Presentasjoner fra seminar om Rio de Janeiro 281112

570 views
463 views

Published on

NIBR arrangerte seminar om Rio de Janeiro før OL i 2016:
Rio de Janeiro: Hva blir den «olympiske» effekten?

Gilmar Mascarenhas, professor ved Geografisk institutt, Universitetet i Rio de Janeiro: “From Barcelona 1992 to Rio de Janeiro 2016: a critical view of how mega sports events (the Olympic Games) influence urban development”.

Einar Braathen, forsker ll ved Norsk institutt for by- og regionforskning (NIBR): “Policies and politics addressing urban inequality: the case of Rio de Janeiro since 2008”.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
570
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Presentasjoner fra seminar om Rio de Janeiro 281112

  1. 1. From Barcelona 1992 to Rio de Janeiro 2016: A Critical View of How the Olympic Games Influence Urban Development Gilmar Mascarenhas CNPq (National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development) UERJ (State University of Rio de Janeiro) Brazil
  2. 2. Successful Games or Not? Emblematic Architecture and Legacy (Beijng 2008)The most spectacular and expensive Olympics ever, it was designed to announce Chinasarrival as a global superpower.As a mega-event, the Games produced their own landscape.Powerful landmarks, the Bird’s Nest and the Water Cub are very expensive.Number of visitors are low and even decreasing, especially among foreign tourists.Lack of planning for post-olympic legacy?Or is it just a successful planning for capital accumulation and to strengthen China’s andBenjing’s global image?
  3. 3. Today’s Olympism: a Confluence of Interests and a Market Oriented Urban Management• The Olympic industry’s requirements• Appropriation of sports terminology by the war of places (vigour, discipline, health, initiative, effort, leadership, team spirit, etc.)• Global promotion of the urban image• Accumulation by dispossession (David Harvey)• The real estate sector and contracting business• Local political dividends
  4. 4. Olympic Globalization• Olympism received initially eventual financial support from bankers, factory owners and others who were sympathetic to the racist, nationalist and colonialist cause of Coubertins "religion". It wasnt long before olympism started to attract political and economic interest and promote events that were increasingly more prominent internationally (Jean-Marie Brohm, 2008)• The romantic side of the Olympic ideals (ecumenism and amateurism) gradually loses ground to the "Olympic industry" (Hellen Lenskyj, 2008).
  5. 5. Olympic’s business time• 1980 – Juan Samaranch is elected President of the IOC• 1981 – Amateurism is revoked• 1986 - The impediment of commercially exploiting the Olympic emblems is abolished: the flag, the symbol, the motto, the anthem etc.. are considered to be "properties" of the Olympic Movement.• The powerful alliance media-sport-business.• New international corporation.
  6. 6. Impact on the Games’ organization• A new "Olympic urbanism," which distances itself from the welfare state (social housing and community sport practices)• Moscow 1980 x Los Angeles 1984: beyond the Cold War• Seoul 1988: the large urban project affected 15% of the population, who had to find new places to live - 48 000 buildings were destroyed (Rolnik, 2011).
  7. 7. The mythical Barcelona 1992 model: spatial distribution of the facilities (Jean-Pierre AUGUSTIN, 1996)
  8. 8. BARCELONA 1992: myth and reality• Relative consideration to the Strategical Plan of the post- Francoism (PSOE): the “urban equilibrium” principle• Attempt to meet some of the local needs for sports infrastructure• The Ollympic Village as a recovery project for a deprecated area, but it led to voluminous evictions and gentrification and disregarded the city’s historical heritage.• The driving force for the city’s development and international recognition.• Rising living costs and touristification of the city (Delgado, 2007)• A double effect of marketing: for the city and for the Olympic movement.
  9. 9. Ollympic Village– Barcelona Renovation of the Harbor Area
  10. 10. From Atlanta 1996 to Athens 2004• 1996 – A strange centenary outside Olympia: the “Coca-Cola games” in Atlanta, the “revanchist city”.• 2000 – Sydney: ecological marketing- the "green games". Sustainability’s spectacularization (use of solar energy in the Olympic village, recyclable and organic objects, collective displacements to reduce emissions, etc.) COHRE: rising prices and evictions.• 2004 – Athens:the most expensive games until then (twice as costly as Sydney). High level of repression of social movements (post-September 11): The "State of Emergency" (Stavrides, 2008)
  11. 11. Athens 2004
