城市大型活动的“遗产”需要明智的策略 Reusing ‘Mega Events’ Venues Requires a Smart Strategy
;l)
[Header image: Aerial view of Bird's Nest Olympic stadium in Beijing, Oct. 11, 2017. Chen Xiaogen/VCG]
自1851年伦敦万国博览会后，如今参与“世博会”的国家，都在借这一盛大事件来展示其独特的文化品质与创新。对于一个城市而言，大型活动不仅是对城市品牌进行推广的良机，而且还可借此解决城市问题，比如城市基础设施不足或者住房破旧。
大型活动对城市规划师和城市政府来讲，是空前绝后的机会，然而其带来的巨大影响却是长期的。活动结束之后，特定场所和地点如何使用（这些区域通常被称为是重大活动的“遗产”），需要制订明智的策略。不幸的是，纵观各项盛会的历史，在大多数情况下，其遗产都堪称失败，让主办城市陷于沉重财政负担的重压和场地空置的境地之中。
1964年纽约博览会、1976年蒙特利尔奥运会以及2000年汉诺威世博会，都以财政困境告终。在2004年雅典奥运会之后，不再有任何投资，遗留下大量巨大体量却毫无用处的建筑物和体育场馆。
实际上，重大活动所产生的负面影响，有赖于活动场地的分布：世博会通常集中于接近城市边缘的大规模地块，试图在活动结束之后吸引来投资。而就奥运会而言，则通常为多个大型场地分散设置，因而相对容易转型和再利用。
1992年巴塞罗那奥运会经常被视为典范，把奥运会当作城市部分地区进行长期更新的契机。在2008北京奥运会的预备阶段，中国官员到访了巴塞罗那，他们认为西班牙的模式有待改进。对于北京的规划主管部门而言，北京这一繁荣的大都市并不需要用奥运会来证明自己。为了与其他大城市竞争，北京开展了大规模重建，为新兴的富裕中产阶层提供空间。
北京奥运会策划者们最初在奥运场馆的开发中引入了私人投资方，以确保闭幕后任何场馆都不会空置。国家体育场，俗称“鸟巢”，是由瑞士建筑事务所Herzog & de Meuron设计，采用公私合营方式开发，在奥运会之后投入了商业运营。北京国家游泳中心则是由旅居国外华人捐赠修建而成。奥运会结束后，被转型为商业水上公园，供家庭使用。
在上海，规划主管部门把2010年世博会场地放置于相对中心的城市区域，其用意在于进一步提升城市的密度，而非引导郊区蔓延。上海世博园的场地，曾经是港区，功能为船坞和重工业用地。而世博会的举办，则让上海官员有机会对滨水地块进行清理，并重新建立城市与水的联系。
就交通基础设施而言，上海世博会的遗产让这个城市受益良久。上海在新地铁线和桥梁建设方面投资甚巨，虹桥机场也得以扩建和整修，并营建出超过10公里长的公共滨水岸线。
对世博会场地开展再利用的规划是雄心勃勃的，然而时至今日，其场地再开发仍未完全实现。我屡屡探访世博会的场地，发现黄浦江南岸的中心园区被围墙包围，每天到访的游客屈指可数。世博村的建造，可供世博会期间容纳大约1万名官员和媒体记者，但世博会闭幕后，基本上无人居住，近期被转型为一个门禁社区，公众不可入内。
上海也有许多我们乐见的例外情况。上海当代艺术博物馆是当今中国最为前卫的艺术馆之一，中华艺术宫和上海梅赛德斯奔驰文化中心也会举办颇受欢迎的活动。然而，世博会大部分其他建筑都已经被拆除，在黄浦江的南岸，数十栋高层办公楼正在缓慢地修建过程中。
世博会闭幕已有7年之久，而“城市让生活更美好”的口号尚待实现。与此同时，在上海之外的 乡村，大型居住楼和商用楼 和商用 在肥沃的农田之上蔓延和扩展。为何不把曾经的世博会场地转变为生机勃勃的高密度住区，却把其转为城市中并不那么需要的高层办公楼和购物中心呢？
城市化通常与城市空间的正规化相伴而生。在为奥运会和世博会做准备期间，北京和上海都曾大量取缔城市中的非正规化空间。比如，为了展示“文明”和“现代”，鼓励市民把清洗的衣物悬挂在室内而非路边的架子上。一些市民会非常随意地穿着睡衣裤上街，他们也被劝告要注意得体着装。因此，游客可能很难体会到城市的另类生命力和本地生活特色。
对于城市官员来讲，重大活动是对城市振兴和重塑形象的良机。然而，主办城市借此取得的活力，却因为长期策略的缺失而无以为继。在奔向定义并不清晰的现代化目标的路途中，快速发展且呈现巨大体量的城市，急需更具弹性的规划原则及相关的支持。如若不然，大型活动所带来的短期兴奋与刺激，必将导致城市未来问题重重。
Ever since London’s Great Exhibition in 1851, countries that participate in what is now known as the World Expo have used the so-called mega events to showcase their unique cultural characteristics and innovations. Large-scale events are not only great promotion for a city, but can also be used to address issues like rundown urban infrastructure or dilapidated housing.
