities, especially if they face similar issues. Shirai points out in his paper that London ‘in trying to adapt its pre-Games legacy plans to a changed post-Games environment’ will be able to profit from Sydney’s experiences (2008). In this study, the term ‘Olympic Park’ is used to describe the area in which the main Olympic facilities and activities, back-of-house and front-of-house areas and open spaces are grouped together to form what is generally the biggest cluster of the Summer Games. An Olympic cluster is a grouping of Olympic venues in the same security perimeter or in legal terms in the same Olympic domain. This definition is based on very strict Olympic venue security and transport operational requirements and only spectators with tickets and duly accredited staff, visitors and guests can gain access to the Olympic Park cluster, which separates ‘city domain’ from ‘mega event domain’ (Bovy, 2004). A viable solution for an Olympic Park maximizes positive and minimizes negative outcomes of the Olympic Games before, during and after the event. The planning approach must allow the Olympic precinct area to be transformed with relative ease to create high post-Olympic demand and a quality environment for people to visit thereby eliminating the risk to build ‘white elephants’. Section one consists of a brief introduction to the topic of Olympic Parks, followed by the definition, objectives and scope of the study. The research design and the data collection process
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 14/89

Sandra Kuehni

15

are described in section two. Section three provides background information on the history of the Olympic Games and the role of Olympic urban projects based on the examples of the 1972 Munich Olympic Games and the 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games. In section four, Olympic Park maps of the 2000 Sydney, the 2004 Athens, the 2008 Beijing and the 2012 London Olympic Games are presented. Furthermore, the pre and post-Games planning lessons are discussed by reviewing differences and commonalities among the Sydney 2000 and London 2012 Olympic Parks. Although the planning and construction of the 2012 London Olympic Park is ongoing, the planning vision behind is clearly evident. Section five will summarize the relevant insights concerning the planning and design of Olympic Parks.

1.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The master plan for the Sydney Olympic Park dates back to the 1990s. The Olympic environment was very different then as there were no requirements to plan for legacy. Following the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the IOC Olympic Games Study Commission implemented new key principles with regard to legacy (Pound, 2003). One recommendation was to construct temporary or shared venues and avoid luxury developments. As a result, London’s post-Games planning differs greatly from the way Sydney has approached the whole issue of legacy planning. It is also important to consider that the construction of the 2012 London Olympic Park is ongoing and adjustments to existing plans may need to be made. This study is based on current plans and does not attempt to make a final analysis, even though the planning vision for the London Olympic Park is already well developed.

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 15/89

Sandra Kuehni

16

2 METHODOLOGY
............................................................................................................................................. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methodology used to explore the research questions as presented in chapter one. This chapter will define and describe research approaches and different types of data collection procedures. It will then discuss how research for this study was carried out and finally address the limitations of the research approach.

2.1 RESEARCH METHOD
Research can be described as a systematic investigation to collect and interpret data in order to increase knowledge. Finding out things stands for a thorough investigation to pursue an understandable objective that underlies research (Hussey & Hussey, 1997). To be able to carry out research, the research design needs to be determined first. Research design deals with the construction of appropriate methods to answer previously formulated research questions (Robson, 2002).

2.1.1 QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
A basic distinction in research is that between qualitative and quantitative research. The quantitative research focuses on measurement, data in numerical form, statistics, finding out the cause of linkages between phenomena as opposed to the study of processes (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). In contrast, qualitative research emphasizes non-numerical data as well as ‘qualities of entities and (…) processes and meanings that are not experimentally examined or measured’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). Wilson defines qualitative data as ‘non-quantifiable insights into behavior, motivations and attitudes (of) carefully selected individuals’ (Wilson, 2003). The purpose of collecting qualitative and quantitative data is to gain deeper insights into a topic and enhance understanding of behavior, motivation, attitude or decision (Riley, 2000).

2.1.2 QUALITATIVE APPROACH
This report will follow a qualitative study design, which is deemed appropriate in that qualitative data collection is focused on small groups or individuals, whilst quantitative data collection covers a sample of the population (Wilson, 2003).The qualitative approach is particularly helpful when the richness of the context suggests to use multiple sources of evidence (Yin, 2003).

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 16/89

Sandra Kuehni

17

2.2 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE 2.2.1 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY DATA
Generally, there is a differentiation made between primary and secondary data. Weiman and Kruger (2001) define primary data as ‘original data collected by the researcher for the purposes of his or her own study at hand’. Primary data can be collected with the help of interviews, observations, questionnaires or experiments (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2003). In contrast, secondary data is defined by Wilson (2003) as ‘data that has been previously gathered for some purpose other than the current research’. Examples of secondary data include books, journals, newspapers, reports and statistics. According to Riley (2000) secondary data is required to explore the research that has been carried out in the field of study.

2.2.2 COLLECTION OF PRIMARY DATA
In this study, one main source for primary data was semi-structured interviews with key players who were targeted due to their influential role and level of involvement. Interviewing experts ‘with privileged access to information’ (Meuser & Nagel, 2002) and ‘with specific and relevant knowledge’ (Gläser & Laudel, 2004) regarding the topic of research was particularly valuable, especially since the emergence of Olympic Parks is a relatively recent phenomenon resulting in topic-specific literature not being readily available. The semi-structured approach effectively combines the advantages of standardization and openness. The sequence on the list of questions does not have to be followed and the formulation of the questions can be altered creating an interview environment that allows for honest and considerate answers (Meuser & Nagel, 2002). The questionnaire guideline ensures sticking to the subject but leaves room for checking whether both questions and answers have been understood correctly (Mayring, 2002). To respect the preferences of the interviewees and since it was not possible to travel to Sydney or London, three interviews were held over the telephone and one face-to-face. In addition, one interviewee preferred to answer questions by email. The interview questions were sent by email in advance to give the interviewee time to prepare. Details regarding the interviews can be found in Table 1 below.

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 17/89

Sandra Kuehni

18

Number of interview 1

Name Function Eva Kassens Dipl. W-Ing., MST, Ph.D. Candidate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology Richard Cashman Adjunct Professor, School of Leisure, Sport & Tourism, Author of ‘The Bitter-Sweet Awakening: The Legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games Niall McNevin Head of Town Planning & Regeneration John Booker Town Planning & Regeneration

Organisation

City, Country Cambridge, USA

Type of Interview Unstructured telephone interview Semi-structured telephone interview

Massachussetts Institute of Technology Australian Centre for Olympic Studies, UNSW

2

Sydney, Australia

3

Design & Regeneration, Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) Design & Regeneration, Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA)

London, UK

Unstructured telephone interview Answers to questions via email Unstructured interview faceto-face

4

London, UK

5

Jerome Frost Head of Design

London, UK

TABLE 1: INTERVIEWS AS RELEVANT TO THE RESEARCH

2.2.3 COLLECTION OF SECONDARY DATA
Secondary data for this study was identified through website searches of relevant organizations, including government departments and research organizations. In addition, searches of journal articles, books and conference proceedings using specialist online databases were conducted. The data retrieved this way supplemented and substantiated the information previously obtained through interviews. The research was conducted in a systematic way to find out which authors and key actors are relevant to the field of study. It was aimed to discover critiques and authors who are experts in the field and explore issues surrounding the topic of Olympic Parks. With the intent of embedding the study in the existing body of literature, lessons from previous research were reviewed. Research that is sourced in this paper has previously been evaluated based on its relevance and validity to the research objectives. This study also presents some examples from previous Olympic Games. Referring to these examples intends to provide additional insights or reveal potential pitfalls in addressing challenges, in particular related to the planning and design of the 2000 Sydney and 2012 London Olympic Parks. Frost noted that London drew particularly on the case studies of Munich,
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 18/89

Sandra Kuehni

19

Barcelona and Sydney to gain a holistic understanding and apply it to the design of the London Olympic Park (2008).

2.3 LIMITATIONS TO THE RESEARCH METHOD 2.3.1 INTERVIEWS
There were some limitations to this research approach in terms of time and budget. To minimize costs, the interviews were conducted by mail or telephone. Interviews via telephone or email although ideal if site visits are not possible or interviewees are too busy to meet, can pose certain problems as for instance, the loss of spontaneity. Asking questions on sensitive topics over the phone without appearing judgmental or censorious may be difficult because body language cannot be used as a means of expression. However, the reduction in spontaneity may also serve as an advantage as the interviewer can take time to respond to the developing dialogue, which is not the case with face-to-face interviews. Concerning telephone interviews, the difference in time zones may create a barrier for scheduling a meeting. Often telephone interviews are conducted at inconvenient times (e.g. evenings, early mornings, and week-ends). In addition, they can be quite tiring. As a result, they often last shorter than face-to-face interviews. When dealing with complex issues or topics that are new to the interviewer, telephone interviews may prove difficult. Furthermore, phone interviews at a person’s office or home may be interrupted due to distractions by colleagues, calls on other lines, background noise or computer use during the interview. Of course, one of the main advantages of interviews on the telephone or via email is that travel costs are reduced while permitting interaction with remote participants. In addition, sending an email has the benefit that the interviewee is not committed to reply promptly and there is no need to identify a mutually convenient time to talk to each other. The asynchronicity allows the interviewee to reflect before supplying a response, which may reduce the pressure on the interviewee (Bampton & Cowton, 2002). Another limitation to this study was that it occurred during an Olympic year, which meant that key contact people had to be interviewed early on and before the Beijing Olympic Games taking place from August 8–24, 2008. As a result, the time available to research the topic and prepare for the interviews was limited. This may have had an impact on the outcome as the quality of the information received is often a result of the quality of questions asked. Concretely, it is a matter of asking the right questions, which is facilitated if the interviewer is knowledgeable about the topic before going into the interview. Depending on the background of the interviewer, such
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 19/89

Sandra Kuehni

20

topic specific know-how may be more or less present. If time allows it is advisable to collect data before the start of the interviews by studying topic-specific literature and conducting on-site visits. For this study, this could only be done to a limited extent.

2.3.2 OLYMPIC RESEARCH
A vast array of research on the Olympic Games exists but relatively little research is to be found on the topic of large-scale Olympic Parks. The uniqueness of the Olympic Games, the four-year time lapse between each Summer Olympic Games during which global economic cycles can change dramatically and the recent development of all encompassing Olympic venue clusters, make a comparison of different Olympic Parks and their legacy rather difficult. Olympic research can further be complicated by strong vested interests (Kornblatt, 2006). There is a trend for host cities to conduct more studies prior to the Games to identify progress than after the Games (Gratton, Shibli, & Coleman, Sport and economic regeneration in cities, 2005). As a result, empirical academic research around Olympic Parks and legacy issues is relatively rare.

2.4 SUMMARY
This chapter discussed the methodology used in this study. It introduced and defined the concept of qualitative and quantitative research as well as primary and secondary data and explained some of their advantages and disadvantages. In addition, research methods and procedures used in this study were presented and justified.

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 20/89

Sandra Kuehni

21

3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
.............................................................................................................................................

3.1 POLICY DEVELOPMENTS
After the Sydney Games in 2000, the Olympic Games Study Commission was set up to outline recommendations towards a smaller, cheaper and less complex organization of the Games. The IOC entrusted the International Sports Science and Technology Academy (AISTS) with the project called the ‘Olympic Games Global Impact’ (OGGI) study (IOC, 2004). Through OGGI the IOC is capable of collecting social, economic and environmental data over an 11-years cycle, from the bidding stage to two years after the hosting of the Olympics (IOC, 2006). During the International Legacy Conference in Lausanne in 2002, IOC President Jacques Rogge spoke out against Olympic ‘luxury’ projects planned only with Olympic-size crowds and ticket sales in mind, which become ‘white elephants’ after the Games. He emphasized that the planning of major sporting events requires serious consideration to be given to sustainability, legacy and post-Games use (IOC, 2002, June ). Essex and Chalkley argued that the scale of the modern Olympics and their infrastructural requirements might have become so great that ‘the concept of sport as a means of spiritual renewal has given way to sport as a means of urban renewal’ (1998). For some cities the Olympics may have been an initiator for regeneration and for others an actual tool for accelerating change. Experts in the field seem to distinguish between three main models to illustrate the extent to which host cities used the Games to trigger urban redevelopment (Cashman, 2008); (Essex & Chalkley, 2003). Firstly, some cities have tried to minimize the scale of investments in urban infrastructure by hosting low-impact events, as for instance Melbourne 1956 and Los Angeles 1984. These cities did not create an Olympic precinct. However, Liao and Pitts conclude that ‘some degree of concentration in Olympic venues is essential to leverage off the urban transformation’ (2004). As the first model did not always prove successful, cities like Tokyo 1964 and Barcelona 1992 chose to disperse the sporting venues throughout a metropolitan region. This was done mainly in the period from the 1910s to the late 1950s (Essex & Chalkley, 2003). This model promoted a polynucleated urban form. In Barcelona most sporting facilities were located in four Olympic areas: Montjuïc, Diagonal, Parc de Mar and Vall d’Hebron. Montjuïc Park constituted the main setting for competition as it already had a number of sports venues with a stadium and swimming pools dating back from 1929. With regard to the ‘Olympic areas’ in Barcelona, the Official Report reads that it was intentionally avoided ‘packing all the
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 21/89

Sandra Kuehni

22

sports facilities into a single place’ as this was considered to be of ‘little social value afterwards’ (COOB, 1992). So there was a conscious decision made on behalf of the Barcelona organizers to disperse the Olympic developments throughout the city (Botella, 1995). Cities such as Munich, Montreal and Sydney have preferred a third model. By clustering the majority of sporting events within an Olympic Park, the attention and investment takes places in a clearly defined area. The advantage of such an approach is that Games operations can be optimized due to reduced travel times and trips for athletes and spectators and development may be redirected to a new centre.

3.2 OLYMPIC URBANISM PRIOR TO THE SYDNEY GAMES (2000)
This section briefly outlines the planning strategies of both the Munich and Barcelona Olympic urban developments. The city of Munich used the Olympics to strategically ‘direct urban growth towards relatively peripheral areas’ whereas for Barcelona, the Games advanced the ‘general process of urban land-use re-qualification’ (Millet, 1997). Although there is probably not one planning model for Olympic urban development capable of being applied homogeneously to all cities, the success of the Munich and Barcelona models illustrates how a city may benefit from hosting the Olympics by using a model that is consistent with existing urban strategies.

3.2.1 MUNICH (1972)
In line with the ideas contained in the 1964 general plan, the competition venues of the Munich Olympic Park were developed on the Oberwiesenfeld located at a distance of four kilometres from the city centre (Olympiapark Muenchen GmbH). The site was a desolate, flat and abandoned airfield of three square kilometres before it was transformed into a park (Figure 3) incorporating ‘an ensemble of modern stadiums and sport halls, the Olympic Village, the press town and the press centre’ (Olympiapark Muenchen GmbH) as well as an artificial hill almost entirely composed of rubble from the Second World War. The impetus of the Games helped fasttrack the redevelopment of the site that had originally been earmarked for rejuvenation over a 20-year period (Essex & Chalkley, 2003). The concentration of the facilities in a large humanscale Olympic complex with short access routes, the unity of landscape and architecture and the possibility of continuing to use the facilities sensibly even after the Games, were some of the key design principles of the park (Olympiapark Muenchen GmbH). The Munich Olympic Village was set in the Olympic Park and ‘clearly orientated towards urban leisure, where the buildings were constructed for the future purpose of shopping and where even the green areas were conceived in terms of recreation and leisure’ (Muñoz, 2006).
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 22/89

Sandra Kuehni Figure 3

23

and Figure 4 display the Munich Olympic Park and its relative size and location with

respect to the overall city.

200m
FIGURE 3: OLYMPIC PARK, MUNICH GAMES 1972

The investments in Munich covered sport buildings but also landscape design, road and public transport development. Interestingly, the name "Olympiapark" originated from the nearby Olympic station 's stop along the U3 line of the Munich U-Bahn. This naming decision was based on the idea that the name "Olympiapark" related well to the central theme of a "green Olympic Games" (Wikipedia, 2008). Today the Munich Olympic Park is a multi-functional recreation area with great appeal and continues to serve as a venue for cultural, social, and religious events.