  12. 12. Beijing 2008 : the spectacle Interventions cover the different areas of the city, mainly north, west and east.Associated to the Games, a great plan to expand the subway network is developed. On the other hand, it focused on monumentality rather than the real sports legacy.
  13. 13. Beijing 2008: U$ 40 billion on the“Olympic Make-Up”• China has 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world, Beijing being one of the worst (World Bank).• Temporary closure of factories, prohibition on movements of trucks and on car rotation system, as well as the suspension of construction works around the city• Intense political repression during the Games• Forced displacement: 3 million people were relocated and had no rights
  14. 14. Delhi 2010Anti Commonwealth Games Front: Around 200,000 – 250,000 people have been rendered homeless and had their homes demolished due to the Games.
  15. 15. London 2012: a New Paradigm?
  16. 16. London 2012• The election of the 2012 venue happened a year after the disastrous Olympic experience in Athens (2004). By then it looked like the Beijing Olympics (2008) would follow a costly, unpopular and monumental model. Thus the election of the 2012 host was marked by a framework of pressure and the risk of discrediting the international Olympic movement.• As in Barcelona, the design of the London Games was conceived under a leftwing local administration (Ken Livingstone), focusing on urban regeneration of an old "de-industrialized“ area, in addition to investing in improvements of the metropolitan public transport.• The eastern side was elected as the main stage of events and investments. The decision of this location surprised many, considering the historical social and economic dichotomy in London’s urban space.
  17. 17. London 2012• In short, London 2012 overcomes Barcelona in terms of legacy: in both cases the metropolitan periphery conquered improvements, but in London the rate of expropriations was much smaller. We can not yet, however, fully assess the legacy of 2012, since the future of the Olympic Park is still unclear, as well as the process of urban renovation and acceleration of real estate appreciation that may occur in Stratford, a northward extension of the process of Canary Wharf, resulting in intensive gentrification of a section of the old port area, creating a new landscape at the East End. Between Strattford and this area, a route already displays intense gentrification, with famous international chains of hotels and business buildings: the Stratford High Street.
  18. 18. Rio 2016: reflections• Winning bid: Tokyo and Madrid (scenario of crisis, car rotation system and time zone); Chicago faced strong local protests, internal opposition and resistance against the unipolar model (USA). Rio has adequate sports facilities (South American pioneer) and profits from the countrys positive image (emerging market). However, it faces social and urban infrastructure problems.• Doubtful legacy: the Pan-American Games 2007 in the city of Rio de Janeiro produced sports facilities of international standards, but poorly managed and very little used. Public investments shall be multiplied for an Olympics.
  19. 19. Pan-American Games’s Social Committee (2005-2009): logo and seminar held in 2005
  20. 20. Rio de JaneiroLocation of the facilities in the 2004 bid
  21. 21. Rio de Janeiro 2016: perspectives• Concentration in Barra da Tijuca (still. ..)• Timid insertion in the suburbs• Large project for the waterfront zone• Lack of transparency and democratic channels• New white elephants• (Ongoing: real estate speculation!)• Revanchist City: the UPPs and the removal of communities
  22. 22. Rio de Janeiro 2016 : a case of elitist deconcentrationFour clusters. Barcelona’s influence but main concentration of venues and investments .in noble zones. Urban Master Plan has been dropped Revitalization of the waterfront zone
  23. 23. Ongoing trends: 1992 to 2016• High investment in discursive legitimation (urban patriotism, forced consensus) and stifling dissent;• Construction of monumental architectural icons of expensive maintenance and low social returns;• Creation of temporary decision-making bodies which are above the bureaucratic-institutional apparatus and regulatory frameworks• Little or none civil society participation in the design and management of the mega event;• Removals and great appreciation of urban land• Investments concentrated in areas of greater private interest• Rise of the spectacular metropolis
