The Olympic Park and the Instability of the Mise En Abyme - Notes
Mise En Abyme
The point of
departure for these sessions at InINland was the notion of Mise en
Abyme.
For the benefit of
those who are not familiar with this term I wanted to briefly discuss
it.
The definition is
a complex one, but perhaps the most straight forward example is the
idea of placing two mirrors in front of each other, so their panes
create an infinite reflection of their own image as well as that of
the other mirror.In a sense, the
mise en abyme contains more than just a reflection of itself, it
reaches outside itself and draws in that which surrounds it. In literary and
artist terms, mise en abyme is the work within a work, the play
within a play of Hamlet, the painting or mirror within a painting in
the case of Las Meninas.
From French writer
Andre Gide we get the comparison of the coat of arms, within the
shield sits a smaller version of a shield, placed in the centre, a
position known as En Abyme. It can be said
that the internal representations that occur within these works are
reductive, despite giving the illusion of infinity, at some level,
determined by scale, there is a vanishing point. All of these representations are
smaller, polarised and lacking in the complexity of what it appears
within.
Phenomena of Olympic Site
Rather than react directly to the
structure that has been built within this space, I have chosen
extrapolate the basic notion of mise en abyme in order to engage with
the unique phenomena that is the construction of an olympic city.The structure we
currently find ourselves in began life as a representation of the key
features of the space it inhabits. The angles of the walls, the size
and shape of the void it creates are all subtly informed by the space
that spawned it.
An olympic city is
seen as its own entity. It provides the illusion of self sufficiency,
while being hugely reliant on the infrastructure of the host city. It
is in some ways a polished version of the host city within itself, a
structural mise en abyme. In a document entitled Designing for Legacy
produced in 2009 by London's Olympic Delivery Authority states this
desire clearly saying:
“In 2012 the eyes of the world will
be on us. It will be a opportunity to show everything that is great
about London and the UK. That includes the quality and inventiveness
of British architecture, design, construction and engineering.”
Rather than being
a response to need, as one may hope would be the case in most urban
development the olympic city is brought about by the desire to
showcase the host city to the rest of the world. Within it, there are
subtle markers that alude to the message that the host city hopes
will transmit to the millions of viewers around the world. A strong
example of this in the ArcelorMittal sponsored Orbit tower designed
by Anish Kapoor, with all its cultural legacy brownie points.
Attaching the name of a Turner Prize winning artist to the site
seems a considered move.
In an ideal
scenario, development would be based on the assessment of local need,
building up from the ground, working with the community. In the case
of an olympic city, there is a top down approach taken. The need of
the Olympic Games are predetermined, there is little room for
flexibility in terms of the facilities that are required, and it is
the job of the host city to clear a space for these.
It is also the
time scale that makes the Olympic City so unique, in the case of
London, the bid was accepted in 2005, with the games due to take
place in Summer 2012. In a remarkably short space of time, and with a
seemingly endless budget, and entire development is constructed.
London 2012
London's Olympic
Park is situated in Stratford in East London, spanning 2.5 square km.
It can clearly be seen on a ariel view map. Nestled on the outskirts
of London.
It is home to 8
venues including the olympic stadium, velodrome and the aquatic
centre. It is also where Kapoor's viewing tower can be found.
Statford train
station is to be the main access to the olympic park, the station
itself has received a huge makeover and is served by the underground
and overground trains.
Another fixture of
the site is of course the huge Westfield shopping centre, a
climate-less development designed so that visitors to the site need
to pass through its vastness in order to reach their destination.
This seems to be
the most obvious nod to the desire to transform Stratford into a
destination outside of the olympics. However, the huge losses that
the Westfields in London's White City was reported as having suffered
may shake the belief that a shopping centre will draw in the crowds.
Time, as they say, will tell.
Greece 2004
When discussing
the instability of an olympic park development, Athens is perhaps the
most obvious example. Perhaps the
spiritual home of the games, Athens was distraught to lose it's bid
to host the 1996 centennial games to Atlanta.
In 1997 they won
the bid to host the 2004 olympics and from that moment the pressure
was on to make it a huge success. The olympics
itself ran smoothly there were notable improvements to the city as a
result, most notably the subway. The same cannot be
said of the legacy of the olympic site. Venues that were built to
meet the requirements of sports federations were of little use to
Athenians, with most of them now standing empty. It has been
estimated that 2004 cost Greece 13 Billion Euros cumulatively and by
2008 500million had been spent on 'upkeep', which is difficult to
believe if you consider the current state of the site.