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 23/89

Sandra Kuehni

24

2km
FIGURE 4: MUNICH CITY WITH OLYMPIC PARK (Source: Google maps)

3.2.2 BARCELONA (1992)
The city of Barcelona used the 1992 Games to regenerate its coastline. ‘The transformations made in the city for the Olympics have become regarded as a model for other cities wishing to initiate large-scale revitalization schemes’ (Essex & Chalkley, 2003). As noted in the Official Report, ‘The Games have been the catalyst for improvements in the general infrastructure of the metropolitan area and for large scale planning projects which, because of their location and their size, will alter the shape of the growth of the city’ (COOB, 1992). The main location for the competitions was the Montjuïc Park, which already had a large number of sports venues from previous applications to host the Games. The area of the Montjuïc hill was named the Olympic Ring. It was constructed along a broad avenue with the Olympic Stadium at one end and the Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia at the other end. On one side of the avenue a new sports hall was developed, and on the other, the swimming pools. The Montjuïc Olympic Stadium was the location of the opening ceremony of the 1992 Olympic Games. It has a capacity of max. 77’000 spectators when temporary terracing is used and allows to stage sports competitions, musical performances or any type of popular event (Barcelona City Council, 1995). The Media Centre adjacent to the Olympic Ring was located between 100 to 1000 meters
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 24/89

Sandra Kuehni

25

away from the competition venues. Two subway lines and six bus routes transported spectators and athletes from one area to the other (COOB, 1992). The remodeling works of the Montjuïc area resulted in a ‘general refurbishment of the park and the consolidation of its function as a significant part of the city’ as Chalkley and Essex point out (1999). The most significant transformation however occurred on the 130 ha site at Parc de Mar. This site, which occupied declining industries before the Games, became the Olympic village. The development of the site improved access to the 5.2 kilometres coastline and opened up the city to the sea (Essex & Chalkley, 2003). After the Games, the stadiums and athlete housing were revamped into an upmarket neighborhood with apartments and malls (Essex & Chalkley, 1998). Barcelona’s Olympic urban projects created important public spaces to be used by different urban populations from all over the city. In fact, the former Olympic building strategies and the ‘location of a centrality space in a non central and deprived area’ stimulate urban initiatives up to this day (Muñoz, 2006). In terms of architecture, Barcelona attempted to create a new neighborhood that is ‘organically linked to the existing city in the site where the Olympic Village was built’ (Muñoz, 2006). This difficult undertaking meant that a newly built area had to be superimposed on existing architectural forms and languages. It was achieved by using different architectural materials and designs to create architecture that can ‘simulate history’ and give the area the impression of a historical area (Muñoz, 2006). The Olympic urban projects and their post-Olympic evolution have transformed the whole urban profile of Barcelona, the landscape and the urban skyline. Munoz notes that the city’s successful approach was a result of implementing urban projects based on long-term planning strategies as well as managing the ‘relationships between the new (Olympic) urban areas and the pre-existing city’ (2006). He further recommends to incorporate ‘the idea of the mixture of uses – residences, infrastructures, public space, and new beaches’ to be able to transform a newly built area into ‘a new vibrant urban space’ (Muñoz, 2006). Although it appears that even in Barcelona not all the Olympic ambitions were achieved, Millet suggests that the re-qualification of ‘existing urban land probably produces the most spectacular and beneficial result’. At the same time he admits that ‘it is undeniably the way which involves the highest degree of risk requiring rather more complex management’ (Millet, 1997).
Figure 5

shows a close up aerial view of the Olympic Ring within the Montjuïc area and in Figure 6

the Olympic Park is positioned in relation to the metropolitan area.

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 25/89

Sandra Kuehni

26

200m
FIGURE 5: OLYMPIC PARK, BARCELONA GAMES 1992

2km
FIGURE 6: BARCELONA CITY WITH OLYMPIC PARK (Source: Google maps)

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 26/89

Sandra Kuehni

27

4 FINDINGS AND LESSONS
............................................................................................................................................. The previously highlighted aspects and issues such as the transformation of degraded land, the implementation of urban projects based on long-term planning strategies and the post-Olympic management of relationships between new and existing urban areas is a key point to consider when thinking about planning and design issues for Olympic Parks. The Olympic urban developments’ of Munich and Barcelona stand for an evolution in the role of Olympic urbanism and the increasing complexity of the design of Olympic urban projects. As Muñoz argues, the introduction of additional leisure facilities have made planning efforts for the Olympic Village more complex and this is ‘not only because of its increasing dimension and scale but also because of the multiplicity of functions: accommodation, circulation and management of flows, the interaction with the pre-existing city, and more recent requirements such as new information and telecommunication technologies or the need for safe urban conditions’ (Muñoz, 2006). Not only the planning for the Olympic Village is increasingly multi-layered but also the ‘transportation strategy, organization, management and costs grow exponentially with the magnitude and complexity of very large events’ (Bovy, 2002).

4.1 THE OLYMPIC PARKS OF SYDNEY, ATHENS, BEIJING AND LONDON
Among the four most recent Olympic host cities, three are the political capitals of their countries (Athens, Beijing, and London) and one is the largest city of the country (Sydney). In comparison, the city of Barcelona presented in the previous chapter could be considered a ‘challenger’ city as it is often rivaling the main city Madrid. None of the four most recent Olympic Games’ hosts were ‘outsider’ cities (Metropolis, 2002). In 1997, Millet stated that for a city to be able to host the Olympics, its population threshold needs to at least at 2.5 million inhabitants. Otherwise, the city faces the risk of encountering financial problems or town-planning related issues because of the insufficient availability of urban land (Millet, 1997). Five years later, Bovy proposes that a metropolitan region with fewer than 4 million people should not be in the position anymore to run for the Summer Olympic Games. He also points out the importance of ‘an excellent high capacity rail public transport system connecting most of the key Olympic competition and noncompetition venues’ being in place (Bovy, 2002).

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 27/89

Sandra Kuehni

28

City, Year Country City Dimensions City Rank1 Population (mio)
2

Sydney 2000 Australia Not Capital, n 4 2’100 low 125 (1,25 km ) West 14 a) 115’000 b) 83’500 (rectangular) 81’500 (oval) 6 Bligh Lobb Sports Architects
2

Athens 2004 Greece Capital, n 4,5 5’400 high 190 (1,90 km ) North 18 a) 74’473 b) 72’000
2

Beijing 2008 China Capital, n 16,3 +3-4 transient 11’500 very high 715 (7,15 km ) North 9-13 a) 91’000 b) 80’000
2

London 2012 UK Capital, n 7-8 5’100 high 145 (1,45 km2) East 12 a) b) 80’000 25’000

Population Density (hab/km²) 3 Land Use Size (ha)
4

Olympic Park Information

Location relative to City Centre Distance from City Centre (km)
5

Stadium Capacity: a) temporary (Games-time) b) permanent (post-Games) Stadium Architects 6

6

7

6

Santiago Calatrava (renovation, originally built in 1980-1982)) 201 10’625 28 301

Herzog & De Meuron ARUP 204 10’708 28 302 (9 new)

Team McAlpine

National Delegations (NOC) Games Info Athletes Competition Sports Competition Events

199 10’651 28 300

? 10’500 (estimate) 26 300
7: Source: (ARUP, 2008) 8: Source: (IOC, 2008)

TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF OLYMPIC CITIES
2: Source: (Bovy, 2002); (Bovy, 2004), (Bovy, 2008)

1:Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/geo_sta_cap-geography-capital-city-with-population; http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/geo_lar_cit_wit_pop-geography-largest-city-with-population 3:Source: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html 4: Source: (Bovy, www.mobility-bovy.ch. Summer Olympic Games 2000 to 2012: transportation facts and figures, 2009) 5: Source: (Bovy, 2002); (Bovy, 2004), (Bovy, 2008), 6: Source: (Rapid Intelligence, 2003-2008)

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 28/89

Sandra Kuehni

29

The four Olympic cities that is to say Sydney 2000, Athens 2004, Beijing 2008 and London 2012 vary with regard to culture, climatic conditions, geographical location, population, size of metropolitan areas and urban structure. Also, the standard and quality of facilities and transport infrastructures (public transport system, airports, highways, telecommunication networks) as well as the experience in the organization of major events differ from one city to another. No two cities are alike and no two editions of Olympic Games will be the same.

4.1.1 CONCENTRATION OF OLYMPIC ACTIVITIES AND TRANSPORT AT THE OLYMPIC PARKS
Transportation as part of the organizational structure The sector of transport is a crucial component of the Games as it has ‘multiple interactions with about all other domains from ticketing to accreditation and security, from general traffic management to venue accessibility and selected parking provisions’ (Bovy, 2002). Staging the Olympic Games has a significant impact on the host cities, in particular also because the existing transport infrastructures ‘have not been conceived to absorb the intense and highly polarized traffic flows generated by such events or by simultaneous superposition of multi-site events’ (Bovy, 2002). Some cities have used the Olympic Games as a catalyst to develop a new airport (Athens in 2004) or to expand its capacity (Sydney in 2000). This was also the case in Beijing, where the capacity of the airport close to doubled (Bovy, 2008). The Olympic Games are also used to provide other types of transport infrastructures such as motorway networks, high speed railway lines, underground or high output telecommunication networks (Metropolis, 2002). In Beijing, for example, it was the 5th and most of the 6th metropolitan Ring motorways along with 2 new expressway connections to the airport that benefited largely from the catalytic effect of the Games (Bovy, 2008). These infrastructure developments aim to improve the ‘general accessibility of the city, the region or even the country as a whole’ (Metropolis, 2002). Since the restructuring of the road system or the improving of public transport is often related to substantial initial public investment, public utilities are usually guaranteed by governments (airports and railway links) or cities (public transport) (Metropolis, 2002). Impact of event size, duration and capacity of Games on transport solutions The impact of the Olympic Games on a city is dependent on the local environment and existing infrastructures (transport and event-linked infrastructure) as well as the duration, type and capacity (e.g. indoor fixed capacity venues, open air events, concerts) of the event. As Bovy
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 29/89

Sandra Kuehni

30

points out, a ‘30’000 spectator event in a community of 15’000 people might have larger impacts than a half a million daily-ticketed spectator crowd in a 4 million inhabitant metropolitan area’ (2002). The size of the city also plays a role in the development and later use of infrastructure in that there is a risk of oversizing in relation to needs and demands. The possibilities for Beijing (16,3 million inhabitants) to fill a stadium with a permanent seating capacity of 80’000 (ARUP, 2008) are probably higher than the stadium in Sydney (4 million inhabitants) with a similar permanent seating capacity. In recent years, the concept of big stadiums used as multi-purpose urban facilities integrated into the city gained ground. The stade de France built in 1997 (Taylor & Edmondson, 2007) or the Sydney Olympic Stadium completed in 1999, for instance, are examples of all-purpose stadiums that can be transformed to hold other events such as the 2003 Rugby World Cup Final in Sydney (Cashman, 2006). The Summer Olympic Games also differ in one other important aspect from many large events being organized year after year at the same location in that the Games may take place in new venue facilities, expanded existing facilities or temporary facilities that have no ‘tested experience of traffic accessibility and parking management’ (Bovy, 2002). As a result, as Bovy suggests, ‘test events which duplicate as closely as possible venue planned operations are almost mandatory’ (2002). On top of that, specific disciplines of the Olympic Games may have one, two or even three sessions per day (morning, afternoon and evening) leading to growing transportation requirements. An event like the Olympics taking place over a two-week period requires ‘multi-site, multi-sports scheduling with variable potential attending crowds having different transport requirements’ (Bovy, 2002). Spatial distribution of sport venues and transportation The tendency of events ‘clustering’ started by the 2000 Sydney Olympics can ‘only prove effective if high transport capacities, in particular in rail transport, are available’ (Bovy, 2002). Indeed, the availability of transport capacities may not be sufficient as Bovy considers a ‘highly robust and resilient public transport system ‘ (Bovy, 2006) as a prerequisite to successfully handle significant Olympic mega event traffic volumes. Since competition and non-competition venues must all be linked with each other, travel times to and from competition venues are largely determined by distances, the quality and reliability of transport services as well as existing general traffic conditions. The clustering of events in the same area within the same Park makes sense in terms of transport loads and burdens in that multi-site events have a greater impact on ‘urban or metropolitan wide transport systems, mobility management and delivery’ (Bovy, 2002). In comparison, the mono-site event can be handled as a ‘hub and spoke concept
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 30/89

Sandra Kuehni

31

with traffic flows growing almost linearly from the exterior to the centre of the system’ (Bovy, 2002). To define visitor quantities and distribution for the provision of effective transport during the Games, it is of considerable importance to be aware of prevailing travel patterns and event attendance forecasts (Bovy, 2004). Transport organization and management To provide safe and reliable transport for the Games usually means that a range of transport authorities, partners and stakeholder organizations have to collaborate on several levels and over a long spread of time. The coordination and efficient communication among all these transport bodies can be a highly challenging task as there may be a variety of private and public entities and tailor-made private/public partnership arrangements. Sydney 2000, for example, established with ORTA an Olympic Roads & Transport Authority to better deal with the Olympic transport challenge. The fully multi-modal centralized transport organization was in charge of planning and delivering all Olympic transport services (Chappelet, 2000) & (Bovy, 2006). As routine ways of operation are challenged due to the immovable deadline of the Games, possible dysfunctional behavior patterns are brought to the surface quickly. In some cases temporary solutions created for the duration of the Games may end up being institutionalized afterwards as was the case with Sydney’s first centralized public transport and road traffic control, command and communication centre described above. The efficient transport management made people realize that there is a need for installing a permanent single transport authority responsible for all means of transport (road, bus, rail, airport, etc) for purposes of ‘real time traffic management and permanent coordination with security’ (Bovy, 2006).

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 31/89

Sandra Kuehni TABLE 3: PERMANENT TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENTS FOR OLYMPIC CITIES AND OLYMPIC PARKS

32

Permanent Transport Developments General city wide

Sydney 2000

Athens 2004

Beijing 2008

London 2012

In general little metropolitan wide transport infrastructure improvements with the exception of a better motorway and a new rail link between upgraded Sydney International Airport and Sydney City Centre No motorway continuity between Sydney Centre and the new Olympic Park 14 km West Upgrade of Sydney Central rail station main public transport feeder into Olympic Park

Games-time

Operation of the single suburban rail line to SOP Sydney Olympic Park at its maximum capacity with services 24hours/24. Free transportation for ticket holders and all accredited

In general considerable metropolitan wide transport infrastructure improvements in road, rail and air transport (more than 10 billion $) Major upgrade and extension of Athens metropolitan motorway system, both Full North South and East West Attica Region motorways. Metro extension of lines1, 2 and 3 with metro connection to new airport New International Airport 40km East of Athens New tramway to Southern suburbs and Sea coast New suburban rail system to Northern suburbs and to new airport Operation of metro line 1 line to OAKA - Olympic Park and suburban rail at their maximum capacity with services 24hours/24. Free transportation for ticket holders and all accredited

In general considerable metropolitan wide transport infrastructure improvements in road, rail and air transport (more than 20 billion $) Completion of 5th and most of 6th metropolitan Ring motorways and 2 new expressway connections to airport New terminal 3 International Airport with third runway to triple Beijing airport capacity More than doubling Beijing metro system length and capacity and new rail link between Airport and City Centre

In general considerable metropolitan wide transport infrastructure extensions and capacity improvements concentrated on rail public transport (17 billion£ for all London of which 5 billion£ in East London) Major capacity improvement of London underground No 1 Jubilee line, and 50% capacity improvement of DLR Dockland Light Railway with network extensions to cover a larger part of East London on all sides of Canary Wharf

Operation of entirely new metro lines 1 and 8—the Olympic extension line serving the Olympic Green with 3 stations. New NorthSouth metro line 5, about 1,5km from the Olympic

Special operation of the high speed line through Stratford International as a local high speed shuttle line. Operations of the Jubilee line and Dockland Light Railway to their maximum capacity

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 32/89

Sandra Kuehni

33

workforce, volunteers and other logistics personals Rail provided 77-82 % of total SOP travel accessibility Addition of 12 Olympic dedicated express bus routes serving the North and South SOP bus malls Bus transport provided about 17-20% of total SOP accessibility Bicycle, pedestrian, riverboat and car (T1-T3 and sponsor hospitality permits) accessibility accounted for the last 3-5%.

workforce, volunteers and other logistics personals Rail provided 76-80 % of total OAKA travel accessibility Addition of 15 Olympic bus routes serving the West and North-East bus malls Bus transport provided about 20% of total SOP accessibility Bicycle, pedestrian and car (T1-T3 and sponsor hospitality permits) accessibility accounted for the last 4-7%.

