5. The New York delegation at the International Olympic Committee presentations in Singapore
5
6. The Madrid delegation at the International Olympic Committee presentations in Singapore
6
27
in west and east London, with a particular focus on the main components of an Olympics – namely the stadium and athletes' village. By 2001, given a careful review of land availability, International Olympic Committee criteria and previous Olympic bids, a series of east-London sites had become the focus. In early 2002, Arup was commissioned by the government to undertake a cost–benefit analysis of a London 2012 games, by now with a clear focus on Lower Lea Valley as its location. London started well behind its competitors
in the race. The government's formal decision to support a bid had been repeatedly postponed due to the Cabinet's focus on the imminent Gulf War. When the positive decision finally came, in May 2003, time was extremely tight to prepare the extensive material required by the IOC. Formal notification was submitted to the IOC in July of that year and a hectic process to organise a team, prepare a proposal and undertake the required planning got underway. The London Development Agency (LDA) was
heavily involved and provided organisational support to the bid team and in summer 2003, a competition was held to procure a consultant team to prepare the masterplan that would be a central component of the bid submission. From a shortlist of Foster + Partners/Arup, Terry Farrell and Partners, MBM Arquitectes, Herzog & de Meuron, Richard Rogers Partnership/WS Atkins and an EDAW consortium, the EDAW team was selected. Its task was an onerous one – to support the
bid (going beyond the strategic configuration of venues and infrastructures), the IOC required host cities to have secured planning permission for any plans proposed. With an emphasis on legacy embedded in the requirements, and those of the London bid, it was decided that the EDAW team would submit outline planning applications for both Games and legacy mode. They would need to be prepared, documented, negotiated and approved in time to sit within the final bid submission, known as the Candidate File, in November 2004. It was clear the bid masterplan had to relate in some way to the Stratford City scheme – now
midway through planning negotiations – and both sets of clients saw the need for coordination. Neither could be seen to trip the other up; the LDA could have threatened Stratford City's landowners with compulsory purchase but the cost and scandal of impeding viable regeneration would have undermined every ambition for Olympic legacy from the outset. Similarly, in the midst of a complex planning negotiation requiring good relationships with government at every level, the Stratford City clients needed to be seen to support the bid. A period of intense coordination began.
It was essential to identify the footprints, organisational relationships and security requirements for all of the sporting venues within the proposed Olympic Park, and understand the long-term relationships to the ambitions for long-term change across the wider area. After heated negotiations, a settled arrangement
of venues either side of a new riverside park was agreed. The retail areas of the masterplan were left untouched but crowd access through the streets from the regional and international stations would form the primary public entrance to the Games. To the north, reflecting the cautious relationship between the projects, the athletes' village was located half in and half out of the proposed residential districts of Stratford City. Conceptually and spatially there was a good fit between athletes' accommodation and the existing plans for an area intended for medium-density urban housing. The remainder of the original masterplan would be 'sterilised' until after the Games. The areas would be needed for security and servicing – it was already clear that huge areas would be needed for a vast range of temporary functions. This settlement was the basis on which, on
consecutive nights, both projects were taken to a planning committee in November 2004. For 24 hours, the Stratford City masterplan was the largest planning consent in London’s history – before being supplanted by its immediate (and speculative) neighbour. These were the relationships embedded in the proposition taken to Singapore for the
JOHN BURTON Westfield
When I first started the project – pre- Olympics in 2004 – I estimated that, in terms of build out, it was probably a 40–50-year project so you had to have a very long-term vision. Now, as London is staging the Games, the development that has gone with it and the masterplanning for the Olympic Park mean that the build out is probably more like 15–18 years. Clearly there has been a huge acceleration in terms of development.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142