Principles of Sustainable Urban Development in the Bidding Process for Olympic Games

MA-Thesis / Master von Gregor Wiltschko

Introduction:

‘The more you know about the Olympics, the less it is about sport’.

(Bob Perry, Design director of Olympic Projects at Scott Carver Pty. Ltd, http://www.infolink.com.au).

The Olympic Games as a mega sports event attracts millions of people from all over the world. New records, fascinating performances, scandals or gigantic celebrations are just some of the attractions provided by this event. One attraction for urban planners is the fact that the Games imply opportunities to promote urban development.

From an urban planning perspective, the Olympic Summer Games in Barcelona 1992 set a new standard in defining success of an event of this scale. The city used the Games to promote urban development and planning strategies, profiting from the event in a long-term perspective. Furthermore, the city took another opportunity to find again a place on the ‘global map” through the Olympic Games. The case of Barcelona is one of the mostly cited successful urban development initiatives connected with a mega sports event.

Olympic Cities have taken the opportunity to promote urban development with the event very differently in the history of the Olympics. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) as the event-owner sets some requirements giving only a few cities the right to stage the event. These requirements are checked in the bidding process ending with the decision which city succeeds in getting the right of staging the event.

Integrating the success of an Olympic City in terms of urban development and in terms of the bidding process, the main question from an urban planning perspective is:

What is the relevance of Urban Development in the Bidding Process for Olympic Games?

To answer the definition of the city’s success in terms of urban development and the Olympic Games bidding process, it is helpful to investigate the role of Olympic Infrastructure with a view towards urban sustainability. As such, it is believed that respecting specific planning principles in the bidding process can help to (1) ensure sustainable urban development and (2) enhance the quality of the bid.

- The first aspect is relevant for the success of the city in terms of urban development to benefit from the Games in a long time perspective.

- The second aspect is relevant for the city’s success in the bidding process to acquire the right for staging the Games.

The aim of this thesis is to examine how the quality of the bid may respond to principles of sustainable urban development. Two main objectives are identified to reach the aim:

1. Identifying opportunities and threats connected to Olympic Infrastructure in the history of the Olympics in order to formulate six main principles of sustainable urban development for the Olympic Games.

2. Analyzing official bidding documents of the IOC connected with these principles in order to understand how sustainable urban development can be considered in the bidding process.

The thesis will conclude with recommendations which can be realized in the bidding process striving to ensure the defined success for the city.

Abstract:

This thesis is structured in four major parts.

Part I consists of chapter 2 and 3 and includes the theoretical framework and methodology of the thesis. Chapter 2 describes the character of mega-events and mega sports events in specific. Based on a concept of sustainable urban development, it will place mega sports events in the context of such a development, forming a theoretical approach for the thesis. Chapter 3 presents the methodology used.

Part II consists of chapter 4 and 5 and provides an overall understanding of the Olympic Games in the context of urban development. Chapter 4 gives an overview of the characteristics of the Olympic Games in order to understand the event and its background. Chapter 5 examines the relationship between urban development and the Olympic Games. A model will be presented in order to define ‘Olympic Urban Development” for the following sections of the chapter. The chapter will then continue with an historical overview of Olympic Urban Development and present the decisions determining the scale of development. Finally, chapter 5 concludes with the summary of opportunities and threats identified in a literature review of the Olympic Games. The research questions of Part II can be defined as follows:

- What are the significant characteristics of the Olympics in terms of mega-event factors?

- How can Olympic Urban Development be defined and modelled?

- Which are the opportunities and threats for the built, natural, economic and social environment related to Olympic Urban Infrastructure?

An intermediate result re-structures the identified opportunities and threats putting them in connection with the concepts presented in the theoretical part. Chapter 6 will conclude with a definition of six principles of sustainable urban development for planning the Olympic Games. The research question leading to the intermediate result can be defined as follows:

- Which kind of principles may respond to a sustainable Olympic Urban Development?

The second part ends with Chapter 7 in which relevant IOC documents about sustainable urban development will be presented.

Part III sets the bidding process in connection with sustainable urban development. Chapter 8 provides relevant information to understand the bidding process, its different phases and the selection procedure. Chapter 9 finally analyses the official bidding documents of the IOC for the defined principles of sustainable urban development. Summaries and recommendations will introduce the main findings for each principle and respond to three main research questions:

- Which parts in the bidding documents deal with the principle?

- How relevant is the principle in the evaluation of the bid?

- Which strategies support the quality of the bid and contribute to meet the objectives of the principle?

Part IV includes the conclusion of the thesis and summarizes the main findings of the analysis.