Legacy

The car regains its pre Games predominance.

The car retains its pre Games predominance although with higher use of much rehabilitated metro line 1 as secondary transport carrier for OAKA.
Source: (Bovy, 2009)

Green, also provided some accessibility. Free transportation for ticket holders and all accredited workforce, volunteers and other logistics personals. Rail provided only 20% of total Olympic Green travel accessibility Addition of 35 Olympic bus routes serving multiple Eastern and Western Olympic Green bus stations Bus transport provided about 75-80% of total Beijing Olympic Green accessibility Pedestrian and car (T1-T3 and sponsor hospitality permits) accessibility accounted for the last 4-7%. Bicycle travel was close to non existent A much higher use of the Beijing metro as principal Olympic Green visitor carrier is most probable.

Free public transportation a more important for ticket holders and all accredited workforce, volunteers and other logistics personals. National, regional and local rail services will provide 80% of total Olympic Park travel accessibility Bus transport to provide about 15% of total Olympic park accessibility. Pedestrian, car (T1-T3 and sponsor hospitality permits) and bicycle to account for 58% of total accessibility. Bicycle travel expected to play a more important role than in previous Games.

Expected strong use of all rail services available (10 lines) and high Olympic Park attractivity on adjoining borough resident journeys on foot or by bike.

It is important to note that for Games time, not only considerable permanent but also temporary transport access capacity additions were needed for all four Olympic cities discussed in Table 3. The simultaneity of events causes the Olympic venues to be "busy" at the same time. This is less needed in legacy mode.

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 33/89

Sandra Kuehni

34

The following section includes Olympic Park maps (Figure 7 - Figure 16) of the four most recent Olympic host cities and their respective positioning within the urban area aiming to highlight existing differences among the cities. The cities’ territorial strategies to stage the Olympics were based on prevailing specific urban contexts.

4.1.2 SYDNEY 2000 OP
The planning and design of the Sydney Olympic Park (SOP) is of particular relevance to the theme of this paper because it was the ‘first and foremost concentration of Olympic activities’ meaning that about 50% of all Olympic venues were clustered in the Park, a remediated brownfield at Homebush Bay 14 kilometres West of the City Centre (Bovy, 2006). Sydney was also the first ever Olympic city to ‘rely on 100% public transport accessibility’ (Bovy, 2002) for the duration of the Games. Therefore, a high capacity rail station was constructed offering at its maximum capacity free 24-hour transportation for ticket holders and all accredited workforce, volunteers and other logistics personals. Thanks to these measures, rail provided an impressive 77-82% of the total SOP travel accessibility (Bovy, 2009). Sydney 2000 OP Contents: Olympic Stadium 110’000 / Opening-Closing Ceremonies / Athletics Aquatics + 10 other competition venues for a total of 15 sports MPC (no IBC, no OV in OP) 125 ha (1,25km2) within security ring 1.65 km longest distance / between 0,5 to 0,9 km width (only 1 through ring road) New 2 km main rail connection of Olympic Park to Sydney main rail system New Olympic Park high capacity rail station Improvement of Olympic Park surrounding road system with some bicycle routes Creation of a Parramatta river boat station 3km off Park with services to Sydney Harbour

Area / distances:

Transport:

TABLE 4: INFORMATION ON SYDNEY 2000 OP Source: (Bovy, 2009)

The Sydney concept of clustering Olympic activities and venues around a common domain with combined service, security and transport access, had several advantages such as the ‘shortening of travel distances for athletes and team officials’ (Bovy, 2008). By having the Olympic Stadium, the Athletics and Aquatic Centres and the Main Press Centre (MPC) inside the Olympic Park and within walking distance of almost half of all Olympic venues, car dependence was greatly reduced during the Sydney Games (Chalkley & Essex, 1999).
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 34/89

Sandra Kuehni

35

200m
FIGURE 7: OLYMPIC PARK, SYDNEY GAMES 2000

2km
FIGURE 8: SYDNEY CITY WITH OLYMPIC PARK (Source: Google maps)

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 35/89

Sandra Kuehni

36

Legacy considerations The Sydney SOP is a 125 ha suburban quite disconnected concentration of mostly permanent sport facilities and vast new fairgrounds around a mall and a new single suburban off-main line rail station. This 125 ha Olympic area is gradually becoming the centre of a vast Park after the Games. Section 4.2 will provide additional information on the Sydney Olympic Park.

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 36/89

Sandra Kuehni

37

4.1.3 ATHENS 2004 OP
Athens concentrated about two thirds of the venues in three competition clusters of which the first and largest cluster was the OAKA Olympic Sports Complex (Bovy, 2004). The Park located 18 kilometres north of the City Centre and 14 kilometres from the Olympic Village was host to 10 sports including gymnastics, basketball, tennis, swimming and bicycle track racing. With the Main Press Centre (MPC) and the International Broadcasting Centre (IBC) positioned adjacent, this mega complex became ‘the largest Olympic traffic generator of the Athens Games’ (Bovy, 2004).

200m

FIGURE 9: OAKA OLYMPIC PARK COMPLEX, ATHENS GAMES 2004

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 37/89

Sandra Kuehni

38

2km
FIGURE 10: ATHENS CITY WITH OLYMPIC PARK (Source: Google maps)

Athens 2004 OP Contents: Olympic Stadium 75’000 / Opening-Closing Ceremonies / Athletics Aquatics + 3 other competition venues for a total of 11 sports MPC+IBC (no OV in OP) 190 ha OP (1,9km2) within security ring +20 ha (MPC+IBC) 1.85 km longest distance / between 0,75 and 1.1 km width (no through road) Capacity doubling and full line modernization of the main North-South Piraeus-Centre-Olympic Park-Kifissia line No 1 New suburban rail station North of Olympic Park Olympic Park Ring road improvement and direct connection with Attiki Odos New East West Motorway

Area / distances:

Transport:

TABLE 5: INFORMATION ON ATHENS 2004 OP Source: (Bovy, 2009)

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 38/89

Sandra Kuehni

39

Athens whose ‘urban design has been confined to small-scaled, fragmentary and soft interventions’ for many decades leading to a ‘landscape mosaic’ (Beriatos & Gospodini, 2004) carried out substantial transport infrastructure developments for the Games. Bovy adds that the city has much higher urban densities than, for example, Sydney due to its ‘multi-story building pattern on large parts of its territory’, which commonly causes traffic and parking congestion (Bovy, 2002). In contrast to the Barcelona model and in conformity with established Greek urban design practices, the spatial interventions and landscape transformations for the Athens 2004 Olympic Games were spread in the Attica region or as Beriatos & Gospodini note ‘scattered all over the city’ (Beriatos & Gospodini, 2004). Along the same lines, Bovy mentions the ‘dispersed Olympic venue pattern’ with a peripherally positioned Olympic Village ‘making athletes travel to most venues very long’ (Bovy, 2002). In order to relieve traffic congestion in the central parts of the city, Athens improved its transport infrastructure considerably in all sectors (road, rail and air) (Bovy, 2004) resulting in a great transport legacy particularly in metropolitan major road system consolidation and rail public transport (Bovy, 2006). Legacy considerations Unfortunately, most stadiums have not been used since September 2004 due to unresolved ownership issues and questions concerning the stadiums’ post-Games use. To this point in time, Athens OAKA is a 190 ha suburban mono-functional concentration of sport venues not operated as a public park. Plans exist however to turn the main Olympic complex as well as the Hellenikon sports complex, the Games’ second biggest site into parks. Furthermore, existing sports facilities comprising the indoor arenas shall be used as restaurants, cafes and cultural gathering places (2004 Olympic Summer Games venues in Athens, 2004-2008).

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 39/89

Sandra Kuehni

40

4.1.4 BEIJING 2008 OP
Bovy points out (2006) & (2008) that Beijing experiences a motorization rate increase that is stunning and among the fastest ever observed (2000: 16 million motorized vehicles, 2006: 26 million, 2011 projection: 70 million, 2020 projection: 100 million). Beijing’s traffic has increased since 2001 by 1000 motorized vehicles per day (Bovy, 2008) causing traffic congestion and pollution in the city of 16,3 million inhabitants (Bovy, 2006). Beijing has therefore used the Games not only as a catalyst for urban transformation but also for accelerating transport infrastructure related projects as for instance major road and motorway developments. In fact, within four years (1996 and 2000) 110 milliards of US$ were invested to develop 10’000 kilometres of major roads and motoways only to add another 25’000 kilometres four years later (2001-2005). The following years (2006-2010) the focus will shift from road system developments to urban rail transport investments of which 12’000 kilometres will be spent on improving the passenger rail network. The railway developments will aim to ease the burgeoning traffic congestion on roads on which the 17’700 buses and trolleybuses, currently carrying 75% of the public transport passengers, find increasingly difficult operating conditions (Bovy, 2006). Construction on the most ambitious project in Chinese railway history, the high-speed railway line connecting Beijing and Shanghai, has already commenced in January 2008 (Bovy, 2008). Beijing 2008 OP Contents: Olympic Stadium 95’000 / Opening-Closing Ceremonies / Athletics Aquatics + X other competition venues MPC+IBC Olympic Village 715 ha OG (7,15km2) within 3 security rings of 85ha Southern, 275 ha Central and 355 ha Northern; these areas include 30ha Olympic Village Housing and 25ha OV support areas 5,0 km longest distance / between 1,1 and 2,3 km width (Through roads: one major 12 lane Ring road, 2 major internal roadways), Olympic Village included Construction of 3 new metro lines, lines 10 and 5 adjacent to Olympic Green and short Olympic line 8 serving the heart of the Olympic Green with three dedicated stations Completion of the 5th Ring Motorway serving Olympic Green from the North, West and East Extensive road creation and extensions on all sides of the 715ha Olympic Green. Also underground Olympic Green road crossings to avoid conflict with the central pedestrian mall

Area / distances:

Transport:

TABLE 6: INFORMATION ON BEIJING 2008 OP Source: (Bovy, 2009)

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 40/89

Sandra Kuehni

41

500m
FIGURE 11: OLYMPIC PARK, BEIJING 2008

2km
FIGURE 12: BEIJING CITY WITH OLYMPIC PARK (Source: Google maps) MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 41/89

Sandra Kuehni

42

Considering that the impact on a city hosting the Olympic Games is substantial, it seems important to plan and design the Olympic Park in unison with Olympic Games’ transport planning. The Beijing 2008 Olympic venue clustering concept was similar to that of Sydney 2000 (Bovy, 2008). However, unlike Sydney, the Olympic Green in Beijing contains the Olympic Village and the IBC in addition to the Olympic Stadium, the Athletics and Aquatics Centres, the MPC and six or seven other sporting facilities. What is striking about the Olympic Green is its size of 715 ha. The Olympic metro extension line n 8 therefore serves the Olympic Green with three stations rather than one. The map below is presented to demonstrate the complexity of hosting the Olympic Games due to the large number of venues that are still dispersed throughout the city albeit a strong concentration of competition venues in the Olympic Green. Travel trips were reduced thanks to the event clustering but the impact on the city’s transport infrastructure remains substantial.

FIGURE 13: OLYMPIC VENUE DISTRIBUTION, BEIJING GAMES 2008 (Source: http://en.beijing2008.cn/venues)

It was already decided in the 1980s to locate the Olympic Green in the cultural north-south axis of the city. Beijing saw the Olympics as a lever to further develop the urban axis between the centre in the south and the green belt in the north. The sporting facilities were clustered in proximity of existing infrastructure to guarantee easy access and connectivity. Some of the main arterial roads, namely the 5th Ring Motorway, cut through the Olympic Green serving the site
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 42/89

Sandra Kuehni

43

from the North, West and East to guarantee optimal transport connections (Goethe-Institut, 2008). The areas surrounding the Olympic Green are relatively densely populated, which should prove advantageous for future use of the Olympic Green. The Beijing example illustrates the importance of connecting the Olympic site with the city centre by focusing development efforts on existing urban axes (Figure 14).

FIGURE 14: TRANSPORT NETWORK, BEIJING GAMES 2008 (Source: http://share.mapbar.com/enmodule/)

Legacy considerations The Beijing Olympic Green is the biggest urban park hosting the Olympics ever of more than 700ha of mixed space composed of park public areas, lakes, forests around permanent sport venues. The Park is served in its middle by four metro stations, some of them with complete commercial, entertainment and cultural functions. Beijing Olympic Green is one of the first Olympic Park really planned for legacy from the start. The emphasis on post-Olympic use and sustainability in design was clearly voiced by Dennis Pieprz, the president of Sasaki, which won the commission for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Green and Forest Park to facilitate the integration of the new Olympic facilities into day-to-day urban life. Sasaki also stated not just wanting to duplicate what other cities have done but rather develop a scheme appropriate for China and its people and their way of using space (McGraw-Hill Companies, 2006). Yan Huang referred to the challenge of balancing different interests and demands by stating that ‘preserving the historic areas also means combining conservation with modernization, and to preserve our historic buildings, we must also weigh up issues of conservation versus tourism’ (Huang, 2002).
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 43/89

Sandra Kuehni

44

4.1.5 LONDON 2012 OP
The 2012 Summer Olympic Games will be held in London from 27 July to 12 August 2012, followed by the 2012 Paralympic Games from 29 August to 9 September. The area of the London Olympic Park currently under construction in East London, is adjacent to Stratford, Canary Wharf and the Docklands development area and was once the scene of manufacturing industries, docks and railroad yards. It is part of one of Europe’s largest regional regeneration projects - the Thames Gateway plan. Based on ODA head of design, Jerome Frost, London aims to combine ‘what Sydney (2000), Barcelona (1992) and Munich (1972) managed to achieve’ (Architects’ Journal, 2008). In addition, George Hargreaves, an American architect hired to design the park said that London plans to ‘create another world with wetland habitats and broad expanses of meadows in the centre of East London’. He adds that the Olympic Park will be one of the great parks of London creating a parkland that ‘gives a memory of hosting the Games’.

London 2012 OP Contents: Olympic Stadium 80’000 / Opening-Closing Ceremonies / Athletics Aquatics + 6 other competition venues for total of 12 sports MPC+IBC (no OV) 145 ha OP (1,45km2) within security ring +30 ha (Olympic Village and transport mall) 2.4 km longest distance / between 0,5 and 0,8 km width (without Village) Olympic Park takes advantage of its position around the new Stratford International Rail Station—the last station London City Centre on the high-speed connection with the continent (directly to Paris and Brussels). Note : London 2012 will be the first Games with and international rail hub directly serving its Olympic Park and Olympic Village Full refurbishing of Stratford Regional Station, through or terminal station for more than 8 rail lines including the Jubilee Line Extension of the Dockland Light Railway with new station at Stratford International near the future Olympic Village entrance Vast reconstruction program of all local future Park roads and pedestrian path network within Olympic Park extended 225 ha area (including Olympic Village and the Stratford inter rail station triangle). Vast number of new road, pedestrian and cycle bridges over crisscrossing rivers, canals, freight and trunk railroads, expressways to better link the future Park to its urban surroundings on all sides.

Area / distances:

Transport:

TABLE 7: INFORMATION ON LONDON 2012 OP Source: (Bovy, 2009)

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 44/89

Sandra Kuehni

45

200m

FIGURE 15: OLYMPIC PARK, LONDON GAMES 2012

2km
FIGURE 16: LONDON CITY WITH OLYMPIC PARK (Source: Google maps)

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 45/89

Sandra Kuehni

46

Legacy considerations London 145ha Olympic Park is a typical British urban park around some permanent sports venue to regenerate a downgraded area of East London Lea River Valley. London Olympic Park has been fully planned for Park legacy from the start. The following sections 4.2. and 4.3 will provide additional information on the London Olympic Park and its attempted post-Games use.

