Olympic fallacy or the road to redemption: Rio de Janeiro beyond 2016
Last year all eyes were drawn to Rio de Janeiro as it was preparing to host the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Last week new photos of the 2016 Olympic Park were published and the city was back in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. Destruction peppered the Olympic sites. Stadium left in disrepair and reports remarked on the high level of mismanagement that the government is being confronted with as they had to take on the burden, for the moment, of those, once glorious, edifices for sporting supremacy.
While looking back at the Mega-Event city and its current condition, I cannot say that it didn't leave me a bit misty eyed as the city represented the canvas for my final year project. I was there, I saw the Park going up, I witnessed the infrastructure being developed and I read about the struggle the city went through to get as far. With all that in mind I will start this post with the idea that all hopes are not lost for Rio. Let me explain why.
Large sums of money were injected into Rio in order to allow it to host first the 2007 Pan American Games, later, in 2014, the World Cup and in 2016 the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Sum of the money, must be said, did go in the bin however a good amount was dedicated to the legacy project. And I think that this is where the word 'LEGACY' must be emphasised as it is the thing we are all expecting Rio to start developing right about now. The Olympic Games “Legacy” is used to describe potential gain, both in terms of infrastructure and sport venues, but also as a provider of cultural, economic, political, and social benefits. The actual gains that such an event provides are ramified and in many cases are left unquantified as well as unseen. How can legacy be quantified? What is the unit of measurement, GDP, urbanisation percentage, density increase or potential future investment? From a physical perspective, the venues represent no more than construction cost, attendance to events and revenue. However, in many cases they represent more of a problem than a positive legacy. Thus, the Olympic Legacy creates two problems: (i) the social, psychological and economic legacy is hard to measure and (ii) the legacy of physical structures is often more burdensome and redundant than useful for future uses. This point is supported by many publications concerning the Olympic Games wrote after the problem which occurred post Athene and Beijing just to name a few of the more recent ones. Once the Games are over, it takes additional large-scale investment and planning (not envisaged initially in some cases). In Rio, the problem of legacy was address in terms of the structures. The collaboration with AECOM for the Barra de Tijuca Olympic Park ensured that the Olympic status and the legacy status were different. The same must be said for London.
I know that at this point many of you might be roling your eyes but hear me out, or read me out for that matter. London, with all of its problems, ups and downs, the criticism brought to the way in which the new homes look, the finish to the exterior, the landscaping and the fact that the new West Ham stadium was a bit average, is a good example and one which can be taken forward. It had a strong plan, it did not go for flashy, only 'for the looks' stadiums, even if they had Zaha Hadid Architects, Hopkins Architects and stadium specialists Populous, they produces good design, it built more for legacy than for the games and thus, it managed to transform a previously derelict side of London into a new, growing neighbourhood. With plans for the new V&A, University Collage of London (UCL) East campus and the Stratford Wesfield, which has been finished now for some time, the project absorbed the Olympic investment and use it for urban regeneration. BUT ... it was already a mega-city. It did not have to deal with many of the things currently putting pressure on the Rio Legacy project. It is, in my opinion, the best example of an Olympic Games which was taken all the way. It did take them four Olympics to figure it out and get it right but who is counting?!
Getting back to Rio, I think that we need to see the legacy in terms of what it was, how far it came and where it wants to go. The city went through a large process of straightening out its act in order to even be susceptible to host the games. That meant rushing up some of the projects which would have taken them more time if done properly. I am referring to the 'favela improvement' projects. From 2009, Rio decided to take off the gloves and go bulldozer in first, ask questions later and in that manner, just like kicking a bee hive, do a lot of wrong, mismanage projects and create more of the same rather than improve. Money was invested in infrastructure, water, sanitation and plans which were looking towards a more sustainable/ green city in order to demonstrate the future vision of Rio. However, the cases of corruption and money laundry were so clear that they obscured the projects which actually had a positive effect such as the new bus system and the light rail tram to name a few.