Table of Contents:

	Preface	0
	Index	1
	List of Figures and Tables	4
1.	INTRODUCTION	5
1.1	Aim and purpose of the thesis	5
1.2	Structure of the thesis	6
	PART I: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY
2.	THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK	9
2.1	Mega Events	9
2.2	Factors of mega-events	11
2.3	Mega Sports Events	12
2.3.1	Phases of Mega Sports Events	13
2.3.2	Bidding	14
2.3.3	Impacts of Mega Sports Events	14
2.4	Physical Impact: Mega sports event Infrastructure	18
2.5	Sustainable Urban Development	20
2.6	Sustainable Urban Development in the context of a mega sports event	22
2.7	Definitions and Limitations	23
3.	METHODOLOGY	25
	PART II: UNDERSTANDING THE OLYMPIC GAMES IN THE CONTEXT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
4.	Olympic Games Characteristics	29
4.1	History of the Olympic Games	29
4.2	The Olympic Movement	30
4.3	Olympic Games Factors	31
4.4	Olympic Games Phases	35
5.	Olympic Urban Development	37
5.1	Definition	37
5.1.1	Olympic Infrastructure	38
5.1.2	Urban Infrastructure	38
5.1.3	Modelling an Olympic City	40
5.2	History of Olympic Urban Development	42
5.3	Decisions determining Olympic Urban Development	47
5.3.1	Local distribution of Olympic Infrastructure	48
5.3.2	Funding Model	50
5.3.3	Expenditure on Olympic Infrastructure	51
5.3.4	Use of existing Olympic Infrastructure	53
5.4	Opportunities and Threats	54
5.4.1	Built environment	54
5.4.2	Natural Environment	57
5.4.3	Economic Environment	60
5.4.4	Social Environment	61
5.4.5	Summary	64
6.	Intermediate Result: Defining Principles of Sustainable Urban Development for Planning Olympic Infrastructure	66
6.1	Principles	66
6.2	Objectives	68
7.	Relevant IOC Documents on Sustainable Urban Development	70
7.1	Olympic Charter	70
7.2	Olympic Agenda 21	70
7.3	IOC Manual on Sports and the Environment	72
7.4	Olympic Games Study Commission	73
	PART III: THE BIDDING PROCESS IN THE CONTEXT OF SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
8.	Olympic Games Bidding Process	74
8.1	History of the Olympic Games Bidding Process	74
8.2	The process	78
8.2.1	Phase 1: Candidature Acceptance Procedure (CAP)	78
8.2.2	Evaluation of the Working Group Report	79
8.2.3	Phase 2: Candidature Procedure	83
8.3	Selection of the Host City	85
8.3.1	Election Procedure	85
8.3.2	Decision Making in the Electing Procedure for a host city	86
8.4	Summary	88
9.	Analysing Principles of Sustainable Urban Development in the Bidding Process	90
9.1	Principle 1: Integrate Olympic Infrastructure in urban development plans	92
9.1.1	Phase 1: Candidature Acceptance Procedure	92
9.1.2	Evaluation in the Working Group Report	92
9.1.3	Phase 2: Candidature Procedure	94
9.1.4	Summary	95
9.1.5	Recommendations	96
9.2	Principle 2: Ensure Post-Event Use for Olympic Infrastructure	97
9.2.1	Phase 1: Candidature Acceptance Procedure	97
9.2.2	Evaluation in the Working Group Report	98
9.2.3	Phase 2: Candidature Procedure	99
9.2.4	Summary	100
9.2.5	Recommendations	101
9.3	Principle 3: Maximise the use of existing infrastructure by respecting the city’s budget	104
9.3.1	Phase 1: Candidature Acceptance Procedure	104
9.3.2	Evaluation in the Working Group Report	105
9.3.3	Phase 2: Candidature Procedure	107
9.3.4	Summary	107
9.3.5	Recommendations	108
9.4	Principle 4: Ensure environmental standards for Olympic Infrastructure and accessibility to environmental goods	109
9.4.1	Phase 1: Candidature Acceptance Procedure	109
9.4.2	Evaluation in the Working Group Report	109
9.4.3	Phase 2: Candidature Procedure	111
9.4.4	Summary	112
9.4.5	Recommendations	113
9.5	Principle 5: Integration of citizens in the planning process of Olympic Infrastructure	114
9.5.1	Phase 1: Candidature Acceptance Procedure	114
9.5.2	Evaluation in the Working Group Report	114
9.5.3	Phase 2: Candidature Procedure	115
9.5.4	Summary	116
9.5.5	Recommendations	117
9.6	Principle 6: Stimulate improvement of Urban Infrastructure through Olympic Infrastructure	118
9.6.1	Phase 1: Candidature Acceptance Procedure	118
9.6.2	Evaluation in the Working Group Report	119
9.6.3	Phase 2: Candidature Procedure	120
9.6.4	Summary	121
9.6.5	Recommendations	122
	PART IV: CONCLUSION	126
10.	Conclusion	126
10.1	Conclusion of the analysis	126
10.1.1	Relevance of Sustainable Urban Development in the Bidding Process	126
10.1.2	How to respond to principles of sustainable urban development in the bid	127
10.2	General Conclusions	130
10.2.1	The interest of the IOC in Sustainable Urban Development	130
10.2.2	The real winner of a bidding process	130
10.2.3	Outlook on the future of the Games	131
11.	Appendix	133
11.1	References	133
11.2	Abbreviations	137
11.3	Extracts from Bidding Documents	138
11.3.1	Phase 1: Candidature Acceptance Procedure (CAP)	138
11.3.2	Evaluation: Working Group Report	140
11.3.3	Phase 2: Candidature Procedure	142