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 46/89

Sandra Kuehni

47

4.2 SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SYDNEY AND LONDON OLYMPIC PARKS 4.2.1 SYDNEY OLYMPIC PARK (SOP)
4.2.1.1 LOCATION Sydney is the most populated metropolitan area of Australia with approximately 4 million inhabitants settled on a very large area making the city a low to very low urban density metropolis (Bovy, 2001). Sydney has one of the highest average motorization rates in the world, third only after the US and Canada. The 2000 Sydney Olympics was the first summer event adopting wholesale the IOC’s environmental agenda. The bid document went even beyond what was required by the IOC. Sydney used the impetus of the Games to decontaminate the highly polluted former industrial site at Homebush Bay 14 kilometres west of the Sydney CBD and some 8 kilometres east of (Figure 17). The fact that SOP is situated between Sydney and the rapidly developing corridor between the Parramatta and Strathfield / Burwood centres may contribute to reinforce the network linking between them (SOPA, 2002) & (Liao & Pitts, 2004). They further presume that the strategically important location of SOP aims to help Sydney in the long run to create a west-east, public transport-oriented
FIGURE 17: SOP IN ITS METROPOLITAN CONTEXT Source: (SOPA, 2002)

axis (Liao & Pitts, 2004).

The principal environmental targets of the Sydney ‘green Games’ foresaw the cleaning up of the Homebush site to transform it to leisure and residential use. Throughout the construction period of the Park, some sources voiced criticism on environmental issues. Professor Sharon Beder, for example, oppugned the cleaning-up of the Homebush site, believing it was too toxic to be properly remediated (London East Research Institute, 2007). Located in outlying low-density metropolitan Sydney at Homebush Bay, the suburban and relatively small Olympic Park (125 ha) was ‘the first and foremost concentration of Olympic activities’ (Bovy, 2002). The candidature file bid document, volume 2, reads as follows: ‘SOP
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 47/89

Sandra Kuehni

48

will offer the greatest concentration of sports at a single site in modern Olympic history’ (Olympic Information, 2000). Indeed, the mostly permanent sport facilities and vast fairgrounds in SOP are aligned around a single mall in a rather disconnected fashion and a new single suburban off-main line rail station. In contrast to a truly urban park, SOP does not contain extensive gardens, woods or pastures and lacks therefore the conventional elements, which would give it a sense of place (Bovy, 2008).

FIGURE 18: LAND USE PLAN (Source: http://www.adconmac.com/olympicpark.htm)

The planning of SOP at Homebush Bay was concentrated on the provision of sporting facilities and competition venues as well as the infrastructure supporting them for the successful staging of the Olympic Games. The subsequent years were difficult for SOP following the success of the 2000 Olympics declared ‘the best Games ever’ by Antonio Samaranch. Sydney realized that action needed to be taken to ‘convert the short-term publicity bonanza of the Games into longterm economic benefits’ (Holloway, 2001, July) and to avoid that Olympic facilities were shaping up as white elephants. Aiming at diverting economic activity to the former home of the Games, the Master Plan 2002 (SOPA, 2002) was prepared ‘to take Sydney Olympic Park into the future’ as Diane Leeson expressed it. In addition, the New South Wales (NSW) Government set up the Sydney Olympic Park Authority (SOPA) to direct and plan the area at the Olympic site. The Master Plan 2002 defined objectives, role and function for SOP for the next 10 to 15 years (SOPA, 2002) and identified eight major sites in the town centre to be developed (Lochhead, 2005). Later on, Vision 2025 was produced, which proposed a mix of uses within the urban area with the aim of enhancing SOP’s viability by attracting a critical mass of residents and workers and improving transport infrastructure (Lochhead, 2005). Eventually, this plan was replaced by the Master Plan 2030, which is a ‘22 year vision for the sustainable development of Sydney Olympic Park’ (SOPA, 2008) based on a 9 precincts concept. It is consistent and builds on the previously created plans, mainly Vision 2025 and Master Plan 2002 (SOPA, 2002). The Master Plan 2030 is the result of a comprehensive assessment process to establish planning principles, controls and guidelines including for instance land uses, site configuration and floor space ratios (SOPA, 2008). It is designed to facilitate the Park’s ‘continuing evolution into a vibrant specialist economic centre and urban parkland’ (Official website SOP, 2008).

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 48/89

Sandra Kuehni

49

FIGURE 19: SYDNEY OLYMPIC PARK AND SURROUNDS IN 2008 (Source: http://images.google.ch)

4.2.1.2 VENUES The SOP included: the Olympic Stadium for the Opening and Closing ceremonies and for most athletic competitions, the IBC/MPC, 19 (more than half of all) Olympic sport disciplines, the Olympic Village, which was adjacent to the Olympic precinct accommodating 17’000 athletes and team officials (Bovy, 2002).
Figure 20

outlines the town centre as discussed

FIGURE 20: SOP TOWN CENTRE 2006, VENUE CLUSTERS Source: (SOPA, 2008)

in the Sydney Olympic Park Master Plan 2030 (SOPA, 2008). Figure 21 shows the town centre (yellow border) and the Parklands (red border).

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 49/89

Sandra Kuehni

50

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Sydney Showground Acer Arena ANZ Stadium Athletic Centre Aquatic Centre Hockey Centre Tennis Centre Golf Centre

FIGURE 21: SYDNEY OLYMPIC PARK TOWN CENTRE AND PARKLANDS IN 2006 Source: (SOPA, 2008)

4.2.1.3 DESIGN The 2000 Sydney Olympic Park design solution reflects the evolution of the Modern Olympic Games and postmodernist urban planning practices. Tzanoudaki suggests that during the first decades of the Olympics there has been a ‘search for a language in Olympic architecture worthy of the Olympic idea, aiming at the cultivation of mass interest in sport culture and in the Olympic Ideal’ (Tzanoudaki, 2002). The Olympic City became a field of application of modernist architecture based mainly on the use of revolutionary technologies and progressive ideas. In the 1950s to 1970s as the Games grew more popular and expanded from the stadium to an entire site, a new relationship between the modern Olympic Games and the city as a host environment was established and ‘the primacy of the stadia as a key element gave way to a whole urban programme, involving the building of the athletes’ accommodation (Olympic Village), the media centre and the city’s transport infrastructure (airports, metro and road systems etc.)’ (Tzanoudaki, 2002). With the development of global culture, the Olympic architecture moved from Modernism to Postmodernism, reflected in ‘an attempt to break the boundaries between opposites such as work and leisure, utopia and reality within urbanism’ (Tzanoudaki, 2002). Postmodernist Olympic architecture, with the 2000 Sydney Olympic Park serving as an example, addressed the ‘idea of regional re-development based on multi-functionalism, reconciliation and negotiation with the qualities and values of the existing environment (Tzanoudaki, 2002). This is in contrast to previous Olympic architecture
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 50/89

Sandra Kuehni

51

design solutions, which were based on functionality and convenience that segregated ‘spaces for leisure and sport (stadia, Olympic Park) from spaces for living (Olympic Village)’ (Tzanoudaki, 2002). The impact of globalization on the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games and the Olympic architecture is reflected in the stadium, which served as ‘a framework for spectacle’ and as ‘a giant international studio a backdrop to be seen by billions of spectators’ (Tzanoudaki, 2002). Sydney and its Olympic Park were representative symbols of ‘global cooperation’ that was turned into a media event and ‘a product of the mass entertainment industry’. The Park became ‘the core of a “decentred” global network’ (Tzanoudaki, 2002). Along the same lines, Waitt cites Brantlinger (1983) and Harvey (1989a) as being the first ones to introduce the Roman formulae of ‘bread and circuses’. This concept explains ‘the redemptive significance of hallmark events providing a spectacle that is ‘argued to distract those who have taken their place at the bottom of a restructured social stratification ladder’ (Waitt, 2001). The public’s collective emotion is evoked, excited and sustained at an aesthetic level and with appropriate sites, signs and symbols (Waitt, 2001). Gradually and more so in recent years, there has been an increase of commercial developments and business activities in the Olympic precincts partially due to economic growth and partially due to a growing number of meetings, exhibitions and conferences taking place in the Olympic Park. Since 2000, Sydney has made an effort to host international or regular events as for instance, the Rugby World Cup in 2003, the Catholic World Youth Jubilee or the Royal Agriculture Show in order to build up a sporting and event management reputation. Also, conventions and tourism programs are held to keep up hotel occupancy (Cashman, 2006). The original problem however still remains, once the show is over and the lights are turned off, the entertainment complex becomes a deserted and unpleasant place. It becomes a white elephant. A British Telegraph newspaper article in 2007 described people’s feelings concerning the Sydney Olympic Park as follows: ‘Travel the 45 minutes from Circular Quay, in Sydney Harbour, to Homebush, and it feels like riding the ghost train to a ghost town’ (Hodgkinson, 2007).

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 51/89

Sandra Kuehni

52

FIGURE 22: OLYMPIC STADIUM BY NIGHT (Source: http://images.google.ch)

4.2.1.4 TRANSPORT In his paper for the 2002 International Symposium in Lausanne, John outlines the geographic factors that need to be considered when designing competition venues. He mentions transport as the first and main issue, especially with regard to its impact on the environment and notes that the ‘stadium or Arena built on the outskirts of the city surrounded by a sea of private cars is no longer acceptable’ (John, 2002) and efforts should be made to provide good public transport links by metro, train or bus. There were several advantages to the Sydney 2000 concept of clustering Olympic facilities at Homebush Bay. For instance, athletes and team officials had shorter travel distances to get move back and forth between Olympic Village and Olympic Park. Also, the MPC and IBC were ‘at walking distances of almost half of all Olympic venues’ (Bovy, 2002). The concentration of Olympic activities at one site however created a new challenge, namely that of ‘extraordinary high spectator traffic demands exceeding 400’000 people per peak day, in addition to more than 180’000 accredited support and logistical staff (workforce, volunteers, media, Olympic Family, etc) (…) and an unknown number of non-ticketed visitors’ (Bovy, 2002). According to Bovy, ‘the Sydney metropolitan mobility average modal split is 80-85% by car, 1015% by public transport and 5% by other means (on foot, bicycle, etc.)’ (Bovy, 2002). During an event or peak hour traffic in the Sydney CBD, higher public transport ratios can be observed (up to 70% during morning hour commuting peak). Projections estimated an increase of 80% in rail travel and 50% in bus traffic for the Games, which would be a great challenge for the city to master. According to critics and media representatives the city’s transport system was ‘in a
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 52/89

Sandra Kuehni

53

dangerous state of repair’ as it was considered ‘unplanned, congested and suffocated due to a bad public transportation policy for many decades’ (Cashman, 2006). Besides the motorway and City rail linkage of Sydney CBD to the Airport and a new Olympic Park rail station, there were few new transport infrastructure developments planned. Actions therefore primarily called for ‘drastically modifying the travel behavior of visitors/spectators’ (Bovy, 2001). This lead to an Olympic Transport concept geared towards changing the usual public transport modal share to avoid traffic congestion on arterial roads and on the few motorways. Bovy explains that the Olympic Transport scheme became a 'push and pull plan’ that combines ‘full development of public transport services and restrictive automobile use at Games time’ (Bovy, 2001). Since substantial public transport service improvements are usually not capable, by themselves, to trigger a substantial reduction of automobile dependence, accompanying measures to strengthen public transport are often put in place such as reduced inner-city and stadium parking possibilities, convenient and safe transit stops and stations, transit rider subsidies, tighter control of automobile traffic through road tolls or street design (Bovy, Transport and Sustainability in Europe, 2005). In addition, the capacity of the arterial road system within Greater Homebush is constrained as it has to serve a large and growing car-oriented metropolitan area and has little spare commuter peak hour capacity. Even though the internal road system was capable of supporting increased traffic generation, the intersections showed limitations in their ability to cope with traffic increases (Master Plan 2002). Based on the assumption that development potentials within the Greater Homebush area are going to be realized, development objectives aim at increasing public transport use, amending vehicular travel patterns and exploiting commuter cycling opportunities (Master Plan 2002). Despite the outstanding challenge to provide ‘simultaneously different transport systems and services to a variety of constituencies having distinct spatial patterns, schedules, comfort and security standards’ (Bovy, 2002), ‘there were nothing but plaudits for the smooth transport operations’ (Cashman, 2006) after the Games. It is therefore also stated in the Master Plan 2030
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 53/89 FIGURE 23: SOP TRAIN STATION (Source: http://images.google.ch)

Sandra Kuehni

54

that ‘Sydney Olympic Park’s location at the geographic heart of Sydney, and its infrastructure legacy from the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games, has ensured excellent road and rail access from most places in the greater metropolitan area’ (SOPA, 2008). Unfortunately, it seems that after the 2000 Olympic Games the car regained its pre-Games predominance in Sydney. Cashman concludes that it is unlikely that the emphasis on public transport during the Olympic Games led to any major change in commuter behavior, other than to encourage people to travel to Sydney Olympic Park by public transport when a major sporting or cultural event was held there. Along the same lines, Waitt argues that ‘cars have become a necessity in Sydney’s outer suburbs which are served poorly by public transport’ (Waitt, 1999). This is a result of the American influence on Australian’s planning practices as illustrated by Freestone who writes that Canberra was ‘an unmatched laboratory for American methods of modern transportation analysis’ resulting in costs that were ‘soon evident in the form of extravagant space consumption for traffic infrastructure, high car use, low public transport use, central-area traffic congestion, office overspill into residential areas, and degraded open space’ (Freestone, 2004). Olympic transport planning is extremely challenging as it ‘leads to the design and operation of a “superposition” of multiple client-oriented transport systems and services operating simultaneously on the same general infrastructure’ (Bovy, 2002). The Olympic Games provide therefore an ideal ‘real scale laboratory” to implement and assess ‘innovative and more sustainable mobility management schemes’, measures and policies (Bovy, 2001). The main transport and mobility management lessons from Sydney are summarized by Bovy into the following seven themes: transport managerial structure, public and private transport policies, support and logistics traffic, integrated transport-ticketing, transport and traffic management testing, Games time transport delivery, knowledge transfer and transport legacy (Bovy, 2002).

