Olympic zone – global or local

Posted on November 3, 2008 by isjah

When it comes to the construction of the new Olympic zone in the Stratford area of London, there are two main issues concerning the committee’s decision of how, where and what to build I want to highlight. These two issues are on the one hand the global community and the statement the city of London wants to make internationally, and on the other hand the local community and the problem of approval.
Extraordinary works of architecture are constructed all over the world to show the power, glamour and economic value of a nation. A good example for this is the Burj Al Arab in Dubai. The reputation that the city of Dubai has nowadays, basically started with the construction of its famous Hotel. Olympic stadiums, like so many other big prestigious construction sites in the world, have now become subject to this trend as well, as the example of the stadium in Beijing shows. (Halbertsma, 2004). Maybe London will not really need the stadium anymore once the Olympics are over, but its prestige are worth a consideration and in the end it comes down to the fact that sometimes you just have to make a choice.
The problem the British government now faces, due to the upcoming Olympic games in 2012, are that it has to make choices between the importance and consequences on the international market and the local inhabitants, their approval and the usability of the Olympic zone after the Olympic games. According to the problems we also discussed during our walk pass the construction site of the Olympic zone on Friday the 24the of September, I would have to state that the government seemed to have failed partially in involving the local population enough. The decision makers should have gone in discussion with the local community more, and should have given them the possibility to express their wishes (for example which buildings they want to have preserved). Connected to this is also the existence of the blue Olympic fence that divides the construction site of the zone from the rest of the world. This particular fence gives the feeling of being locked out to every one passing by. Nobody can see what is happening and how things are changing. Personally I experienced this as very negative.
Furthermore the local businesses should be given the possibility of advertising their goods ad services.  This way the ‘Olympic tourists’ could feel that they actually are in London during the games, and not just in any random city. One can argue that local businesses will profit from the construction of the Olympic zone anyway even if they are not given the possibility of advertising on the site. In the long run though, the short-term benefits of increasing profits due to the higher demand experienced during the games may disappear in the long run because of impossibility of advertising during the games. Local businesses would otherwise have the chance of reaching a bigger clientele that might be loyal to them even after the Olympic spectacle is long gone.
Another possibility would have been to spend more money on existing businesses in Stratford instead of building a complete new town centre. In this way local businesses could have been given the opportunity to upgrade their appearance. Connected to the previous point I made, local businesses that are not given the possibility of advertising and building up new costumer relations will also have to compete with a shining new shopping mall.
Another guideline that comes to my mind is the possibility of designing the athlete’s village different than it is currently done. Instead of building 2600 luxury apartments, that might not be sold due to the upcoming recession anyway, the government could have decided to construct cheaper housings that can be used as student houses or cheap rental options for young families or starters. Bringing students and young families to Stratford might also have a positive influence on the reputation of the area.
Instead of demolishing all the old sites in Stratford (like the old lumber mill on the channel) the government could have chosen to integrate old sites to the new site. This has been done quiet some times in The Netherlands, and the result was that most of the communities were more satisfied because their old environment has not changed completely all over sudden. Old buildings that are fitted into a new site additionally give a very nice flair to the area and might cause tourists to come and visit the area more regularly.
Another possibility would be to create a more ‘natural’ space. The planning of the Olympic zone looks rather destructive. Cleaning up the area, also the radioactive waste found in the area, and setting an example of environmental friendly Olympics would have made a very positive statement that leading nations should certainly give.
The problem the government is facing though in the end, is the difficult task of finding a middle way between involvement of the local community, affordability of projects, needs for the international sports community and economic feasibility and value of the constructed site after the games are over.  As mentioned before, it all comes down to the choices the government has to make, and giving suggestions on how things could have been handled better just emphasises the difficulties of conducting a well balanced cost-benefit-analysis.