  24. 24. Policies and politics addressing urban inequality:the case of Rio de Janeiro since 2008 Einar Braathen Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research (NIBR) NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  25. 25. Rio de JaneiroRocinha next door to São Canonro NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  26. 26. Methodology• Part of international multi-thematic research project, Chance2Sustain, 2010-2104• Own work package on Urban Inequality• 4 countries, 10 cities• 2 or 3 sub-standard settlements selected in each city• Qualitative field work, following a joint conceptual and methodological framework• Comparison within cities, across cities NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  27. 27. FocusPolicies to address urban inequality: Housing.• Repression/exclusion vs rights/inclusion of the slum-dwellers.• Up-grading existing vs building new houses.Politics of substandard settlement upgrading.• Participation by the residents.• Use/abuse of environmental ‘risk’ in upgrading and removal policy. NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  28. 28. Key concepts• Urban inequality  socio-spatial segregation• Sub-standard settlements  legality (status of occupation)  regularity (spatial lay-out and physical structure)• Lack of security vs. rights/entitlements: “  issue of rights and obligations  citizenship in the settlement (“settlementship”)• Agency and social mobilisation:  Invited, invented or conquered spaces for participation NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  29. 29. Sub-standard settlements (1)Country Definition % pop.• Brasil “Precarious housing” 14• Peru “Overcrowded” 24• India “Slum” 26• SA “Non-formal” 30 NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  30. 30. NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  31. 31. Housing policies in Brazil/Rio• With democratization of 1980s, favelas no-more demolished• But lack of large-scale and long-term social housing programs 1980-2005• Lula government 2003: Urban reform. Ministry of Cities, Conferences and councils of cities.• 2007: ’PAC’ and ’Minha Casa Minha Vida NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  32. 32. Rio: turning points after 2006• Ambitious pro-business strategy ’Global City’ => hosting mega-events• 2007: The PAN Games• 2008: FIFA ’appoints’ Rio (Maracaná)• 2009: IOC decides ”The Winner is Rio…”• 2010: Extreme rain and floods• 2010-11: Morar Carioca. All favelas ’urbanized’ by 2020, as ’legacy’ NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  33. 33. NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  34. 34. Favelas in Rio NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  35. 35. NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  36. 36. • Vila Autódromo. Fishing village => working class neighbourhood in the boomtown Barra de Tijuca. Pop.: ca. 2000. Olympic Games 2016 => Olympic Park = collective removal. Constant mobilization.• Manguinhos, a cluster of sub-standard settlements in a (des-)industrialized area. Pop.: ca 50 000. Federal ‘Program for Accelerated growth’ (=PAC) incl. urban infrastructures and housing. Accelerated demobilization.• Morro da Providência, the first ever favela. Pop.: ca 4000. Olympic Games 2016 => municipal projects: ‘Porto Maravilha’ => ‘Morar Carioca’. Uneven mobilization. NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  37. 37. Case: Morro da Providência• ’No man’s land’, but cultural heritage sites. Association & clientelism developed some infrastructures.• 2010: Unit of Pacification Police (UPP). 2011: ’Morar Carioca’ starts to ’urbanize’ the favela. Abuse of ’risk area’ argument. Relocation of parts of the settlement.• Mobilization uneven: up, down & up… NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  38. 38. NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  39. 39. The ’risk area’ abuse• 1600 houses in total• 832 marked for demolition• 317 because ‘in the way for public works’• 515 because in ‘risk area’• But no public ‘laudo’, only ‘contra-laudo’• Áreas de riscos => Áreas de ricos” NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  40. 40. Sub-standard settlements (2) Semi-regular IrregularSemi- Tolerated, but no titles Tolerated, but no titleslegal + + SOME regulations, NO regulations, infrastructures, infrastructures, services services = Increasing. Most frequent? = Almost ceased.Illegal Persecuted Persecuted + + SOME regulations, NO regulations,no infrastructures, services infrastructures, no services = Increasing. Frequent with = Happens (new occupations) up-grading NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  41. 41. Sub-standard settlements (3)’Effective’ upgrading when well coordinated among the main agents, but divisive among the residentsDivisive upgrading: the poorest of the poor further marginalized. Increases socio- spatial segregation.Is full participation and control by the residents possible? Can it make upgrading both ’non-divisive’ and ’effective’? NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012
  42. 42. OBRIGADO!NIBR Faglig Forum, November 28, 2012

×