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 54/89

Sandra Kuehni

55

4.2.1.5 LEARNING FROM SYDNEY Have an adequately developed post-Games plan in place before the event and a post-Games management authority to administer plan. At the time of the 2000 Olympic Games the Sydney Olympic Park ‘represented a proud statement of the city’s Olympic vision (Cashman, 2006) and was ‘the key and most outstanding feature of the Sydney Games’ (Bovy, 2002). Cashman states that although Games officials ‘took great pride in the development of a unique sporting precinct, some of the major venues struggled financially even before the Games’ (Cashman, 2006). While the public float failed to pay for the Olympic Stadium, there was also uncertainty about the future use of the stadium, hence it remained mostly empty. The strategy to create a sporting precinct in which almost every venue is new is related to high costs meaning more revenues are required to pay for costs related to maintenance and management of the precinct. A CNN article published in 2001 notes: ‘While the massive Stadium Australia has managed to secure some major events like international rugby games and football (soccer) matches, what it lacks is an anchor sporting team that can keep the crowds coming back’ (Holloway, 2001, July). The problem is also that once the Games are over ‘there are few good reasons for Sydneysiders to come here’ (Holloway, 2001, July). The Olympic sports complex may still look terrific but on most days resembles ‘little more than a state-of-the art ghost town’ (Holloway, 2001, July). One of Sydney’s great omissions seems to be the lack of adequate post-Games planning as David Richmond, first chairman of the Board of SOPA and director of the OCA is quoted in Cashman’s book (2006). It also needs to be mentioned that at the time of the Sydney 2000 Games, legacy planning was not yet a formal requirement. In the Australian Financial Review (Australian Financial Review, 2001, August), Richmond explains that although there was ‘commissioned preliminary post-Games planning’ in 1999 it was difficult to ‘divert staff from live Olympic tasks to work on post-Games projects’ (2001). Thoroughly identify post-Games expenses, stage feeder events to reap economic benefits and develop alternative uses for Olympic infrastructure. Sydney’s State Government, which has financed a large proportion of the Games venues, struggled for some years after the Games to find ways to inject new life into the Olympic Park. Searle argues that the Olympic stadium remained a financial burden on state resources due to ‘relatively modest attendance at nearly all football matches and other events’ and ‘competition for those events’ (Searle, 2002) mostly coming from the Sydney Cricket Ground (SCG) and the adjacent Sydney Football Stadium (SFS) located near by the city centre as well as from another
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 55/89

Sandra Kuehni

56

modern State-run venue, Parramatta Stadium, west of Homebush Bay (Searle, 2002). The SCG and SFS stadiums were both constructed with an all-seated capacity of 42’000 and with 30’000 (Searle, 2002). Among the three, seems to be the most successful despite its smaller capacity generating a strong crowd atmosphere with attendances of 10’000-15’000 due to its reduced size and seating arrangement. It is therefore attractive to national league clubs in soccer and rugby league. The attractiveness of the SCG and SFS stadiums is also related to the opening of the Eastern Distributor city-airport motorways ahead of the Olympic Games, which lead to improved car access. The new entertainment complex next to the stadiums also contributes to their appeal (Searle, 2002). Searle concludes that the post-Olympic Stadium capacity of 80’000 may be too small for the very largest events and too big to be attractive for national league clubs in soccer and rugby league (2002). To holistically calculate stadium costs, it is important to consider it ‘from the cradle to the grave’ (Meinel, 2001, May). In other words, the construction costs make up only about 20% of the total life cycle costs of the structure. Meinel points out that often costs are underestimated due to neglecting to put aside reserves for building maintenance and carry out necessary structural or technical adjustments (Meinel, 2001, May). The paucity of regular sporting crowds at the Sydney Olympic Stadium illustrates the difficulty and risk involved with the construction of specialized sporting venues for a once-only event like the Olympic Games. Andranovich suggests that hosting a mega-event like the Olympic Games ‘entails greater risk than a typical consumption-based development project’ (Andranovich, Burbank, & Heying, 2001) as some of the risks ‘associated with the event, such as a boycott or scandal, cannot feasibly be anticipated by event planners’ (Andranovich, Burbank, & Heying, 2001) Furthermore, the event may not yield the envisioned outcome and economic benefits as ‘there is always the possibility that between conception and execution the event may not be sufficiently unique or exciting enough to maintain political support, jump start the city’s consumption development, or have a positive impact on image’ (Andranovich, Burbank, & Heying, 2001). Diane Leeson from SOPA stated in 2001: ‘what we’d like to see out here is a base population across the site of about 13’000 people. We’d like to see workers, residents, people coming out for leisure, entertainment and so we’d like to see a very vibrant mix of life and activity in what we call out town centre’ (Holloway, 2001, July). Master Plan 2002 and the recently produced draft of the Master Plan 2030 address precisely the issues pointed out above aiming at generating enough economic stimuli to cover the fixed costs of Olympic sporting facilities. Planning Minister Frank Sartor expressed in a newspaper article concerning Master Plan 2030 that ‘people
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 56/89

Sandra Kuehni

57

go to places where there are lots of reasons to be there. So if you create a community with significant attributes that will attract people’ (Vallejo, 2008, July). This will be an important aspect to remember with regard to the planning, development and design of the London Olympic Park. Proactively respond to post-Games media criticism, monitor post-Games public opinions and attitudes and invest in public memory (e.g. host symbolic markings). In his book, ‘The Bitter-Sweat Awakening’ Cashman uses the term of ‘Olympic recession’ to describe the years from 2001 to 2003 during which the Olympic memory of the public and citizens was seemingly submerged. It seemed like ‘no longer wanted to remember the Games’ (Cashman, 2006). The reason for this may lie in the emotional investment that occurs during the Games where people experience a heightened sense of awareness, place and community. As soon as the Games are over, the public feels a ‘sense of loss’, ‘aspect of pain’ and nostalgia over the lost glory. PostOlympic malaise is followed by public disinterest and the desire of wanting to forget. Barcelona experienced a re-emergence and renewed Olympic interest only several years after the hosting of the Games. More precisely, a major celebration at the Olympic Stadium did not take place until the 10th anniversary in 2002. Before this event, low-key and discreet celebrations were held. Cashman proposes to apply the Barcelona approach for Sydney as well. He suspects that Sydney
FIGURE 24: FESTIVITIES AT SOP (Source: http://images.google.ch)

may not have sufficiently cultivated public memory (e.g. the Ignite festival serves as one example) in the

aftermath of the Games. Cashman (2006) and Lenskyj (2002) offer detailed but sometimes competing accounts on post-Games legacy. Another omission in Cashman’s eyes is that due to the lack of proactively responding to negative media coverage, people in Sydney formed their own (negative) opinion about the Olympic Park and never came back to visit the site and experience its evolution (2006). He therefore suggests including legacy assessments with regard to media tracking and analysis of cultural issues, business and economic outcomes, impacts on sport and ecological issues (LERI, 2007).

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 57/89

Sandra Kuehni

58

4.2.2 THE FUTURE OF THE LONDON OLYMPIC PARK
4.2.2.1 LOCATION The Olympic Games make it possible to undertake a big urban-planning project, the largest remaining regeneration opportunity in the heart of the inner city of London. About 145 hectares (1,45 square km) are currently being regenerated in a downgraded area of East London’s Lea River Valley, which runs north-south from Stratford to Canary Wharf and is located three miles from Central London (LDA, 2008). The area of the future Olympic Park includes some of the most diverse and deprived communities in the UK, namely the four boroughs of Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forestand (ODA, 2007).

FIGURE 25: BOROUGHS AROUND THE PARK (Source: http://www.legacy-now.co.uk/designing-the-park)

The 2012 Olympic Park, which is being developed in the centre of the urbanized East of London, has been fully planned for legacy from the start. After the Games the London Olympic Park will be transformed into a truly intra-urban / metropolitan Park with public greenery (lakes, canals, rivers, hills, forests) served by 10 tubes, suburban, regional and one international high speed rail
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 58/89

Sandra Kuehni

59

line. The Olympic Park will become the ‘largest urban park created in Europe for more than 150 years’ (ODA, 2008). In terms of design principles and size the Olympic Park is comparable to some of London’s other public parks including Regent’s Park with 140 ha, Hide Park with 225 ha and St. James Park with 45 ha. These other parks all have continuous build up areas all around. The same is planned for the new 2012 London Olympic Park, which is only slightly larger than the Sydney Olympic Park but within a smaller elongated piece of open land. crisscrossed by a network of waterways that run through a brownfield land. Having been used for noxious industries and as a perennial ground for waste products, the future Olympic site is of poor infrastructure and contained dilapidated buildings and electricity pylons that were taken down in the initial phases of construction (ODA, 2007) & (Gold & Gold, 2008). The London Olympic Park, together with Stratford City, forms one of the Thames Gateway’s four ‘Strategic Transformers’ (Thames Gateway, 2007). Even before the successful London 2012 Olympic bid, the Lower Lea Valley, as part of the Thames Gateway (Figure 26) Figure 26: Thames
Gateway Londonwas

a regeneration priority. In June 2004, the London Thames Gateway

Development Corporation (LTGDC) was established to secure the regeneration of the Lower Lea Valley (ODPM, 2008).

FIGURE 26: THAMES GATEWAY LONDON (Source: http://www.communities.gov.uk/thamesgateway/overview)

The regeneration of the London Olympic Park and its surroundings (Stratford City and the Lower Lea Valley) is sought to create a major regional focus in East London for new jobs and sustainable growth. It will also play a key part in the wider plans of the Thames Gateway, which is a strategically important economic location between London and mainland Europe and the

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 59/89

Sandra Kuehni

60

United Kingdom’s largest regeneration area stretching for 40 miles along the Thames Estuary from the London Docklands to South end in Essex and Sheerness in Kent (ODPM, 2008). The major programmes that will deliver the desired physical transformation in and around the Olympic Park are developed jointly by the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) and the London Development Agency (LDA) and other public sector partners. These programmes include the Legacy Masterplan Framework (LMF), the ODA Delivery Plan and the 2012 Transport Plan, (which will be further discussed under the headline transport). For London to overcome the Olympic recession and to build on the pre-Games momentum, it is important to open up the Olympic Park as soon as possible after the Olympic Games (Frost, 2008). In that sense, Games-time and legacy transformation proposals are carefully planned to minimize time and cost required to transform the Olympic Park from pre-Games to post-Games mode (ODA, 2008). 4.2.2.2 VENUES With spectator access points to the north, south, east and west, the parkland created for the Games will feature a central circulation spine. The Olympic Stadium, the Aquatics Centre, IBC/MPC and 6 other competition venues as well as the Olympic Village will be situated within easy walking distance of each other. An integrated approach to planning will minimize transition works from Games-time to post-Games use. In his presentation (Lausanne Summit, 2008), Jerome Frost stated that the Olympic,

Paralympic

and

Legacy

Transformation

Masterplans have been carefully designed to
FIGURE 27: GAMES MASTER PLAN, LOP (Source: ODA) MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

minimize the time required to transform the

FIGURE 28: LEGACY MASTER PLAN, LOP (Source: ODA)

Page 60/89

Sandra Kuehni

61

Olympic Park from Games-time requirements to post-Games provision of facilities and open spaces.

The table below shows that there is no relationship between the Olympic Park land area and the total Olympic venues gross seating capacity. Both Sydney and Beijing had 50 or more per cent of additional gross seating capacities than London 2012. Olympic City Sydney 2000: Beijing 2008: London 2012: Athens 2004: Seats 235’000 225’000 150’000 125’000 % 155 150 100 85 Ha 125 715 145 190 Contents Without OV and IBC With OV, with IBC/MPC Without OV, with IBC/MPC Without OV, without IBC/MPC

TABLE 8: TOTAL OLYMPIC VENUES GROSS SEATING CAPACITIES ROUNDED TO +/- 5000 SEATS Source: (Bovy, 2009)

Legacy Although the London organizers intend to use a series of existing sporting venues (ODA, 2008) such as Wembley Stadium (football), Wimbledon (tennis) and Hyde Park (riding events), the location for most other activities will be concentrated in the nucleated area of the London Olympic Park, a former brownfield thereby addressing the growing concern for sustainable legacy. Compared to Sydney who framed its legacy plans in the 1990s without the IOC emphasis placed on it, London outlined a detailed post-Games legacy blueprint. Nevertheless, the Sydney and London Olympic Parks share commonalities regarding their approach to planning and design. There is a clear advantage to establish and plan the legacy vision well ahead of the event as it ‘serves to maximize both understanding and investment’ (Taylor & Edmondson, 2007) and reduces the transition time from Games to Legacy mode. The London planners are aware of the importance of having a clearly articulated legacy developed significantly in advance of the event. The momentum generated by the ‘fixed timetable for delivery, dedicated funding, and establishment of a delivery organization’ (ODA, 2007), namely the ODA, often helps legitimize and fast-track decisions so that physical regeneration and legacy objectives will be realized much earlier than would otherwise have been possible.

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 61/89

Sandra Kuehni

62

The legacy aspect is probably the most obvious difference between Sydney and London. The 2012 Olympic Games and legacy plans are developed hand in hand (Figure 27 & Figure 28) thereby ensuring to leave a post-Games park which is economically viable (OP Design Principles, 2007). Many of the London 2012 official documents address legacy issues, as for instance, the design principles for the Olympic Park, in which each venue’s description is divided into two columns, one side provides Games-times information and the other side informs about legacy aspects of the venue (OP Design Principles, 2007). As legacy is taken into consideration at such an early stage in the planning, changes to the plans show how the design of the Olympic Park has been changed to make it more sustainable and adapted to the existing topography.

FIGURE 29: LOP POST-CHANGES Source: (ODA, 2006)

In the Legacy Transformation phase, the London Development Agency (LDA, 2008) will work

FIGURE 30: LOP PRE-CHANGES Source: (ODA, 2006)

with partners including the Olympic Delivery Authority, the Greater London Authority, the 5 host boroughs (Greenwich, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest), LTGDC, Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, central government and other key stakeholders to ensure that the social, economic and physical transformation and improvements on the Olympic Park are being delivered. Meanwhile as the operational planning for the hosting of the Olympic Games proceeds, the LDA has taken the lead on behalf of its partners to prepare a business plan defining
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 62/89

Sandra Kuehni

63

more clearly the sets of skills and powers required to create a lasting 2012 Olympic Park legacy as well as informing future decision makers in setting-up a new organization (LDA, 2008). The key document called ‘shaping the Olympic Park Legacy’, which can be downloaded on the LDA website (LDA, 2008), provides information on the ongoing planning for the post-2012 Games Park and defines key principles for planning successful new places. Most of these key principles including functionality, values, partnership and representation, flexibility, connection and financial sustainability (LDA, 2008) have been covered within the framework of this study. The importance of drafting and adhering to these principles cannot be emphasized enough. Sydney had no post-Games plan in place and as a result still suffers from the impacts today. Cashman argues that ‘few Olympic organizers have realized that the post-Games period is equally challenging to the pre-Games period when there are a multitude of budget issues, controversies and refinements to Olympic plans and policies’ (Cashman, 2006). Cashman also finds that ‘legacy is a dynamic force that continues to evolve over the next decade after the staging of an Olympic Games’. He identifies a range of indicators to be tracked, suggesting that legacy needs to mature some years before the full range of impact becomes apparent (LERI, 2007). An article published last year in the British newspaper Telegraph, stated that the media as well as the Sydneysiders still regard the 2000 Olympic Park in Homebush Bay as ‘a world-class, glitzy white elephant’ and ‘Jurassic Park’ (Hodgkinson, 2007). This article on Sydney’s post-Games experience exemplifies the difficulty a city may face when key issues are not addressed in the planning phase of a project. Trying to make large-scale changes in hindsight of the event and without the pre-Games momentum to help advance planning endeavors, may be close to impossible. This would explain recent discussions that surfaced centered on transforming the site of the ‘Green Games’ into ‘a giant racetrack by the end of the year’ (Frew, 2008). As stated in Frew’s article, the Premier Minister is supporting a proposal ‘for a V8 Supercar race to be held at the park once a year for the next five years’ (2008). The SOP authority opposes the proposal for obvious reasons as the showcasing of a motor car race is hardly compatible with the promotion of ‘ecological management, sustainable building design, recycled water use, renewable energy and the hosting of international environmental conferences’ (Frew, 2008).

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 63/89

Sandra Kuehni

64

Temporary and Permanent Venues For every venue within the 2012 London Olympic Park, there are clear plans in place for its future use. Five major sports venues including the Olympic Stadium, the Aquatics Centre, the Handball Arena, Eton Manor and the Velopark as well as the Olympic Village and IBC/MBC are permanent and will be adapted for legacy use. After the Games, the Olympic Village will be transformed into a mixed-use residential neighborhood to provide for affordable housing. The immediate and wider area of the Olympic Village will feature new schools, new utilities and transport infrastructure as well as community and health facilities (OP Design Principles, 2007). Three of the venues will be temporary, namely the Basketball Arena as well as the Hockey and Fencing venues. These facilities will be constructed solely for the 2012 Games and are then dismantled and sometimes relocated to make room for other development opportunities. Thanks to advances in temporary building technology and design, more temporary venues, infrastructure and operational buildings are put up for the London Games than for any other Games ever before. The Olympic Park itself will be converted into an urban public park (OP Design Principles, 2007).

