I have been lucky enough to visit the Olympic park twice now to see it in various states of construction and to see its sustainability assets first hand. So I thought I would air some of my thoughts, and invite comments and practical suggestions in return, in the hope that we can still make it as sustainable as possible at this stage of its development.
Let’s start with the good stuff: the Velodrome.
When I first saw the Velodrome a year ago, it was nearly finished and it was already looking magnificent. FSC Western Red Cedar was used to clad the whole structure, which looked fantastic (like a symbolic red squirrel). No one could tell me if it was British or American cedar though – hopefully the former but most likely the latter.
The clever lightweight cable-net roof has saved of a lot of steel (13,500 tonnes in total I was told) compared to a conventional roof, and is also easily repurposed. This is a big CO2 saving. Strategically placed windows in the timber roof also allow in lots of natural light which has helped the building to reduce its CO2 usage by 31% over 2006 levels (in terms of an equivalent built then I believe). This target has also been helped by the natural ventilation slots that can be clearly seen in the cladding. Having said that, it will get toasty in the gods - up to 30 degrees - could this heat be captured through a heat recovery system – does anyone know? Or perhaps they could have the hot food stands up there - those sausages literally will cook themselves…
The building will use 70% less water than a conventional building through rainwater harvesting and other water saving items, such as waterless urinals. Simple but good stuff.
After the games, the velodrome, a permanent structure, is to be used by the local community and elite cyclists. The plans look promising to inspire the next generation of elite cyclists and more importantly commuter and family cyclists, and it will be connected to various cycle routes around London. A lot can be learnt from the current plans for the Herne Hill velodrome (the track for the 1948 Olympics) which have been put forward by the same designers of the velodrome building, Hopkins Architects.
It was a very positive start to my tour, but just as we were leaving the reception, my heart sank: the flooring was a bright blue plastic – presumable to match the central area inside the track. Was it recycled plastic or rubber? Was it PVC free? Why hadn’t they use reclaimed or FSC hardwood to match the stadium, or bamboo, or some recycled carpet tiles or even some lino (with jute backing of course)? Cost? Time? Durability? I am sure Interface would happily have donated some of their recycled and recyclable carpet tiles if asked.
The other sad fact I uncovered was that the Velodrome and the Hockey Stadium were partly built upon the Bully Point Nature reserve which was “a haven for wildlife” according the Lea Valley Federation. But more on biodiversity and habitat loss/fragmentation below.
6/10 sustainbility rating. One mark deducted for the designers attitude over FSC, and one mark for that awful flooring unless someone tells me its fairtrade recycled rubber and there was no reclaimed wood to be had. Anyone? And two marks lost for the loss of the Nature Reserve which was very beautiful.
On our way to the stadium, we stopped off to look at the wetlands and the other green bits around the place. You can see parts of them on the webcam here:
This is very noticeable different from my last visit as they have done a lot of the planting now – I thought it looked really good. However, the loss/removal of habitat and green spaces has been a very controversial part of the park. Let’s start with the good stuff. They have taken some pretty contaminated areas in parts – it contained a former landfill site with a lot of industrial waste and toxins, some very polluted riverways and some dark corners including the derelict Hackney dog track, and turned it into something that looks like it is ecologically representative and thriving, accessible, easy to maintain and useful into the future. They have washed 2m tonnes of contaminated soil (no mean feat), and have rehomed lots of former residents including various bats, birds, insects, newts, toads, moths and invertebrates. They took seeds and cuttings from the original site to reproduce native species, and have planted 4,000 trees, 300,000 wetland plants, 120,000 plants, 10 football pitches of meadows, reduced the flood risk for housing close by, cleared out a lot of Japanese knotweed, Himalayan Balsam and Giant Hogweed that was threatening to take over(“rampant” according to my source), put in 3,300 seats, 2 ha. of allotments, and restored the river ways environmentally and crucially made them into viable routes for leisure barges and commercial use. They also have some nice plans for after the games including innovative flood management techniques, low level lighting to protect the wildlife, amphitheatres and other leisure facilities, cycle circuits and various ways to open up the area more and reduce the urbanization of some parts. Impressive stuff.
