olympic architecture - the legacy

A big question for any Olympic host city: How many of these (expensive) venues will we be stuck with that are either under- or unused in the future? That same question applies to London 2012 and, at first glance, it seems the answer is: not many. And that's the right answer. Most venues were planned to be adapted for reuse and will be. Others are temporary and after the Paralympics will be removed.

In this informative article in The Independent "What's next for the London 2012 Olympic venues?" Jonathan Brown outlines the options. 

For instance, the gold rush Team GB experienced in cycling means that, for sure, venues such as the Velodrome will continue to be used. Indeed, along with BMX and mountain and road cycling facilities, it will form part of the Lee Valley VeloPark.

velodrome, image: the independent

The Aquatics Centre will continue use as a pool complex serving the community and schools, as well as elite athletes. Its capacity will be reduced (which may or may not solve the 'restricted view' problem encountered during the 10 Meter platform diving competition).

The basketball arena, comprising 1,000 tonnes of steel and 20,000 square metres of recyclable plastic, was always intended to be temporary, so it will simply be dismantled. There was muttering about it being sent to Rio for reuse in 2016 but that won't happen.

The Olympic Stadium, the iconic building in Olympic Park, does not yet have a permanent tenant, or an operator for that matter. There was much back and forth between West Ham United, Tottenham Hotspur and Leyton Orient for a period but others, including Formula 1, are jumping into the bidding now. Resolving that issue will go a long way to ensuring the legacy of the Olympics is truly sustainable.

The bigger question, though, is "What will happen to Olympic Park?" Built on a vast wasteland in Stratford, east London, the vision calls for it to become a complete new community with jobs and housing to go along with the venues such as the Aquatics Centre, Velodrome and Stadium that will remain. Planning permission for 11,000 new homes already exists and creating jobs to go along with the housing will be paramount.

That is the true legacy of London 2012: a new community with a variety of housing, employment opportunities and recreational facilities. It's a good plan.

are golf courses part of the problem?

The "problem" being that developers seem unable to realise funding for tourism projects in Bermuda.

My attention was drawn to the role of golf courses by a City Parks blog post entitled "Fairways Under Fire: Are Little-Used Public Golf Courses Worth the Space?" by Peter Harnik and Ryan Donahue, originally for Landscape Architecture Magazine. In particular, my attention was drawn to these sentences:

Through a surprising misalignment of supply and demand, the decade of the 2000s was characterized by the frenzied construction of golf course communities coupled with a leveling off of participation.

Golf’s popularity is not keeping up with population growth nor with the explosion in the number of private golf venues; it’s also losing out to other self-directed activities like running and cycling.

Now, admittedly, the writers are speaking of public golf courses as part of the recreational facilities offered by cities; this is not an assessment of private golf resorts. Notwithstanding, it got me thinking.

In my experience, developers with access to sufficient land in Bermuda, will advocate the creation of a golf resort comprising an 18-hole championship golf course with residences - either in whole ownership or as fractionals - and a (boutique) hotel. Presumably, the investor package explains that greens fees will provide cash flow that either subsidises other components of the development or is the gravy on top of it all. Or not; perhaps potential investors already know that.

When you look at it, though, even The Donald is nowhere near completing his golf resort in Aberdeenshire, Scotland - and he fought relentlessly for that grant of planning permission. As described on the webiste of Trump International Golf Links, the development comprises

...a world class championship links golf course suitable for hosting major international events and a second 18-hole links golf course; an iconic hotel set amidst an array of luxury holiday homes; and a residential village formed within the unique setting of Menie Estate. 

project rendering, image: trump international golf links

The golf course on the shifting sand dunes opened in July this year but progress on the hotel and residences remains glacial. There is some doubt whether the project will ever be completed as initially intended, even when the global economy improves.

So, what does this mean for Bermuda? Perhaps the usual golf resort development is too far behind the curve now to secure funding - a version of "been there, done that"...? If that's the case, and I don't know that it is, we will need to figure out - and quickly - what the new best thing is and do it before anyone else.

observations of a planning consultant #101

On transparency and its good buddy clarity. We appear to be a little lacking in both these days, and I speak specifically of the permissions granted by way of Special Development Orders. I am prompted to this observation by The Royal Gazette article regarding the Grand Atlantic development: "Grand Atlantic housing project may be completed without BHC". According to the article, the Grand Atlantic developer will seek planning permission for 52 one-bedroom residential units.

image: onsite engineeringI'm not a brilliant person or a highly intellectual one but even my average intelligence is being somewhat taxed by this project. 

The original SDO was approved by the Minister of the Environment in 2007. Since then, it has been amended twice. First, in 2009, when the description of the hotel development was changed. I don't know in what way, exactly; it's hard to tell.

It was amended a second time in 2010 specifying:

• a topographical survey was to be completed;
• the affordable housing units had to be setback 50 feet from the coastline;
• plans for the final design of the hotel had to be submitted to and approval by the Minister of the Environment;
• a grant of planning permission for 20 new fractional units of approximately 1500 square feet each; and,
• a new (replacement?) site plan for the property. 

And so we arrive back at transparency and clarity. Do you see where I'm going with this? What exactly was approved? Why was it changed? What exactly has been erected already? What exactly is still to come? And, given that SDOs are generally used for the benefit of the national interest, how does the permission now being sought fit this picture?

The plans on deposit at the Department of Planning, combined with the actual built structures on the site, would suggest that 78 units are erected already. However, according to the newspaper article, not so.

Colour me bewildered, and pity Joe Public because he hasn't a chance. Quite frankly, I'm sure the Minister is totally confused now too.

It leads me to this suggestion: a complete overhaul of the SDO system is needed. The Ombudsman report, Today's Choices Tomorrow's Costs, focused mainly on environmental impact assessments. However, transparency and its by-product clarity would be good outcomes of a revamped process - not a facelift but a "start over". Good for the Minister, good for the Department of Planning and good for the people of Bermuda whose limited land mass is being consumed "in the public interest".