4.2.2.3 DESIGN The five following key themes act as ‘foundation stones’ (UDLF, 2008) to help deliver high quality design in the light of an immovable deadline and cost delivery constraints: (1) Developing a vision for design excellence (2) Defining and measuring good design (3) Creativity through diversity (4) Relevance through inclusion (5) Sustainability The concept of design quality will be sought in every venue. This primary goal for good design is reflected in the following paragraph of the Olympic Park Design Principles: ‘Each venue is uniquely set within the overall park composition to provide an independent identity while also reflecting the coherent design intent of the wider Masterplan. The venues will embrace a combined design approach incorporating the building design with the landscape and front of house areas to ensure integration within the Park’ (2007).
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 64/89

Sandra Kuehni

65

The 2012 London Olympic Park and venue concepts are developed to ensure inclusive design solutions. Sporting venues and supporting facilities as well as the Olympic Village are to be accessible both during and after the Games. With the aim of meeting people’s needs as often as possible, one of the key guiding principles for the Olympic Park is the ease of access to all venues and facilities. The term ‘inclusive design’ is about disabled people’s access requirements but also about inclusivity in terms of management, operation and information for all. One example of how inclusive design is applied concretely is visible in the venues, which are constructed flexibly and adjustable enough to cater to the needs of Olympic and Paralympic athletes. In particular, it is possible to play 5-a-side and 7-a-side football in the Hockey Venue, Goalball in the Handball Arena, and Wheelchair Rugby in the Basketball Arena. In addition, for the first time in Olympic history, a permanent new venue, namely the tennis centre at Eton Manor, will specifically be built for the Paralympic Games (OP Design Principles, 2007). Looking back in history, there are only a few previous Olympic sites, which have resulted in the creation of good urban park landscapes (e.g. Olympia and Munich). London’s approach is comparable to Sydney’s in that it clusters its main venues in an Olympic precinct. The aim of the London Olympic Park is to create one of the largest new urban parks in Europe. In fact, ‘No project of this scale has previously been planned and delivered in Britain in the timescale faced by the ODA’ (UDLF, 2008). Constructing a Park of this magnitude of scale undoubtedly creates a unique set of challenges. The transformation of a brownfield only adds to the complexity of this project. Integration of heritage Since the 1960’s, as Tzanoudaki reports, the Olympic city ‘has been involved in the representation of urban experience, acting as a stimulus for metamorphosis, closely involved into the city’s plans and design proposals. The Postmodern world no longer produces monumental works but becomes open to patterns of older cultures’ (Tzanoudaki, 2002). This design notion is reflected in London’s planning solution for the Olympic Park, which aims at integrating the site’s industrial heritage into the layout and landscape design. ‘Riverside paths, historic bridges and locks, and even parts of the local infrastructure such as huge exposed water mains, will be retained as sculptural elements in the landscape and as reminders of the area’s rich history’ (UDLF, 2008). Specialized terms and expressions that are used within the field of agriculture such as ‘productive landscapes’, ‘food production’ and ‘rotation of land uses’ are introduced in major 2012 London Olympic Park documents. This is done to challenge people’s thoughts and the
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 65/89

Sandra Kuehni

66

ways they think about history and heritage (Frost, Lausanne Summit, 2008). One example of how design is used to respond to the diversity of cultures of the surrounding communities is by concentrating on the two environments, namely the River Valleys and the Upper Plateau of the Olympic Park site. Both areas create two ‘richly contrasting realms’ shaping a ‘two tier landscape with each tier contributing to the realization of the overall site plan’ (UDLF, 2008). This design concept stands metaphorically speaking for the ‘stitching back together of two sides’ (e.g. East and West London) (Frost, Lausanne Summit, 2008). The distinction between the two landscaped ‘tiers’ also helps illuminate the essential character of the site emphasizing the scaring and marks left by the milling and manufacturing industries in the 19th and 20th centuries (LDA, 2008). Flexibility, adaptability, consistency and coherence The design concept and planning model of the Olympic Park also looks at different scenarios how the urban environment around the Park may subsequently develop. Frost illustrated on the basis of the ancient Roman amphitheatre in Italy, how the concepts of adaptability, change and innovation over time can be incorporated into the design (Frost, Lausanne Summit, 2008). More specifically, the image below is a great example of a successful integration of a former Roman amphitheatre into the urban fabric of the Tuscan city Lucca.

50m
FIGURE 31: CITY OF LUCCA WITH ROMAN AMPHITHEATRE (Source: Google maps)

Another way of connecting and fusing design with the parklands is reflected in the ODA’s approach to waste management and the use and reuse of materials. The objective is to reuse or

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 66/89

Sandra Kuehni

67

recycle at least 90 per cent, by weight, of the material from demolition works to be incorporated in the design of venues and parklands (Sustainable Development Strategy, 2007). Another important aspect to consider in terms of designing the Olympic Park is to ensure consistency and coherence for all permanent and temporary Olympic sporting facilities and landscaping features. For this purpose, ‘the ODA design advisors will continue to work with project teams and their contractors through every stage of the design, construction and completion to further aid consistency and coherence to the brief and design aspirations’ (Designing for Legacy, 2008). Aside from consistency, John points to the importance of developing urban regeneration projects and brownfield sites ‘with sensitivity of design, and respect for the urban context’ (John, 2002) as large-scale Olympic structures tend to have a considerable - visual and economic - impact on the surrounding area. 4.2.2.4 TRANSPORT The provision of accessible transport facilities (both during and after the Games) leading to and around the Park needs to take into account the diverse needs of visitors regardless of their age, disability, ethnicity or social grouping. To ensure that the arrival and departure of spectators is dispersed and can occur quickly across the Olympic Park, four spectator pedestrian entrance points are proposed in the Olympic Park (ODA, 2007). Furthermore, three train stations – Stratford Regional Station, Stratford International Station and West Ham Station - have been identified as key access points to the London Olympic Park (Accessible Transport Strategy, 2008). In 2012, the site of the Olympic Park at Stratford will be an extremely well connected public transport centre. It currently has nine separate railways lines that serve the Olympic Park and the tenth, Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL), is being added. Furthermore, the Olympic Javelin able to travel at speeds up to 225km/hr, will link the Olympic Park with King 's Cross/St Pancras to inner-city London in just seven minutes. St Pancras station has become the new international terminal for Eurostar. New buses, new or refurbished tube trains and the extensive Docklands Light Railway have also been provided. The transport infrastructure projects related to the Games are on track to meet the target of having all transport infrastructure completed by mid 2010 (ODA, 2008).
FIGURE 32: 2012 LONDON JAVELIN BULLET TRAINS (Source: http://grossbritannien.ahk.de)

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 67/89

Sandra Kuehni

68

Bovy points out that high average urban density cities are usually linked to a high public transport usage, low transport energy consumption and low to average car ownership and GDP/capita. In comparison, low average urban density cities are linked to high car dependence, high transport energy consumption and high car ownership and GDP/capita (Bovy, 2005). These aspects have a great impact on how transport strategies for a city will have to be developed for hosting the Olympic Games. For instance, London having a dense urban environment with high capacity public transport facilities requires different transport concepts and policies than a city like Sydney being characterized by a low density car-based suburban environment. Bovy states that under Olympic conditions usually ‘venues or venue clusters located in high density urban environments require high capacity transport systems, generally heavy rail (one or more subway and / or suburban rail liens sometimes complemented by light rail) and medium density suburban settings will be served by adequate multi-mode transport access systems using temporary shuttle services to and from high capacity subway or suburban rail stations’ (Bovy, 2002). It is therefore of paramount importance that supplementary transport service planning is operated ‘in relation to the specific attractivity and needs of each venue’ (Bovy, 2002). For London, it is important that the construction of the Olympic Park and subsequent legacy transformation occurs in combination with public transport system developments. More precisely, development capacity, land uses and densities ought to be tested, refined and coordinated with the staged implementation of public transport, infrastructure and community uses. While London pursues more of a long-term approach ‘building on London’s existing transport system and infrastructure and driving a series of transport enhancements to meet transport demand during the Games’ (Transport Plan. move, 2007), Sydney had more of a shortterm traffic management approach concentrating on the reduction of automobile dependence (Bovy, 2002). The aim is to provide 100 per cent spectator accessibility by public transport, or by walking or cycling. Car use is discouraged by not providing car parking for spectators at any venue. In the years before the 2012 Games, existing public transport services, infrastructure and assets are being enhanced and maximized across the UK and London to meet travel demand at Gamestime. Additional temporary as well as future transport access networks are planned to be in place by 2012 (Transport Plan. move, 2007).

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 68/89

Sandra Kuehni

69

The illustration below shows the Olympic and Paralympic route network:

FIGURE 33: OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES ROUTE NETWORK Source: (Transport Plan. move, 2007)

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 69/89

Sandra Kuehni

70

5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
.............................................................................................................................................

5.1 CHALLENGES
City Centre vs. Periphery; Concentration vs. Dispersion Based on lessons from Sydney and according to Rod Sheard it appears that the closer the buildings are to the city centre, the better of a chance they have to meet sustainability criteria (Sheard, 2001). He encouraged the notion of using a circular boulevard instead of a linear one (as was used in Barcelona to some extent, in Sydney and Beijing) as a model for the spatial distribution of the venues and to wrap the people around the buildings rather than the buildings around the people. While this may work for some cities, it may not for others as open spaces of this size in city centres are usually contested and sought-after areas. It is also a question about the minimum amount of land required to hold an Olympic Games. If it is as Sheard (2001) suggests not more than a one-kilometre square area that is needed, a good number of cities may be able to free or reconfigure centralized parcels of land or decontaminate derelict sites. However, the four most recent Olympic Parks were all larger than the recommended one kilometer square, the Sydney Olympic Park being the smallest one (125 ha) and the Beijing Olympic Green the largest one (715 ha). That is not to say the construction of a smaller Olympic Park perimeter is impossible but it rather alludes to the difficulty of providing a model applicable to all cities independent from city location or size. As Sheard points out it starts with questions such as ‘where and how much our sports should take part in our daily lives’ (2001). Answering these kinds of questions will help a city determine which locational solution to choose and if the community and Park visitor will be required to take a train, bus or car first to be able to enjoy and experience the Park’s sporting venues or other events. Urban planning research suggests that an easy accessible Park within walking distance is more likely to be visited. As is pointed out in the Metropolis report, ease of access to the future Olympic Parks will depend ‘as much on the management as on the infrastructures: frequency and regularity of public transport, parking regulation systems and main thoroughfares, zone access controls, information systems in real time, etc’ (Metropolis, 2002). It is essential that successful measures put in place during the Games are continued once the event is over. In the case of Sydney, for instance, the restriction on car use and support of public transport initiatives seems to provide a reasonable solution for the everyday functioning of the city.

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 70/89

Sandra Kuehni

71

There are obvious benefits with regard to a central location and compact Olympic cluster concept. Generally the organization of the Games is facilitated as security at the site is made easier, the venues are better accessible and travelling times are reduced. Also, cultural icons and monuments ‘that symbolize the cultural identity or economic power of the city’ will be televised and seen by many viewers across the world (Metropolis, 2002). Among the risks of a central location are that the functioning of the city during the event is greatly reduced and that ‘white elephant’ facilities are developed, which are so vast that they look empty afterwards and are difficult to integrate into the existing urban fabric. Also, the large number of Olympic sports disciplines makes it almost impossible to concentrate them all on one site. Therefore, the new venues have to be sensibly grouped and regrouped before, during and after the Games ‘according to their suitability for future needs and to act as support for the development of the (individual city) districts’ (Metropolis, 2002). Other constraints of an inner-city location include divided land ownership slowing down acquisition, rehousing of occupants and complex decontamination efforts, oversizing streets, public transport stations and buildings to accommodate the flow of people for maximum capacities during the Games (Metropolis, 2002). From a spatial standpoint, as Beriatos & Gospodini argue, the nucleated concentration of Olympic activities in specific locations (based largely on profit potential) may actually exacerbate differences between various parts of the city because the impact is greater when investment efforts are allocated to one area only (2004). On the contrary, Beriatos & Gospodini argue that ‘concentration or clustering in one area (e.g. a central declined urban area) may intensify positive effects in urban economic regeneration and development and upgrade the city’s image and status in the hierarchies of the global urban system’ (2004). They also stress that the ‘paradigm of clustering competitive landscape transformations in the city appears to gain support and become a success also in the case of large and small cities located at the expanded new economic core or / and the periphery of Europe’ (Beriatos & Gospodini, 2004). Permanent vs. Temporary Consideration of the temporary versus the permanent should take place at the earliest stage. To build adequately sized permanent facilities, it is important to evaluate audience sizes carefully. As London will have three temporary structures, the city is looking at how to best use and relocate them while adhering to IOC compliance policies. In contrast to Sydney, which had one temporary venue that was removed after the Games, London will dismantle and re-assemble some venues at a different location in the Park after the Games. This will lead to a changing relationship between sporting facilities and public realm (ODA, 2008). The use of both
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 71/89

Sandra Kuehni

72

temporary and permanent structures for the 2012 London Olympic Games may make it more difficult to embrace a combined design approach and create an Olympic Park that can be experienced as a unified whole using a consistent architectural language. Temporary structures are increasingly being adopted and Meinel notes that they are a ‘proven means’ to eliminate or reduce pollution, maintenance and maintenance costs to a tolerable level. However, they do not necessarily ‘lighten the owner’s economic and environmental burden in terms of production, erection, dismantling, transport and re-use or disposal’ (Meinel, 2001, May). This is indeed a valuable aspect to consider. A host city may have the impression that costs are reduced through the erection of temporary structures but instead depending on the materials used, the complexity and features of the construction, costs may actually be higher (to erect, dismantle, re-locate, etc.). For example, it is expensive having to build long access ramps, which are impractical for disabled people or scaffolding to create flat surfaces. Also, as mentioned by Mascart (2002), temporary equipment has certain constraints that need to be considered. For instance, it needs a base plate to anchor the structure to the ground. This makes placing two temporary structures next to each other difficult due to drainage issues. Temporary constructions also need to be reinforced against the wind (Mascart, 2002). During the Games, all of the permanent venues will have major temporary components, comparable to the additional components used for the Sydney Stadium and the Aquatic Centre. While Sydney reduced seating from 115’000 to 83’500 after the Games, London will downsize from 80’000 to 25’000 seats, which is quite a drastic transformation and allows for much flexibility with regard to post-Games development. Kornblatt presumes that there will be postGames demand for the London Olympic Park infrastructure since much of the wider regeneration strategy was planned before the Olympic bid (Kornblatt, 2006). In London, it is probably the main Olympic Stadium, which has invited most speculation about how it will be used after the Games. London planners have continued to vacillate about what they will put in place after the 2012 Games (Shirai, 2008). It appears that despite planning for legacy early on, London will need to make some post-Games adjustments that may depart from existing legacy plans. In fact, John Booker considered it as one of the most challenging tasks to design the stadiums, venues, facilities and parklands to be adaptable for legacy usage within the given time restraints (2008).

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 72/89

Sandra Kuehni

73

FIGURE 34: AERIAL IMAGE OF LONDON OLYMPIC STADIUM - 3 APRIL 2007 (Source: http://www.london2012.com/news/image-library/index.php)

FIGURE 35: AERIAL IMAGE OF LONDON OLYMPIC STADIUM - 3 NOVEMBER 2008 (Source: http://www.london2012.com/news/image-library/index.php)

Valueing different Legacies simultaneously (e.g. economic, sustainability and transportation) The question of placing the Olympic Park either in a suburban environment (e.g. in Sydney) or in close proximity to the city centre (e.g. in London) raises further sets of questions. If substantial infrastructure developments are required, questions arise as to who actually benefits from hosting the event and to which extent information is publically available and are costs of hosting the Games revealed. There need to be found a careful balance between event-related facility requirements to meet Olympic needs and longer term use of competition venues to leave a socially and economically viable post-Games legacy. This balance is not always easy to achieve. Usually there is someone losing out in the process while others reap the benefits.