Cases of eviction, poor project management, political instability and the problem with Zika virus pushed the vision of an ideal legacy to the edge. The lessons learned from London were harder to assimilate 'in a school which was crumbling around you'. So I think they might have needed to take their study online because we have seen a trend since Athens hosted the games in 2004, indicating that developing countries are more likely to spend more money on the events and get less out of it than rich countries. Developing countries are less capable of supporting this vast investment due to a number of reasons including but not limited to GDP, social and political issues. The result is a country/ city which neglects its other financial investments which are required in the hopes of achieving Olympic supremacy. This could be a problem not only for them as it seem to set a trend with Athens and Beijing having the 2nd and 1st most expensive games and now Rio braking all records in terms of Mega-Event investments. Yes, there is a lot more to be done in those countries in order to prepare for the Games but is the public investment worth it? Will there be any improvement for the general pubic? And who are the main people benefiting from the Olympic Legacy?
When we look at the Olympic park in Rio, we immediately see a project suspended in time. The plans for the Barra de Tijuca Park envision the space growing, becoming a neighbourhood with all the infrastructure required for living, working and resting. The first stage which is supposed to be completed in 2018, looks at the transition from the game state to the legacy, clearing all the unnecessary structures and starting to lay out the plans for the new residential and mix use development. The Deodoro Park, by Vigliecca & Associates, is designed to opened to the public, creating a new sporting and entertainment space, they are working on it. The Carrioca Arenas are supposed to become a public school with spaces open for the community which will serve the residential development going up around it, they are working on it. And the famous Golf Course ... well that was just part of a money laundry scheme so let's not talk about it.
The idea is, we need to understand that the legacy project is a process which starts years before and it stretches years into the future, 2030 in the case of Rio. It is subjected to political, social and economic pressures. It is a plan which is laid out for the best case scenario and it doesn't, in many cases, work miracle for all social classes. But in order to improve it, we need to stop looking at it as Valentines day gift and make it resemble more the day to day love for the city and its inhabitants. Rome was not built in a day, the London legacy is still not complete 5 years on and Rio de Janeiro's days are still in front of it.
SOURCES AND FUTURE READING
Keskeys, P. ( 2016) Building a Legacy? Untangling the Urban-Planning Challenges of the Olympic Games [online] Available at: http://architizer.com/blog/building-a-legacy-olympic-games/, Accessed: 25.02.2017
Baratto, R. (2016) 2016 Olympics: Two Legacies for Rio [online] Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/794240/2016-olympics-two-legacies-for-rio, Accessed: 25.02.2017
Stell (2017) Rio 2016 Olympic Venues Just 6 Months After The Olympics [online] Available at: http://www.boredpanda.com/rio-olympic-venues-after-six-months/, Accessed: 25.02.2017
Careaga, C. (2017) Rio's Olympic venues are already on their way to ruin [online] Available at: http://mashable.com/2017/02/10/rio-olympic-venues-on-way-to-ruin/#jDYHpGdBmmqw, Accessed: 25.02.2017
The Guardian (2017) Rio Olympic venues already falling into a state of disrepair [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/feb/10/rio-olympic-venues-already-falling-into-a-state-of-disrepair?CMP=share_btn_tw, Accessed: 25.02.2017
Gibson Alexandre, Rumo (2016) E onde está o legado do Pan? [online] Available at: http://puc-riodigital.com.puc-rio.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=3626&sid=13&tpl=printerview, Accessed: 25.02.2017
Kassens-Noor, E. (2012) Planning Olympic Legacies: Transport Dreams and Urban Realities. Milton Park, Abingdon, (Oxon: Routledge, 2012)
Soveral, T. (2012) Rio Olympics 2016: Legacy or Fallacy? [online] Available at: http://projectivecities.aaschool.ac.uk/portfolio/thiago-soveral-rio-olympics-2016/, Accessed: 25.02.2017