Mega events are unique opportunities for urban planners and municipal governments, but carry significant long-term impacts. Post-event usage of specially built venues and surrounding areas — often referred to as the event’s “legacy” — requires a smart strategy. Unfortunately, the history of mega events shows that in most cases the legacy is a failure, leaving the host city with heavy financial burdens and empty venues.
The New York Exposition of 1964, the 1976 Montreal Olympics, and Hanover’s Expo 2000 all ended in financial fiascos. After the 2004 Athens Olympics, investment dried up, leaving behind a slew of oversized, disused buildings and stadiums. Indeed, the impact of mega events can depend on the distribution of the venues: World Expos are usually located at an expansive area on the outskirts of a city, which struggles to attract investment following the exhibition. Olympic venues, meanwhile, are usually spread out over a number of large sites, making them relatively easier to transform and reuse for other events and purposes.
Barcelona ’92 is frequently invoked as a model for transforming the Olympics through the long-term regeneration of part of the city. In the run-up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Chinese officials visited Barcelona and found the Spanish model wanting. For Beijing’s planning authority, their booming metropolis didn’t need the Games to prove itself; to compete with other mega cities, the city was largely rebuilt to make room for a new, wealthier middle class.
Yet Beijing’s post-Olympic legacy has also been subject to some criticism. The city’s Olympic strategists initially engaged private investors in the development of the venues to ensure that no venue would lie empty after the closing ceremony. The National Stadium, commonly known as the “Bird’s Nest” and designed by Swiss architecture firm Herzog & de Meuron, was developed in a public-private partnership and commercially operated after the Olympics. The Beijing National Aquatics Centre, meanwhile, was funded by donations from Chinese living abroad. After the Games, it was transformed into a commercial water park for family use. However, both venues remain unused for most of the year, save for a few high-profile concerts, soccer matches, and water sports competitions.
In Shanghai, planning authorities located Expo 2010 in a relatively central urban area, deliberately aiming to further densify the city instead of contributing to the suburban sprawl. Previously, Shanghai Expo Park was a harbor area with shipyards and heavy industry. The Expo gave officials a chance to cleanup the waterfronts and to reconnect the city with the water.
In terms of transport infrastructure, the Shanghai Expo’s legacy has been well-maintained. The city invested heavily in new subway lines and bridges, while Hongqiao Airport was expanded and refurbished. More than 10 kilometers of public waterfront was created.
The plans to reuse the Expo site are ambitious, but the site has yet been fully redeveloped. During my frequent visits to the site, I observed that the central park on the river’s south bank was walled off and poorly maintained, attracting only a handful of daily visitors. The Expo Village, built to house some 10,000 officials and journalists during the event, has lain largely uninhabited since the closing ceremony and was recently transformed into a gated community, virtually inaccessible to the public.
Shanghai houses positive exceptions. The Power Station of Art is now home to one of China’s most avant-garde galleries, while the China Art Museum and the Mercedes Benz Arena still play host to popular events. However, most of the other buildings have been demolished; and on the south bank of the river, a dozen office towers have been under construction for more than a year without showing signs of real progress.
And so, more than seven years after the event, the Expo is yet to realize its oft-quoted slogan: “Better City, Better Life.” Meanwhile, in the countryside outside Shanghai, huge residential and commercial buildings sprawl across fertile agricultural land. Why not transform the former Expo areas into vibrant, high-density housing, instead of unneeded office towers and malls?
Urbanization is often accompanied by the formalization of our city spaces. During the preparations for the Olympics and the Expo, Beijing and Shanghai respectively clamped down on “informal” behavior. In the name of presenting a “civilized” and “modern” face to the world, for example, media campaigns encouraged urbanites to hang their washing indoors instead of on roadside racks. The Shanghainese, many of whom casually wear pajamas on the street in hot summer months, were told to spruce up a bit. Such campaigns only harm the liveliness and local identity of China’s cities.
For municipal officials, mega events are great opportunities for revitalizing the city. But too often, the vitality of the host city is undermined by a lack of long-term strategy and, in China at least, draconian demands that citizens change their behaviors to make their urban areas interesting to outsiders. In the race towards vaguely defined goals of modernization, Chinese cities, which develop rapidly and on huge scales, urgently need more resilient planning principles to sustain themselves. Otherwise, the short-term euphoria of a mega event will only give rise to future urban headaches.
www.thepaper.cn (Chinese)
www.sixthtone.com (English)
Copyright: Urban Language