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 73/89

Sandra Kuehni

74

Decision-making processes about urban projects are sometimes strongly influenced by political benefits and interests. Although requiring high investments, anticipated political benefits with new transport infrastructure developments, for example, seem to be favored projects by political parties and governments according to Beriatos & Gospodini (2004) as ‘most of these projects are classified in the category of non-competitive projects’. The approaching deadline of the Games as well as economic and political interests may also be used by some coalitions to overrule planning legislation and participatory planning processes at the cost of local places and social and community needs. Chalkley & Essex suggest that ‘planning for major events, such as the Olympics, sits outside the existing categories of planning and represents a form of policy where the overriding aim must be to find ways of hosting the event which satisfy the international or external dimension while also meeting local needs. Similarly, the peak demands of the event period must be accommodated without a subsequent legacy of redundant or under-used facilities. The boom of the Games must not be followed by a slump of wasteful over-capacity’ (Chalkley & Essex, 1999). Gentrification and spatial polarization The intent of the London legacy transformation landscape design reads as follows: ‘Where the park adjoins new urban development sites the intention is to create a clearly defined boundary with a number of well designed and consistent physical and visual edges’ (UDLF, 2008). ‘The edges of the Park will need to respond and be flexible to the environment both within and outside the Park. It will need to take into account the land use, scale, density and service area requirements both within the Park and in adjoining areas’ (UDLF, 2008). The Olympic Park pre and post-Games transformation and investments will impact the surrounding communities as ‘overall improvements in housing and social infrastructure change the dynamics of the relative value of living in a particular area’ (LERI. Poynter, Gavin, 2006). ‘The housing development will also raise important challenges to ensure that ‘fringe’ localities (such as Hackney Wick) are not ignored and that communities are not divided between the ‘gated’ and those without, or splintered along ‘new’ lines of class, race or ethnicity’ (LERI. Poynter, Gavin, 2006). In other words, the design of Olympic Parks has to do with conflicts of interests and competing environmental and societal values. The social criticism addresses the fact that the benefits of flagships events are not enjoyed by all residents, nor do they represent the values of all residents. For example, the concentration of funding for 2012 in East London may not be available later for other areas/ also within the Thames Gateway programme scope.

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 74/89

Sandra Kuehni

75

Cox et al. (1994) concluded that previous mega-events have had detrimental effects on low income people who are disadvantaged by a localized boom in rent and real estate prices. This may in extreme cases create dislocation and lead to public and private lower-cost housing developments being pushed out of preferred areas as a result of increased land and construction costs (Cox, Darcy, & Bounds, 1994). Often the ones most impacted are also the ones least able to affect policy making and planning procedures surrounding the Games. Connecting Park with outside areas It is essential that Olympic Parks, permanent venues, new homes and building connect well with the surrounding areas. This was something not sufficiently considered in Sydney. For instance, the linkage of pedestrian and cycle paths in the 2000 Sydney Park to the existing bordering communities was neglected. It appears that the London planners are making a conscious effort to plan linking the new parklands with the surrounding communities, roads, bicycle and pedestrian systems and commercial, community, retail, residential and transport nodes. Special emphasis is also placed on the design of Games entrances and gateways to the Olympic Park. ‘They should be accessible to both spectators and other visitors entering the park by all modes of travel, particularly by public transport and by foot’ (UDLF, 2008). Facilitated access to facilities within the Park from various directions will add to the attractiveness of the London Olympic Park and encourage people to use it. The London OP Urban Design and Landscape Framework states the ‘intention is to create a parkland that in legacy is fully integrated with its neighboring new and existing communities’ (ODA, 2008). Planning Legacy use prior to the Games The challenge with defining boundaries of the future parklands prior to the Games is that the interface between open space and built development within the Park will be established and ‘locked’ at an early stage. One possible way of approaching this challenge is to have different groups of people involved in the decision process early on to come up with inclusive and commonly shared design solutions. Also, as noted in the UDLF the Transformation Masterplans and overarching principles are to remain flexible and adaptable for post-Games design changes (2008). According to Frost, Head of Design at the London ODA, the ‘locking-in legacy’ (PPR, 2008, July) is quite challenging as the post-Games design and use of Olympic facilities has to be defined in advance. To deal with consequent changes to the design and complexities of developing a brownfield, the London planners use a range of unique planning tools. For instance, they make use of slot-in slot-out planning, ‘baggy contours’ and technical Fora’s (Booker, 2008).
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 75/89

Sandra Kuehni

76

In order not to preclude later design choices, a wider range of legacy development scenarios have been developed. Also, pre-applications discussion between the developer (ODA) and all stakeholders are conducted openly and at an early stage to address unresolved design issues. Since planning began in 2004, the surrounding areas of the London Olympic Park have been changing both physically and socially. There have been certain displacement effects because of new developments, which have been emerging alongside the Olympic Park. Even though the design approach for the construction of the Olympic Park is aimed to be ‘inclusive’, ‘flexible’ and ‘convenient’ (UDFL, 2008), it is based on certain ‘speculative predictions of the future of the precinct’ (Shirai, 2008). Shirai even raises the question as to whether it is ‘better to define the legacy of the Olympic Park after the Games’ (2008), as Sydney did, thereby allowing more time and possibilities for adaptation with regard to the evolution of the Olympic precinct. Managing and Maintenance of post-Games site Meinel points out the existing ‘interrelationships between design, management and sustainability give the manager an important role in complying more effectively than in the past with the goals set in the Olympic Movement’s Agenda 21’ (Sustainability: Management Issues for the Design, 2001, May). Additionally, it is essential to get the manager involved (Meinel, 2001, May). It is crucial to give enough thought to the period after the Games, to the occupation and use of the facilities and to their operation and maintenance. It needs to be determined what kind of organization will run the Park after the Games and how the transition of one organization to the other is managed. Consideration for long-term operation and management of the Park is vital. This includes a design that can be operated successfully, ‘so that the management team fully understands how the buildings work’ (John, 2002). John suggests to already addressing future management aspects in the design process. Cross-project and cross-area coordination and getting people involved It appears that London is trying very hard to involve all parties including surrounding communities, future facility managers, etc. early in the process. To mention a couple examples of efforts undertaken by the organizing host city: The London Development Agency has launched an interactive ‘Legacy Now’ road show to give the chance to help plan the future of the Olympic Park. Tom Russell, Group Director for Olympic Legacy at the London Development Agency is cited on the LDA
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 76/89

Sandra Kuehni

77

legacy website (LDA, 2008) emphasizing the important role of public consultation as a part of the planning process for the future of the Olympic Park site and the opportunity it provides for people to influence decision-making. Each of the areas framing the Park (Stratford, Hackney, Wick, Leyton, Fish Island, and Bromley by Bow) will develop plans called “Olympic Arc Plans” in conjunction with the Olympic legacy plan to ensure compliance with all plans and avoid conflict. Decision-making structures should be created that will not change and will not alter decisions during the process. This could otherwise affect the build-up and consistency of the process. To guarantee a smooth hand-over from Games-time to legacy team and subsequent co-ordination, transition planning should start sufficiently in advance (John, 2002).

5.2 FINDINGS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
The changes that took place in the material and symbolic fabric of cities alluded to in section 3.2, altered the way cities function today. As Zukin (1998) reports cities are ‘no longer seen as landscapes of production, but as landscapes of consumption’ relating to ‘new patterns of leisure, travel and culture’. These aspects have an impact on how Olympic facilities, in particular Olympic Parks are to be constructed to attract a mobile public. The new emphasis on urban consumption intensifies inter-urban competition among cities which leads to a ‘multiplicity of standardized attractions’ thereby reducing the uniqueness of urban places. ‘In a highly mobile world of tourists, shoppers and gamblers, the newest forms of sociability are inculcated by Las Vegas and Disney World’ (Zukin, 1998). Both metropolitan agglomerations Las Vegas, Nevada and Orlando, Florida are heavily oriented toward consumption and services. Zukin calls them ‘archetypal postmodern urban spaces’ and further writes that the ‘Disney World’s consumption regime creates a safe, clean, public space in which strangers apparently trust each other and just ‘have fun’. Disney World’s accomplishment is that it has universal appeal. Strategies of urban redevelopment based on consumption focus on visual attractions that make people spend money including an array of consumption spaces ranging from restaurants and tourist zones to museums of art and other cultural fields, gambling casinos and sports stadia. The diffusion of modern ‘urban’ lifestyles results in an erosion of ‘historical spatial differences’ (Zukin, 1998) and needs to be considered when developing future Olympic Parks. Munoz conveys that it will remain one of the main challenges for the city, also in the future, to find the equilibrium between success in the global arena and solutions for local social problems. In the Sydney Olympic Park for example, banks, businesses and residential housing is placed alongside
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 77/89

Sandra Kuehni

78

with sports and Olympic ionic venues. Cashman (2006) therefore raises the question as to whether the development of a multi-purpose park dilutes Olympic legacy or simply stands for a pragmatic departure from the original Olympic vision. Cashman argues that a permanent park population adds value to the Olympic precinct by allowing more to access the Park’s sporting and leisure opportunities (Cashman, Interview, 2008). In order to mediate pre and post-Games requirements of Olympic Parks, host cities have chosen between different models. Both Sydney and London have opted for a model where competition venues are clustered in a large-scale Olympic precinct. Although London’s and Sydney’s Park are former brownfields in a socially deprived area that have been earmarked for development at an earlier stage, there are important differences among the two sites. It is important to consider that the Olympic Parks change and evolve over time. Eight years have passed since the 2000 Sydney Games, in which its Olympic Park has changed. It will be crucial to observe how different geographical, topographical and spatial settings, will influence the evolution of the London Olympic Park. Unique natural elements can create a very different environment, scale and sense of place. While Sydney’s Park environment is characterized by large open spaces, the London Olympic Park is intersected by waterways creating two richly contrasting realms. The site in London is therefore limited in terms of size and venue arrangement, yet its character sparks the imagination. For example, the Greater London Plan (Abercombie, 1945) perceived it as an area that provides the ‘opportunity for a great piece of constructive, preservative and regenerative planning’ with the possibility of a ‘green wedge’ serving as a ‘lung’ for the people of London. The proximity to the central urban area with good access and availability to public transit service is expected be a great advantage for the postGames evolution of the 2012 London Olympic Park. The unique spatial geographical features will be used to turn the 2012 London Olympic Park into a typical British urban Park with some permanent sports venues that are surrounded by higher density, mixed-use, walkable and pedestrian scale areas. London’s design concept allows for much flexibility while taking into consideration local specifities. A fine-grained understanding of the dynamics of local conditions is considered essential, in particular in relation with complex long-term transformation and regeneration of brownfields as the London Olympic Park site. In comparison, Sydney pursues a 9 precincts concept, which clearly assigns main event areas, residential areas and parks and recreation uses thereby clearly guiding and controlling where and how development shall take place.

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 78/89

Sandra Kuehni

79

5.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
A number of limitations, some of which have already been mentioned in chapter 1.3 and 2.3, restrict the scope of this study and are therefore discussed here. A more in-depth conclusion could be reached by expanding the scope to analyze more than two Olympic Parks and by conducting site visits. The scale of development of the London Olympic Park is immense including the remediation of an inner-urban brownfield site and the conversion of large Olympic facility clusters to a functioning new inner urban district shortly after the Games. In fact, no previous construction and regeneration project of this scale has been planned and implemented in Europe within such a tight time schedule. With more than 100 construction companies simultaneously working in all domains, unique sets of challenges and risks arise with regard to the design, planning and construction process. This is almost impossible to truly comprehend without actually having seen the build-up and evolution of the site before, during and after the Games. On this note, the research results remain on a rather theoretical and academic level. Furthermore, the planning and design of Olympic Parks may be affected by external and sometimes uncontrollable circumstances, which make assumptions and predictions of outcomes more difficult.

5.4 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Ritchie (2000) talks about the need to strategically ‘embed’ an event in the broader processes of city development. Planning post-Games transformation before the event is staged is important but Faber Maunsell (2004, April) takes it even one step further by suggesting that both ‘commitment and funding for legacy need to be in place when planning the event’. Unfortunately, London is facing difficulties to secure funding due to the economic downturn of the financial markets. The British Telegraph noted at the beginning of October 2008: ‘Not only has the credit market dried up but the appeal of taking a stake in a project predicated on the projected value of housing stock four years down the line has diminished sharply’ (Kelso, 2008). Due to the immovable deadline of the Olympic Games, a developer is forced to act whereas under normal circumstances he could buy the land and then hold off with construction work until the economic clouds lift (Kelso, 2008). Despite the significant challenges London is facing, the 2012 Games will hopefully still provide an opportunity to address socio-economic urban development issues. The credit crunch may also ‘have a silver lining for hard-pressed organizers of the London 2012 Olympics, who can now scale back their grand designs’ (The Global Edition of The New York Times, 2008) as the public and the IOC lower their expectations for 2012.
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 79/89

Sandra Kuehni

80

Bovy refers to study findings, which show that by drastically re-organizing and optimizing many functional and logistical areas, the overall dimension of the Olympic Games could be accomplished ‘without hurting the Games notoriety’ (Bovy, 2002). It appears that measures implemented by the IOC since the 2000 Sydney Games, in particular TOK (Transfer of Knowledge program initiated about one year before the Sydney Games) and OGGI will most certainly help deliver and better assess the legacy of the Games by monitoring from the bidding process up to two years after Games delivery. Hopefully this will contribute to the planning and design of socially, economically and environmentally viable Olympic Parks that allow staging great Games while maximizing the positive and reducing the negative impacts on the host city environment.
Figure 36

shows a parking lot in front of the M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore, USA, a country

where the act of tailgating is practiced. Tailgating is defined as ‘the act of partying or picnicking around a vehicle in a car park prior to the start of a sporting event’ (Jamd, 2007). The description on the website below the picture reads: ‘What started as a small pre-game picnic held out of the back of a pickup truck has now evolved into a multibillion-dollar business, with participant numbers estimated at over 50 million over the course of a season. The tailgating industry has taken off, with thousands of websites devoted to tailgating, a magazine, a convention and even its own trade association. Specialized tailgating equipment such as trailers fully equipped with everything from full bar facilities, specially designed cooking areas, flat screen TV’s, toilets, satellite dishes and generators have also been introduced. Tailgating has become as much of a sport as the football games it was born around’ (Jamd, 2007). If future Olympic Games are increasingly used to create Olympic Parks that can afterwards be transformed into transit and
FIGURE 36: TAILGATING NATION Source: www.jamd.com

pedestrian-friendly communities and if the 100% spectator accessibility by public transport during

the Games leads to lasting behavior changes bolstering people’s transit use, the practice of tailgating may at some point in the future become a relic of the past.