But at what price? There has been lots of press about the loss of the stunning 100 year-old Manor Garden Society allotments, which had thriving communities and gardens within them. After a high profile campaign from the residents, many of whom had been there for generations, the allotments are to be reinstated on the site post the games. But surely they could have incorporated the allotments into the park as part of an education process for visitors as to the benefits and beauty this sort of community brings, not only with fresh produce but in terms of well being too? This could have been a refreshing experience for anyone who has never had the pleasure of digging a potato. One of the residents could have provided guided tours….they could even still do this on the new allotments.
In terms of other biodiversity lost it is difficult to gauge the impact yet – apparently 42.7 ha of Sites of Importance to Nature or Conservation (SINC) sites are lost but 45 ha of SINC standard land are to replace them. So it all depends on how disruptive the process is, and how resilient and able to adapt the restored areas and species are. It also depends on whether the new sites are in the right place both for residents and for species, with a lot of migratory birds that had long been using the area.
The other area of confusion is around how much more useful the land will be after the games compared to its original state. The ODA has claimed that “Much of the former open space was fragmented, of relatively poor quality, had poor access, or was not publicly accessible.” My source also backed this up saying it had “pockets of habitat of good value and lots of creatures but was not connected habitat which is where biodiversity value really develops.” But Annie Chipchase of the Hackney Marshes Users Group responded to this by saying: “It is far from the reality. There was a large amount of publicly accessible open space on what is now the Olympic site, much of which was not fragmented”. My guess is there is truth on both sides and as the stats show some sites have been lost, others have been gained, but crucially they are now better connected to each other.
Tbc sustainability rating. It is too early to score this effort as it might take some years to see if the process has been a positive or negative one on the biodiversity of the area. We know a few bunnies were lost along the way (they got gassed), but couldn’t they have been used to feed some of the visitors? I’m not joking - rabbit is a very low carbon local food source and if more of our supermarkets sold them, a lot of farmers could earn a supplementary income for getting rid of a pest. (I digress and will come back to that in another blog. ) For one thing, the active campaigning of the HMUG ironically may have raised the profile of allotments and increased interest in them. On a different note, one suggestion I would like to make is that flowers for the bouquets should be sourced from the new allotments or some nearby or from plants in the Park.
Next stop the stadium.
This permanent structure is huge - with capacity for 80,000 people. When West Ham takes it over after the games, they will have the option to take off the whole top section, leaving them with 25,000 capacity stadium which is more tenable, but will it still be a good place to watch a football match? I hope so, but its pretty big and could lose some atmosphere, you might need your binoculars Hammers! So I think LOCOG need a plan B for this. Please send in your ideas.
They have been unlucky with this site to be honest, and although it wasn’t roman remains (as per the hilarious twenty twelve series) they have found 100 tonnes (my source isn’t sure if that is right) of radioactive waste on the site that will cause a few issues if they choose to move the stadium. So to change the area into housing for example, would not be feasible, but also would be highly inefficient considering all the work, embodied carbon and resources that has gone into building the stadium, so lets hope it gets deployed as it is.
Also what will they do with that 55,000 temporary structure? Does anyone know?
The good stuff - they have used 70% less steel than most stadiums of the same size and have reduced the carbon footprint of the concrete by transporting on the waterways (instead of the roads) and also through its recycled content. This last point is actually quite significant as the embedded carbon of the building materials is one of the largest contributors to the footprint of the park, so this a significant achievement. The top ring was built using surplus gas pipes, the “wrap” to reduce crosswind in the stadium will be a low carbon footprint, VOC-free reusable one, and the toilet pods might be created from recycled shipping containers.
But was it build with sustainability at its core objective? Sadly, I don’t think so unless I have missed some great innovation here. The wrap might be low CO2/VOC but why plastic and not hemp as originally suggested? Surely there was a more innovative solution? And it is unlikely the roof can be reused on the stadium once the 55,000 capacity temporary structure has been removed, because it is a different size.
3/10 sustainability rating. Harsh maybe, but its just another stadium with more recycled content and a few green tweaks? Let me know what you think.
In the stadium there were an array of big stadium lights as you would expect, which brings me onto my next topic - energy sources for the park.
