Tokyo’s gamble with its Olympic architecture needs to be appreciated: Part 2

Yoyogi National Gymnasium was the centerpiece of 1964 Olympics, it has been refurbished to serve as one of the venues for Tokyo 2020. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

This is the second of a two-part series. Read the first part here

The use of timber and plans for recycling most of the temporary structures (including the beds) is promoted by the Japanese government as the cornerstone of its commitment towards sustainability. But it can be argued that the biggest sustainability win of this Olympics is its decision to use existing structures instead of building new architectural trophies.

Some 34 of the 42 venues at these Olympics are older buildings that are being reused with some refurbishing. Most previous hosts have made use of a few old buildings or existing venues. But no one is even close to Tokyo’s 80 per cent reuse rate.

Existing venues made up 56 per cent of Rio 2016 venues but many of these were not technically old buildings as they were recently constructed for the FIFA World Cup 2014 and Pan American Games 2007.  

New is not worth its price tag

Past experience has made it amply clear that new structures are not worth the price tag for a two-week-long event. Given the financial penalty they continue to impose on host cities post-games, serious rethinking about their necessity started way before Tokyo.

This shift in infrastructure planning for the Games arguably took hold after the exorbitant cost of hosting Athens 2004 was blamed for the economic debt crisis that later befell Greece. Learning from Athens, the UK and London governments in the initial planning for London 2012 itself decided to make use of a mixture of newly built venues, existing facilities and temporary facilities. The intention was that there should be no white elephants after the games.

The Brazil government furthered the trend by deciding that the majority of the venues for Rio 2016 would be refurbished existing structures. Of the 32 venues, 18 were existing venues (eight of which required some re-development). Rio additionally emphasised building recyclable temporary structures which could be later dismantled to build public amenities like schools.    

Despite concerted efforts to avoid white elephants, post-games venues became a financial liability for both, London and Rio. The situation was especially sad for Rio as photographs of its abandoned Olympics Village and venues hit global news headlines.

Plans to recycle the famed temporary venues were abandoned as well, as the cost of dismantling them was found to be prohibitive. The IOC actually made special request to the Brazilian government in 2018 to dismantle them as it reflected poorly on the Games’ commitment towards sustainability.

Refurbishing is sustainable

A recent report by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development estimated that the construction industry is responsible for 38 per cent of all energy-related greenhouse gas emissions each year.

The report studied six modern buildings and found as much as 50 per cent of the whole life carbon emissions came from embodied carbon (emissions attributed to building material and construction process). This excludes the ills associated with demolition and waste generated thereafter.

Demolition is an environmental problem as it literally turns resource into a waste stream which much of the world struggles to recycle. Interestingly, it is found to be undesirable on social and economic grounds as well.

Any development that requires the demolition of existing structures and neighbourhoods frequently stokes opposition from the general public. Demolition is both costly and unpopular as evident from the protest against the Central Vista Project in New Delhi or resistance to every slum relocation efforts in any city.

In short, any new construction, no matter how green, invariably ends up depleting natural resources and further polluting the environment in comparison to reusing or refurbishing an existing structure for same purpose.

Retrofitting existing buildings is additionally found to be cost-effective, improves their resource efficiency and generally less controversial, because it conserves and enhances existing places and neighbourhoods without uprooting people.

This is no new knowledge. Architects and builders have anecdotally known this for ages but it is deliberately ignored as it makes poor business sense. If it was not for the social pressure, Tokyo would have gone ahead with the ill-advice of its master architect jury to build the most expensive and extravagant stadium in the world.

It matters what money is spent on

Having said all this, it must be acknowledged that despite everything, the Tokyo Olympics are going to be the costliest till date. Part of it can be attributed to a one-year delay caused by the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The rest will be known when Japan does an audit.

But it can be safely assumed that the money was not wasted in satisfying the ostentatious egos of a few architects. And it probably went into mainstreaming some real sustainable practices instead of award-winning tokenism observed in the previous editions of the games.

Tokyo’s ‘build less and reuse more’ approach that was shaped by active participation of the public in decision making is worth appreciating as it manages to address all the three prongs of sustainability.

End of an era?

Ironically, Tokyo might have just ended the era of supersized Olympics architecture that it had originally ushered in 1964.

Beijing is reusing its famed ‘Bird’s Nest’ stadium for 2022 Winter Olympics.

Paris, the host of the 2024 Olympics, promises that 95 per cent of its venues will be either existing or temporary and that “its carbon emissions will be halved in comparison to the last two editions of the Summer Games”.

Architecture aficionados globally are justifiably upset and the general public understandably disinterested. But this apathy towards actual sustainable practices is a problem.

Need for change in public attitude

There is an urgent need to find ways to make local building materials, natural ventilation and refurbishment of old buildings attractive and exciting if these environmentally and economically sound practices need to become mainstream.

Otherwise “anti-sex” beds will continue to fog public conversations while ill-advised governments will continue demolition of resources to make Central Vistas.   

Subscribe to Daily Newsletter :

SUPPORT US

We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.