Text Sample:

Chapter 5.4, Opportunities and Threats:

This section study provides a discussion on opportunities and threats related to Olympic Infrastructure. Potential effects are presented and ordered according to the different environments of a city (section 2.4). The IOC officially uses the term ‘Legacy’ for potential post-event effects preferably underlining positive ones. The sources used in this literature review (Cashman, 2002; Essex & Chalkley, 2003; Furrer, 2002; Matos, 2006; Liao & Pitts, 2006; Preuss, 2006; Centre On Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), 2007; Ward, 2007; WWF, 2004) reflect the potential effects of the Olympics critically from different perspectives (researchers, NGOs, IOC related person). If applicable, the opportunities and threats are illustrated with examples. A summary is given in the end of this section as a basis for developing principles of sustainable urban development.

As the potential effects have a multidimensional character, two selection criteria limit their number:

- Time: The potential effect might occur at any period of the event but must have a relevance for the city in a long-time perspective.

- Space: The potential effect might occur at a micro (e.g. dislocation) or macro (e.g. polycentric development) level but is relevant mainly for a city (not a region or nation).

5.4.1, Built environment:

- Boost for urban development projects and urban renewal.

Locational decision on Olympic Infrastructure opens the opportunity for a city to boost its urban development projects in favour of the city. There is a chance to connect a city’s urban development strategy with Olympic Infrastructure projects. History of the Olympics shows that cities have dealt very differently with this opportunity (see section 4.1). Some have used the Olympics to reinvent the city while others have concentrated solely on the successful organization of the event itself. In many cases, Olympic Infrastructure is also used to trigger massive urban regeneration projects and the idea to create new centralities within the city. Development corridors can be focused through Olympic Infrastructure and stimulate urban development nearby. Strategic positioning of Olympic Infrastructure in specific urban areas may contribute to a polycentric development. This is especially true for the positioning of key Olympic Infrastructure represented by the Olympic Main Stadium, the main indoor halls and the aquatic centre.

Barcelona 1992 is probably the most successful Olympics regarded to large-scale urban development. Urban planners of the city saw the Olympic Games as an useful instrument to achieve the objectives of development plans which had been the improvement of transport system, creation of new facilities, definition of central space and balancing the city. The initial authorized to make the first draft of the Olympic from an urban perspective was part of the Olympic Bidding Team and later entered into the Organizing Committee. The changes of the entire urban fabric connected to Olympic Infrastructure based on what was already existing in Barcelona became a best practice in terms of mega-event related urban development.

- Changes of Urban Development plans in favour of the event/bid.

Potential changes of existing urban development plans can occur in the preparation phase of the event due to tight time constraints. To speed up land acquisition for Olympic Infrastructure some cities approve special legislative acts and give power to Organizing Committees. Special building permits are created in the area where Olympic Infrastructure has to be built and can contribute to long-lasting procedural changes in the city.

A special law for the Athens 2004 Games recognized the strategic significance of the Olympic Games to the evolution of the metropolitan area. The location of Olympic Infrastructure was determined as to be in accordance with the regional, environmental and urban development guidelines of the master plan of Athens. Through this legislation and the installation of special agencies it was possible to accelerate permits of Olympic Works.

- Modernization and Upgrading of existing facilities.

In terms of existing infrastructure, the Olympics bring the opportunity to upgrade and modernize sports facilities. This may also decrease financial risk. The main Olympic Stadium as the centrepiece of Olympic Infrastructure relies traditionally on public funding. Some Olympic Cities have strived to use existing facilities or refurbished ones for this major infrastructure project.