Sadly, this is probably the lowest point for the park. The target for the park was originally 20% of onsite energy use to be generated by renewables by 2014. And 10% of this was to come from a wind turbine. However EDF, sustainability partner to the games, pulled out because there wasn’t enough wind to justify the investment. Ecotricity then stepped in but subsequently stepped out again apparently due to lack of space for the turbine which brought with it safety implications. For EDF to say it isn’t windy enough sounds like a valid point, because it would be ridiculous to spend £2m on something that then stood by idling (see twenty twelve for a hilarious sketch on this subject - LOCOG must have been checking for cameras around the building). But surely as “the country’s largest producer of low carbon electricity” they could have come up with something else? And I don’t mean nuclear.
A statement from LOCOG says they have looked at lots of alternatives including hydroelectric and also into putting PV panels on some of the buildings, but that they learnt that the urban environment was difficult for large scale renewables. But of course this wasn’t going to be easy, you knew that right? From the site it looks like they are planning to put PV on the media centre, but I couldn’t find plans for anywhere else. I am sure I could have come up with a few other places they could have put them. The handball arena could have had PV cladding rather than the copper cladding it has. Sure the copper is pretty and recycled (though what copper isn’t recycled these days because its so expensive!) but other than that what is its function? And what about on the aquatics centre? Nothing planned to go on there I don’t think, yet at the Atlanta Olympics, in 1996, 2,856 solar panels were placed on the roof of the Aquatics Centre. And in the Taiwanese city of Kaohsiung a brand new stadium was built with its entire dragon-styled roof built of 8844 solar panels which generate most of the buildings energy with surplus fed into the local area. What about athletes village – surely that will have some solar? M&S has a 20% offer on at the moment if you’re quick.
In all seriousness however, it wasn’t a high target in the first place was it? 20% by 2014? They say it will be more likely to be 9-10% now from the solar panels and the Energy centre (which has a 3mw biomass unit, which runs on locally sourced wood chip and a natural gas fueled CCHP system). One other idea that they say they are still looking into, is a local energy retrofit scheme. I do hope they go ahead with this, but it still doesn’t address the fact that they could have done more on-site with more forethought and more focus from suppliers and the designers.
1/10 – one mark for the local energy retrofit scheme if it comes to fruition.
Next stop the aquatic centre.
Whilst clearly everyone (in the design world that is) thinks it’s a beautiful building, I don’t see any sustainable innovation. Especially when you compare it to the Beijing Olympics aquatic centre, which was covered in ETFE (which absorbs solar and reduces thermal loss) making it a highly efficient and very unique building. However, fear not, there will be a living roof. Exactly.
There was also a bit of a cock up over the cooling system, but long story short, largely thanks to Commission for a Sustainable London’s Shaun MCcarthy’s focus on this issue, they finally decided to use ammonia to cool the venue and the stadium, instead of damaging HFCs. They will still be using HFCs to cool some of the venues however, which is not good.
3/10. One point for the living roof and the fsc ceiling, one point for the ammonium u-turn, one point for the long term usability of the centre, but 7 opportunity points lost for another distinct lack of sustainable innovation.
I am going to stop there for now (well done if you got this far) because there is so much more to cover – transport, athletes village, media centre (and its horrendous air conditioning units), basketball arena, handball arena, hockey centre, hospitality centre, waterpolo arena, warm up area and the rather pointless statement helter-skelter aka Acelormittal Orbital. Not to mention the social impacts of the park in its building and usage phases. But I will cover some of these in my next blog.
Will it be the most sustainable Olympics ever? After a debate with a contact at LOCOG I realize this is difficult to call. I think it lacks innovation that was seen in some areas of the Beijing games but because Beijing weren’t transparent about their impacts, and fell down on a few key issues, such as sustainable timber, London by default could snatch the mantle. How long they could hang onto the title however is probably much easier to answer – not long would be my guess. It feels as if, despite a lot of effort by some very hard working people on the ground there over the last few year, sustainability just wasn’t at the heart of the buildings themselves. It feels like a huge missed opportunity to showcase truly sustainable designs from some sustainable designers.
However I still think there is time to do more, especially to step up renewables on site and to engage the 9m visitors to the games on sustainability. And I would like to help. So if anyone who knows more about some of these issues, and wants to make some suggestions, please do. I will send all the sensible ones onto LOCOG and I will be speaking to EDF myself. I have also already spoken to the Cooperative about how they could contribute to the 2012 Olympics being plastic bag free. More soon at www.onepumpkin.co.uk
Send your suggestions to me at georgina@onepumpkin or tweet me at @GeorginaStevens.