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 80/89

Sandra Kuehni

81

6 REFERENCES
.............................................................................................................................................
2004 Olympic Summer Games venues in Athens. (2004-2008). Retrieved 2008, from Athens Info Guide: http://www.athensinfoguide.com/olympicvenues.htm#11 Abercombie, P. (1945). Greater London Plan 1944. Adconmac. (2000, October 29). Australia, New South Wales, Sydney. Retrieved October 2008, from Olympic Park: http://www.adconmac.com/olympicpark.htm Andranovich, G., Burbank, M. J., & Heying, C. H. (2001). Olympic Cities: Lessons Learned from MegaEvent Politics. Journal of Urban Affairs, Volume 23, No. 2 , pp. 113-131. ARUP. (2008). Beijing National Stadium, Olympic Green. Retrieved 2008, from ARUP. East Asia: http://www.arup.com/eastasia/project.cfm?pageid=2184 Australian Financial Review. (2001, August). Balderstone, S. (2001, May). Olympic Games and Architecture. The Future for Host Cities. Agenda 21 and IOC Requirements (pp. 61-66). Lausanne: International Conference: Lausanne: International Olympic Committee and International Union of Architects. Bampton, R., & Cowton, C. J. (2002, May). FQS: The E-Interview. Volume 3, No. 2. Retrieved 2008, from Forum: Qualitative Social Research: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/index Barcelona City Council. (1995). Ajuntament de Barcelona - Tourism. Retrieved October 2008, from Olympic Barcelona: http://www.bcn.es/turisme/english/turisme/ Beijing Municipal Committee of Communications. (2008). Beijing Olympic Transportation Website. Retrieved from Beijing 2008. One World One Dream: http://2008.bjjtw.gov.cn/English/Olympic/ Beriatos, E., & Gospodini, A. (2004). 'Glocalising ' urban landscapes: Athens and the 2004 Olympics. Cities, Vol. 21, No. 3 , pp. 187-202. BOCOG. (2008, August 8-24). The Official Website of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. Retrieved October 2008, from Olympic Venues: http://en.beijing2008.cn Booker, J. (2008, October 06). ODA. Botella, M. (1995). The Keys to success of the Barcelona Games. In M. De Moragas, & M. Botella, The Keys of success: the social, sporting, economic and communications impact of Barcelona '92 (pp. 18-42). Barcelona: Servei de Publicacions de la UAB. Bovy, P. (2008, August). (S. Kühni, Interviewer) Bovy, P. (2004, Juli/August). Athens 2004 Olympic Games Transport. Strasse und Verkehr, Nr. 7-8 , pp. 45-48. Bovy, P. (2008, March). Des transports pour les Jeux Olympiques de Beijing 2008. Revue SIA-TRACES, No 05/08 .
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 81/89

Sandra Kuehni

LXXXII

Bovy, P. (2001). Exceptional Mobility Management for Large Events: Transport Issues for the Sydney 2000 Olympics. London: UITP. Bovy, P. (2002). Round Table 122. Transport and Exceptional Public Events. Paris: ECMT-OECD. Bovy, P. (2006). Solving outstanding mega-event transport challenges: the Olympic experience. Public Transport International , pp. 32-34. Bovy, P. (2008). Transport and mobility for mega-events: the Olympic Games. AISTS Lecture, Lausanne. Bovy, P. (2005, June). Transport and Sustainability in Europe. Retrieved from http://mobility-bovy.ch: http://mobility-bovy.ch Bovy, P. (2008, Juin). Transports en Chine et transports olympiques pour Pékin 2008. Route et trafic No 6 , pp. 28-32. Bovy, P. (2009, January). www.mobility-bovy.ch. Summer Olympic Games 2000 to 2012: transportation facts and figures. Retrieved from Conferences and Recent Publications. Bovy, P. (2004, June). www.mobility-bovy.ch. World mega-event global transport and traffic management. Retrieved 2008, from www.mobility-bovy.ch Cashman, R. (2008, August 26). Interview. Cashman, R. (2006). The Bitter-Sweet Awakening: The Legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Sydney: Walla Walla Press. Cashman, R., & Hughes, A. (1999). Staging the Olympics: The Event and Its Impact. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. Chalkley, B., & Essex, S. (1999, October 01). Urban development through hosting international events: a history of the Olympic Games. Planning Perspectives, 14:4 , pp. 369 - 394. Chappelet, J.-L. (2000). www.olympic.org. Sydney 2000. www.olympic.org/upload/news/olympic_review/review_200219125546_UK.pdf COOB. (1992). Olympic Games Official Report. Retrieved http://www.olympic-museum.de/o-reports/report1992.htm Coubertin, P. d. (2000). Olympism: selected writings. Lausanne, IOC. Cox, G. (1996). Showing off or showing up the city? The social impacts of major events. 16th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment. Portugal. Cox, G., Darcy, M., & Bounds, M. (1994). The Olympics and Housing: A Study of Six International Events and Analysisi of Potential Impacts of the Sydney 2000 Olympics. In S. N. Group. University of Western Sydney. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Sage Publications; 3rd ed. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed. (pp. 1-26). Thousand Oakes: Sage Publications. 2008, from Retrieved from

1992

Barcelona:

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 82/89

Sandra Kuehni

83

Essex, S., & Chalkley, B. (1998, September 01). Olympic Games: catalyst of urban change. Leisure Studies , pp. 187-206. Essex, S., & Chalkley, B. (2003). Urban transformation from hosting the Olympic Games: University lecture on the Olympics. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from Barcelona: Centre d 'Estudis Olimpics (UAB): http://olympicstudies.uab.es/lectures/web/pdf/essex.pdf Faber Maunsell. (2004, April). NWDA. Commonwealth Games Benefits Study. Final Report. Warrington: Holly House. Frew, W. (2008). V8s get green light for Olympic Park. Urban Affairs . Frost, J. (2008, October 10). Head of Design, London Olympic Delivery Authority. (S. Kuehni, Interviewer) Frost, J. (2008). Lausanne Summit. Urban & Environmental Sustainability. Lausanne. Furrer, P. (2002). Sustainable Olympic Games: A dream or a reality? . Bollettino della Società Geografica Italiana, Serie XII, Volume 7. Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2004). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Gold, J. R., & Gold, M. M. (2008). Olympic Cities: Regeneration, City Rebranding and Changing Urban Agendas. Geography Compass 2/1 , pp. 300-318. Gospodini, A., & Beriatos, E. (2004). "Glocalising" urban landscapes: Athens and the 2004 olympics. Cities, Vol. 21, No. 3 , pp. 187-202. Gratton, C., & Tice, A. (1994, January 1). Trends in sports participation in Britain: 1977-1987. Leisure Studies, Volume 13, Issue 1 , pp. 49-66. Gratton, C., Dobson, N., & Shibli, S. (2000, January 1). The economic importance of major sports events: a case-study of six events. Managing Leisure, Volume 5, Number 1 , pp. 17-28 (12). Gratton, C., Shibli, S., & Coleman, R. (2005, May). Sport and economic regeneration in cities. Urban Studies, Volume 42, Issue 5&6 , pp. 985-999. Hodgkinson, M. (2007). London 2012 must learn from the £1bn Sydney hangover. Telegraph . Holloway, G. (2001, July). After the party, Sydney 's Olympic blues. CNN . Huang, Y. (2002). Planning for Beijing 2008 Olympic Games: Opportunities and Challenges. In IOC, International Conference. Architecture and International Sporting Events. Future planning and development (pp. 47-53). Lausanne. Hussey, J., & Hussey, R. (1997). Business Research. New York: Palgrave. IDAS. Informationsdienst Architektur und Stadtentwicklung. (2008). Goethe-Institut. Retrieved November 2008, from Olympia. Stadtgeschichte und Olympische Spiele in Peking. IOC. (2004, May). 2012 Candidature Procedure and Questionnaire. Retrieved 2008, from Official website of the Olympic Movement: http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_810.pdf

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 83/89

Sandra Kuehni

LXXXIV

IOC. (2002, June ). International Conference Lausanne. Architecture and International Sporting Events. Future Planning and Development, (pp. 1-153). Lausanne. IOC. (2008). Olympic Games. Retrieved November 2008, from The Official Website of the Olympic Movement: www.olympic.org/uk IOC. (2006, June). Olympic Review. Retrieved October 2008, from What is the Olympic Games Global Impact Study? Official Publication of the Olympic Movement: http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1077.pdf Jamd. (2007). Tailgating Nation. Retrieved 2008, from http://www.jamd.com/image/g/79294444 John, G. (2002). The Impact of the Olympic Games on the Urban Planning Policy of the City. In IOC, The Legacy of the Olympic Games 1984-2000. International Symposium (pp. 69-73). Lausanne. Kelso, P. (2008, November 25). London 2012 Olympics overshadowed by financial crises. Telegraph . Kelso, P. (2008, October 01). London 2012: Tough times loom after good start for Olympic Games. Telegraph . Kornblatt, T. (2006, December). Setting the bar - preparing for London 's Olympic legacy. Retrieved October 2008, from Centre for Cities: http://www.centreforcities.org/ LDA. (2008). Londoners get involved in planning their Olympic Park after 2012. Retrieved from http://www.lda.gov.uk/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.2650 LDA. (2008). Olympic Legacy. Retrieved from Places and Infrastructure: http://www.lda.gov.uk LDA. (2008). Shaping the Olympic Park Legacy. Retrieved November 2008, from LDA: http://www.lda.gov.uk/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.2501 LDA. (2008). Shaping the Olympic Park Legacy. Pages 8 to 17. Retrieved 2008, from LDA: http://www.lda.gov.uk/upload/pdf/Shaping_the_Olympic_Park_Legacy_p8-17.pdf Lenskyj, H. J. (2002). The Best Olympics Ever? Social Impacts of Sydney 2000. SUNY Press. LERI. (2007). A Lasting Legacy for London? London East Research Institute. LERI. Poynter, Gavin. (2006, March). From Beijing to Bow Creek. Working Papers in Urban Studies , pp. 135. Liao, H., & Pitts, A. C. (2004). Olympic development and "compact city" transformation. PLEA 2004, 21st Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, (pp. 1-6). Eindhoven, the Netherlands. Lochhead, H. (2005). A new vision for Sydney Olympic Park. Urban Design International 10 , pp. 215-222. London Business School, Michael Payne. (2008, Summer ). How the Olympics struck Gold. Business Strategy Review: Special report - The Olympics business . London Business School, Michael Payne. (2005, Spring). Reinventing the Rings. Business Strategy Review . London Development Agency. (2008). http://www.lda.gov.uk/server.php?show=nav.001
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

LDA.

Retrieved

2008,

from

Page 84/89

Sandra Kuehni

85

London East Research Institute. (2007). A Lasting Legacy for London? London Assembly. Mascart, B. (2002). The Use of Temporary Equipment. In I. International Conference, Architecture and International Sporting Events (pp. 85-89). Lausanne: IOC / UIA. Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken, 5th ed. Weinheim: Beltz-Verlag. McGraw-Hill Companies. (2006). Architectural Record_China. Retrieved 2008, from Green Design. Beijing Olympic Green by Diana Lind. McLatchey, C., & Adby, R. (2002). Sydney Experience and After Use. In IOC, International Conference. Architecture and International Sporting Events. Future planning and development (pp. 39-44). Lausanne. Meinel, K. (2001, May). International Conference Lausanne. Olympic Games and Architecture - The Future for Host Cities. Sustainability: Management Issues for the Design. IOC / IUA. Meinel, K. (2001, May). Sustainability: Management Issues for the Design. In I. C. IOC, Olympic Games and Architecture - The Future for Host Cities. IOC / IUA. Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2002). Expertinneninterviews - vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. Ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz, Das Experteninterview. Theorie, Methode, Anwendung. (pp. 71-93). Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Millet, L. (1997). Olympic Villages after the Games. In M. De Moragas, M. Llinés, & B. Kidd, Olympic Villages: A Hundred Years of Urban Planning and Shared Experiences: International Symposium on Olympic Villages (pp. 123-129). Lausanne: International Olympic Committee. Muñoz, F. (2006). Olympic urbanism and Olympic Villages: planning strategies in Olympic host cities, London 1908 to London 2012. Sociological Review , pp. 175-186. NOSTOS Hellenic Information Society (UK). (2000). Brief History of the Olympic Games. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from www.nostos.com/olympics OAKA Spyros Louis. (2004). Retrieved http://www.stadiumguide.com/spyroslouis.htm 2008, from The Stadium Guide:

ODA. (2008, May). Accessible Transport http://www.london2012.com/news/publications/transport.php

Strategy.

Retrieved

from

ODA. (2008). Designing for Legacy. Retrieved from The official site of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Publications: http://www.london2012.com/news/publications/index.php ODA. (2007). Guide to the Olympic, Paralympic & Legacy Transformation Planning Applications and Olympic Village (part) and Legacy Residential Planning Application. ODA. (2008). Olympic Park. Legacy. Retrieved from The official site of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games: http://www.london2012.com/plans/olympic-park/legacy/index.php ODA. (2007). OP Design Principles. Retrieved August 2008, from Publications. Design Principles for the Olympic Park.: The official site of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. http://www.london2012.com

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 85/89

Sandra Kuehni

LXXXVI

ODA. (2008, July). PPR. In Parklands and Public Realm - Scope and Programme. ODA. (2008). Sports & Venues. Retrieved from http://www.london2012.com/sports-and-venues.php ODA. (2007, January). Sustainable Development Strategy. p. 19. ODA. (2006, June). The Olympic Park Masterplan. Retrieved from www.london2012.com ODA. (2007, October). www.london2012.com Transport Plan. move. Retrieved from Publications Transport:

ODA. (2008, November). Transport Update, Issue 3. Retrieved from www.2012london.com ODA. (2008, March 26). UDLF. Retrieved 2008, from Publications. Urban Design and Landscape Framework: The official site of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. http://www.london2012.com ODPM. (2008). Thames Gateway and the Olympics. Retrieved from Communities and Local Government: http://www.communities.gov.uk/thamesgateway Olympiapark Muenchen GmbH. (n.d.). Der Olympiapark. Retrieved 2008, from Official website, Olympiapark Muenchen 1972: http://www.olympiapark-muenchen.de/index.php Payne, M. (2005). Olympic Turnaround: How the Olympic Games Stepped Back from the Brink of Extinction to Become the World 's Best Known Brand - and a Multi Billion Dollar Global Franchise. London Businesss Press. Pound, R. W. (2003, July). Documents. Report to the 115th IOC Session. Prague. Retrieved 2008, from IOC Commissions. Olympic Games Study: http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_725.pdf Preuss, H. (2007, August 01). The Conceptualisation and Measurement of Mega Sport Event Legacies. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12:3 , pp. 207-228. Preuss, H. (2004). The Economics of Staging the Olympics. A Comparison of the Games 1972-2008. Cheltenham Glos: Edward Elgar Publishing. Rapid Intelligence. (2003-2008). NationMaster http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2008, from

Riley, M. (2000). Researching and writing dissertations in business and management. London: Thomson Learning. Ritchie, J. (2000). Turning 16 days into 16 years through Olympic legacies. Event Management, 6 (3) , pp. 155-165. Robson, C. (2002). Real World Researchm 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Saunders, M. N., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business students, 3rd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education. Searle, G. (2002, Vol. 10, No. 7). Uncertain Legacy: Sydney 's Olympic Stadiums. European Planning Studies , pp. 845-860.

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 86/89

Sandra Kuehni

87

Sheard, R. (2001). Olympic Stadia and the Future. In IOC, International Conference. Olympic Games and Architecture. The Future for Host Cities. Lausanne: 43-47. Shirai, H. (2008). Planning the London Olympic Park as a Global and Local Place: A Comparative Analysis with Sydney Olympic Park. Mega Event Cities Conference 2008. Sydney. SOPA. (2002). Master Plan 2002. Retrieved 2008, from Developing Sydney Olympic Park: http://www.sydneyolympicpark.com.au/developing_sydney_olympic_park/the_vision/master_plan_20 02/master_plan_2002 SOPA. (2008). Master Plan 2030. Retrieved October 2008, from Developing Sydney Olympic Park: http://www.sydneyolympicpark.com.au/developing_sydney_olympic_park Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. (2001). Sydney Marketing Review. Retrieved October 2008, from http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_249.pdf Sydney 2000. (2000). Olympic Information. Taverner Research. (2006). Research & Publications. Retrieved October 2008, from Sydney Parks Group: http://sydneyparksgroup.net.au/research/ Taylor, M., & Edmondson, I. (2007). Major sporting events - planning for legacy. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers , pp. 172-176. Thames Gateway. (2007, November 29). Thames Gateway Delivery Plan . Retrieved from Thames Gateway and the Olympics: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/thamesgateway/deliveryplan The Global Edition of The New York Times. (2008, October 16). Olympics. Credit crunch lowers expectations for 2012. Tzanoudaki, S. (2002). The Modern Olympic City: The Passage from Modernism to Post-modernism in Olympic Design. In IOC, The Legacy of the Olympic Games 1984-2000. International Symposium (pp. 127132). Lausanne. Vallejo, J. (2008, July). Frank Sartor 's big plan for Sydney Olympic Park. The Daily Telegraph . Waitt, G. (1999, June 01). Playing Games with Sydney: Marketing Sydney for the 2000 Olympics. Urban Studies, 36:7 , pp. 1055-1077. Waitt, G. (2001). The Olympic spirit and civic boosterism: the Sydney 2000 Olympics. Tourism Geographies, 3(3) , pp. 249-278. Weiman, J., & Kruger, S. (2001). Research methodology: for the business and administrative sciences, 2nd ed. Southern Africa, Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Wikipedia. (2008, November 20). Olympiapark München. Retrieved 2008, from Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympiapark_(M%C3%BCnchen) Wilson, A. (2003). Marketing research: An integrated approach. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. World Association of the Major Metropolises. (2002, May 27-31). Metropolis. Retrieved 2008, from Comissions 1999-2002. C1 The impact of major events on the development of large cities : http://www.metropolis.org
MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project Page 87/89

Sandra Kuehni

LXXXVIII

Yin, R. (2003). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications. Zukin, S. (1998). Urban Lifestyles: Diversity and Standardisation in Spaces of Consumption. Urban Studies, Vol. 35, Nos. 5-6 , pp. 825-839.

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 88/89

Sandra Kuehni

89

APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1: NINE PRECINCTS FOR SYDNEY OLYMPIC PARK

MSA 2008 – AISTS - Personal Project

Page 89/89

References: 11 (Coubertin, 2000)