Naturally, development of sports facilities had to be faced by almost all Olympic cities. Moscow 1980 and Barcelona 1992 used mainly existing sports facilities and refurbished existing Stadiums to Main Olympic Stadiums. Los Angeles 1984 used existing facilities to a large extent.

- Unused large-scale facilities.

The history of the Olympic Games shows that many Olympic sports facilities received poor post-Games usage. International Olympic Sports Federations have often pushed host cities to provide over-ambitious state-of-the-art facilities which are not in line with the local popularity of the sport. Furthermore, local agendas have often pushed for grandiose landmark legacies to be built in order to showcase the local economy and engineering ability. These objects might be designed over-sized and turn in a post-event period to ‘White elephants’. They may neither integrate a long-term urban planning policy nor relate to the population‘s need for leisure and culture facilities. It is sometimes difficult to convince leading teams in specific sports to move their home ground to new Olympic Infrastructures. Another problem in this respect is the difficulty to attract large crowds to newly developed parts of the city away from trying to opportunity the citizens habits.

The Olympic stadium of Sydney 2000 generated continuing losses at A$38 million/year six years after the event. The competition for sports events with other stadia in Sydney caused limited booking and shows the lack of post-use planning. ‘Sydney Jurassic Park’ is a symbolic expression used by criticizers of the post-use of Sydney Olympic Park.

- Increase of Housing stock through Olympic Village.

The Olympic Village is often located close to the sports facilities and represents the accommodation for the Olympic Family. It is an essential part of Olympic Infrastructure and has to be addressed by every hosting city. In many cases, Olympic Villages become residential areas for local people or halls of residences for a local university or college after the Games. Thus, an Olympic Village is a chance to increase the city’s housing stock and provide facilities for alternative uses in a post-event period.

‘In Barcelona and Sydney the former Olympic Villages now provide a mixture of housing that contributes to the cities’ housing stock and adds a valuable source of revenue to cover Games-related expenditure’.

- Improvement of transport infrastructure.

As we have seen in the previous chapter, Olympic Infrastructure induces also the upgrade of the city’s transport infrastructure. For an effective transport of athletes, spectators and officials during the event many host cities tend to expand their transport system Investment of previous Olympic Cities is often focused especially on underground or light rail system. Recent Olympic Cities (Athens and Beijing) invest in tram and overhead urban rail system due to high costs and implementation difficulties of underground transport. This may contribute to a better infrastructure for citizens and decreases traffic pressure in inner city and congestion.

Asian Olympic Cities have strongly linked the Games to transport infrastructure. Between 1957 and 1964 Tokyo established 73 km underground, 13.2 km monorail and 500 km Shinkansen connecting Tokyo, Kyoto and Osaka. Seoul added 157.1 km to the length of its underground network from 1978 to 1993 for the preparation of the Games. Finally, Beijing extended its light rail length by 87.1 km before 2008. A strong reliance to public transport can be observed in Seoul and Tokyo through this investment related to Olympic Infrastructure.

- Development of other Infrastructure.

Furthermore, development of Olympic Infrastructure can be a driver for additional infrastructural improvements in the city, affecting the entire urban fabric. A basic infrastructure is needed serving Olympic facilities. Many cities have used the event as a catalyst to induce such investment and bring other infrastructure to a higher level appropriate for international visitors. Such investments can enhance the Quality of life for citizens, tourists and attract inward investment.

Tokyo included the improvement of water supply system, higher public health standards for refuse collection, street cleaning, public toilets and three sewage disposal plants. Barcelona, Atlanta and Sydney invested in telecommunication systems through the staging of the event. Cultural and research facilities (Olympic Studies Centre, Olympic Museum) close to Olympic Infrastructure supporting the Olympic Cultural Programme were realized in many Olympic Cities.

- Destruction of cultural heritage.

There is a potential risk that Olympic Infrastructure may affect the cultural heritage of a city negatively. The potential risk seems to be higher for Olympic Cities approaching development in the inner city. Consequently, disregarding the laws may lead to the destruction of culturally built environment and displacement of residents.

Infrastructure development for the Games of Beijing 2008 negatively affected the cultural heritage of the city. Demolition in Beijing was an ongoing process in the whole city, especially threatening the old ‘hutong’ and ‘siheyuan’ areas. According to reports of COHRE the violation of Cultural Heritage Protection laws and regulations effected both irreparably damaged cultural heritage and also violated residents’ rights to adequate housing.