It would be
incredibly reductionist to claim that the blame of the collapse of
Greece's economy lies soley at the foot of the the 2004 games, but it
would be equally short sighted not to acknowledge that it played a
significant role. Speaking in 2011
Dr Samatas a professor from the University of Crete and an expert on
the 2004 Athens security operation stated that
“Τhe cumulative costs of the Athens
2004 Olympics is most definitely a prime reason for the Greek state’s
dramatic financial crisis. Olympic spending left Greece with a
hefty budget deficit in 2004, reaching 6.1% of Gross National
Product, more than doubling the EU’s cap of 3%. Olympic spending
also pushed up public borrowing in 2004 to 43 billion from an earlier
target of 35 billion. Since then, Greek public debt has exploded
exponentially. In 2010, it reached a stunning figure of $469.8
billion (142.8% of GDP).”
Our Legacy
It is too early to have any indication
as to the fate of the London site. We can hope that lessons will have
been learned from the catastrophe of Greece. 'Before during and after: Making the
most of the 2012 games' is a document that sets out five of what it
calls 'promises as to the scale of our ambition'
The cynic in me can't help but think
ambition is perhaps a useful word in this instance
The five points are as follows:
Make the UK a world-leading sporting
nation
Transform the heart of East London
Inspire a generation of young people
to take part in local volunteering, cultural and physical activity.
Make the Olympic park a blueprint
for sustainable living
Demonstrate the UK is a creative,
inclusive and welcoming place to live in, visit and for business
It is perhaps the
last line that is significant. 'Demonstrate'. The fear is that this
investments made on the site will be ploughed into posturing. Anish Kapoor's
Orbit is perhaps a good example of this. Whatever you think of the aesthetics of the structure, it is a
clear symbol of the aspired cultural heritage of the olympic site.
One thing is for
certain, London has never been somewhere that needs help in
attracting tourists or putting itself on the cultural map. Once our
industry all but dried up, hospitality and tourism has been our
saving grace, and say what you like about the Queen, but her jubilee,
and the legacy of the monarchy, in combination with the draw of our
great writers and poets, has been instrumental in drawing visitors to
the UK.
Another important point to make is
about the housing legacy of the olympic site
There has been a lot of coverage of the
compulsory purchase orders that were served in order to make the
Stratford site happen. In particular, the Carpenter Estate, which is
adjacent to the olympic park, which Newham council have decided to
demolish 'decanting' hundreds of residents in the process. In doing
so they have destroyed community, perhaps a struggling one, but
genuine social space that had been produced by social interaction.
With millions of pounds of investment
to be made in residential towers in both Stratford city and the
olympic development, the area is at huge risk of polarisation,
privatisation and fragmentation. Disrupting any sense of community in
the area and effectively creating a space where those from different
backgrounds live in different worlds.The olympic site has provided a
catalyst for regeneration on a dramatic time scale. What is
desperately needed in the area is affordable housing, but the
realities of meeting this need are difficult.
Private investors are needed to
continue development on the olympic site after the cameras have
turned away, and initially, the pledges of 25-35 percent affordable
housing seem reasonable (the 50 percent set by the labour party in
london was scrapped when Boris Johnson came to power in 2008). But
when we consider that the definition of affordable housing can be
anywhere up to 85 percent of the market rate, this within London,
does not seem so affordable. I could be seen to increase the risk
that the legacy will be high cost, aspirational developments, out of
the reach of local residents. This does not sit well with the idea
that the urban regeneration of Statford will be of most benefit to
those who already live there.
Conclusion
The city within
a city, built in an inorganic top down way lacks the roots are needed
to support most urban developments. Social relations
produce their own space and in this case the social relations do not
exist. The olympic park was
built to satisfy short term needs.When the cameras
have gone, the division of the site begins, what was once a coherent
whole, the London we wished to show the world, risks becoming an
unstable relic, a NEW RUIN.
That is not to say that something cannot be made out of an Olympic
Site, even in the case of Greece, what has been left behind is an
improved infrastructure, most strikingly transport, but it is hard
not to question how much longer this will be the case if the
financial backing is not there to support it.
The Olympic site, will continue to be a contentious issue. Such a
huge outlay of money in such a small period of time will always
attract criticism and the host city is inviting the scrutiny of the
world. In creating a city within a city, sparking new developments and
aiding the regeneration of a previously neglected area, there is a
lot to be gained.
We must be mindful, however of the instability of the development and
the potential that this shiny example of all that great about London
will become a modern relic. Without careful investment it its future, the mise en abyme of the
olympic site will be nothing more than an empty symbol of London's
olympic ambitions.
