After the Carnival, Back to the Hood
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
2019 AFTER THE CARNIVAL, BACK TO THE HOOD RE-INSERTION OF OLYMPIC PHYSICAL LEGACY USING NEW URBANIST DESIGN CHENYU WANG CLAIRE Advisor: Lauren Restrepo Jennifer Hurley Abstract New Urbanism is often used to tackle urban sprawl and the decline of downtown by looking back to the traditional town and pursuing a set of “best practices”. However, in the process of re-inserting Olympic venues into the urban fabric and evaluating post-game integration, legacy planners have already, albeit implicitly, engaged some New Urbanist principles. One such case that has achieved considerable post-game success is the London Olympic Park. This project seeks to develop an evaluation scheme based on New Urbanism through close reading of the Charter and other literature. The spatial organization of different Olympic models is analyzed with regard to the ease of implementation of New- Urbanism-led integration. London Olympic Park is evaluated to illustrate the strength of New Urbanism in the integration of mega-event venues. i Acknowledgements I cannot express enough thanks to my thesis advisors Dr. Lauren Restrepo, Professor Jennifer Hurley and research librarian Laura Surtees for their continued support and guidance. I offer my sincere appreciation for the degree of freedom in my thesis process and the learning opportunities provided by my advisors. My completion of this project could not have been accomplished without my D&M scholarship awarded by my dear family. To my parents, even though you still do not know any of the works I did including this, I would like to thank you for the liberty of pursuit of knowledge of my choice. I would also like to extend my appreciation to my friend Zhang Yifan, Yan Anqi, and the entire Lloyd 42s. To Yifan, thank you for the midnight dominos, Buddhist sutra, and Olympic theme song karaoke. To Anqi, thank you for the neon orange hoodie and the neon orange beanie for my rock-climbing trip to the national hunting ground, so I could survive my thesis season. To Evan, thank you for taking care of me and my plants shortly. To 42s, thank you all for being there. To Ziyu, thanks for adopting the Gayvn after I left and your sponsorship for my studies at Duke University. To João and Bre, suas almas brasileiras são amadas. To the loving staff at Haverford College, I appreciate your dedication to taking care of the students during hard times. Thank you, Health Center, for not insisting sending me to the ER during my final week. Thank you CCPA and especially Dina for the love, the pizza, the chocolates, and the apples. Finally, I express to my mentor Jane Jacobs and Gary McDonough for your spiritual guidance. ii Table of Content Abstract ......................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... ii 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope and Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 4 2. Literature review ....................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Olympic Urbanism........................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Understanding Legacy ..................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Defining “Legacy” ............................................................................................................................. 8 2.1.2 Legacy Evaluation Framework ......................................................................................................... 9 2.2.3 Evaluation Framework with New Urbanism Ideology.................................................................... 11 2.2.4 New Urbanism ............................................................................................................................... 13 2.3 Bringing New Urbanism to the Olympics ........................................................................ 15 2.3.1 New Urbanist Design Principles .................................................................................. 15 2.3.1.1 Coherence ................................................................................................................................... 17 2.3.1.2 Diversity ...................................................................................................................................... 18 2.3.1.3 Connectivity ................................................................................................................................ 19 2.3.1.4 Interaction................................................................................................................................... 21 2. 3.2 Olympic Infrastructure Requirements and Comparison............................................... 21 2.3.2.1 Proximity of Venues and Preference of Olympic Cluster ............................................................ 22 2.3.2.2 Maximization of Existing Venues versus the Immense Need for Infrastructure ........................ 23 2.3.2.3 Mixed-use Residential Area through Olympic Village Planning .................................................. 24 2.3.2.4 Dependence of Public Transport ................................................................................................ 25 2.4 London as a Representative Case ................................................................................... 26 Evaluation by New Urbanist Principles: a Case study of London’s success ..................... 28 3.1 A Legacy Local Plan with Underlying New Urbanism ....................................................... 30 3.2 Coherence .................................................................................................................... 31 3.2.1 Architecture with the surrounding and local precedents .............................................................. 31 3.2.2 Human Scale .................................................................................................................................. 35 3.3 Diversity ....................................................................................................................... 38 3.3.1 Inclusive housing ............................................................................................................................ 38 3.3.2 Diverse business for local employment and living ......................................................................... 42 3.4 Connectivity .................................................................................................................. 47 3.4.1 Spatial proximity - Institution for basic services ............................................................................ 47 3.4.2 Public Transit .................................................................................................................................. 49 3.4.3 Road Network ................................................................................................................................ 51 3.5 Interaction .................................................................................................................... 53 3.5.1 public spaces & neighborhood center ........................................................................................... 53 3.5.2 Streetscape .................................................................................................................................... 57 3.5 Case Study Conclusion ................................................................................................... 59 4. Discussion ................................................................................................................ 62 4.1 IOC Mandate Suggestions ......................................................................................................... 63 4.2 Past Games by New Urbanist Evaluation Principles ................................................................. 64 4.3 Lessons for the Future Olympics .............................................................................................. 68 4.4 Limitations of New Urbanist Evaluation Rubric ........................................................................ 71 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 74 Appendix ..................................................................................................................... 80 ii 1. Introduction The Olympic games (OG) have been widely regarded as one of the most galvanizing mega-events with large-scale infrastructure, enormous expenditure, grandiose ceremony, and thus, the spotlight of the world. Every four years, cities fight in a cut-throat contest held by the International Olympic Committee, not only for the prestige of holding the games, but also for the investment poured into urban infrastructure, economic restructuring, increased land values, job creation, and the global branding of the city (Short et al,2000; Wang et al., 2012; Hiller, 2007). Geographically, Olympic venues are also utilized to develop polycentric nuclei of the metropolitan area (Hiller, 2007) or seen as the catalyst to reactivate and regenerate a stagnant