 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
| April 2010 |
 |
The island of Tromsø and surroundings |
The Use of an Unrealized Plan: Master Planning for an Olympic Bid in Tromsø Context As Vancouver geared up for the Winter Olympics, the city of Tromsø looked on with interest and maybe a bit of envy. In 2005, the city of Tromsø had planned to be candidate for the Winter Olympics of 2018, and had elaborated a Master Plan. In the autumn of 2008, the Norwegian Olympic Committee decided not to go on with the candidacy, as the costs would be too high and funding was not assured. The city of Tromsø counted on its good infrastructure and on the unique environment north of the Arctic Circle as advantages. It also emphasized its natural beauty at the foot of skiing slopes, the combination of fjords and mountains and the northern lights. The city of Tromsø is the biggest town in Norway north of the Arctic Circle. It has 67,000 inhabitants and a thriving university. The city has participated in two bids to host the Winter Olympics, once for 2014, then for 2018. It is unsure whether the city will bid for 2022 or 2026. The aim of this article is to describe the early stages of a planning process for a city administration in an Olympic candidacy and the lessons learned from the bidding process. First, this article will describe the planning context in Norway and the history of the Master Plan. Then it will discuss some of the important themes of this plan. Finally, it will describe what the Planning Department learned from that experience, and how the city used the contents of a plan that didn’t materialize. History of the Bid In 2005, the city of Tromsø qualified itself among three cities as the Norwegian city to bid for the 2018 Olympics. An external company (“Tromsø 2018”) was set up by the local authorities, and was charged with the elaboration of the bid and the marketing of the city. As part of the bid, the city’s Planning Department elaborated a Master Plan. The aim of this plan was to set off appropriate areas for the event and to assess its impacts and mitigating measures. The Master Plan was a planning document in addition to the candidacy document that would have been sent to the International Olympic Committee. The Planning Department’s initial contribution was quite modest. Two persons worked part-time on the project, several working-groups were constituted with key services and a meeting of the heads of departments that took the major decisions. Some funding was available, amongst others for specific consultancy projects. The Planning Context Planning in Norway is carried out through the Planning and Building Act (“plan-og bygningsloven”). The act that was valid at that time dated from 1985, although it had undergone several revisions. A new act came into force in the summer of 2009. The law defines a hierarchical system of national, regional, and local plans. At the national level, policy guidelines and laws set national targets around which the local authorities base their plans. According to Norwegian law, the local authority plays a crucial role in planning, by shaping their environment and setting standards for the building process. Municipal plans translate both national and local objectives into binding area regulations. There are two kinds of local plans: municipal plans and local zoning plans. A municipality (“kommune”) elaborates a new general plan for every new legislature, in effect matching the strategic planning objectives with the elected council priorities. A municipality can also develop thematic plans/sector plans (“kommunedelplaner”). These can either cover a geographic area within the municipality—for example, a former industrial area—or have a particular theme, i.e., second residences, or transport. The Master Plan for the Olympics was such a sector plan. Private or public actors can then elaborate local zoning plans in compliance with sector plans and general plans. These can be restricted to owned property, or can cover several plots of land. The Master Plan’s Aims The Master Plan’s aim was to integrate the future event into the mould of municipal land-use plans. The main objectives were mapping infrastructure and transportation needs, fitting the plan with the long-term need of the town, especially in regard to post-Olympic use of infrastructure, public participation, and strengthening of sustainable practices. Citizen engagement in the project was aimed at finding solutions in partnership and mapping out the uncovered needs. An inquiry in the municipal council was part of this process and will be described further on. The infrastructure needs were discussed with the different municipal services in working-group meetings. As the creation of infrastructure would be important compared to the size of the town, the use before and after the event had to be maximized. For instance, accommodation on cruise ships was considered, to lessen the imbalance between the accommodation needs during and after the games. Part of the Olympic village could also be converted into future housing. The Master Plan identified on which sites ground pollution needed to be investigated, and on which plots high-density buildings were adequate. Other challenges included water distribution and sewage. The infrastructure was to be near the city, allowing for less transport, as most of the arenas would be very near the town. In order to reduce transportation costs and infrastructure needs, arenas were located close to the city. This measure would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the impact of the games on the landscape. Most of the events were to take place within the municipal boundaries. Considerable investment in urban infrastructure would be needed. Brown sites, the city centre, and new areas all emerged in a close radius, many within walking distance of each other. Identifying the appropriate sites was challenging, but important. The city’s transportation planners were forced to think about ways to cope with the significant amount of foot and bus traffic in the streets and how to manage the traffic flow. A mapping was done to understand how the games could best “fit” with the local needs of business growth. The Master Plan induced planners into thinking of the city in the long-term, projecting their statistics to 2025 or 2030. This has led to the city now receiving national funding for scenario-building for 2044, the 250th anniversary of the city. The Municipal Council Inquiry One of the early actions of participation was an inquiry in the town council. From a number of key concepts defining the city, the councillors were asked to select the most appropriate in regards to the desired future. In a next step, the proposals that received most weight were to be debated by local youth clubs. Young people were to be organized in working groups, which would propose more specific measures. The youth would be the generation coming of age in 2018. If the municipal council inquiry concluded that “safe city” was a major theme to be developed, what did the young working group make of that? Would that mean safer road crossings? Or better streetlights? The third step of this process was up to the administration: offer specific measures to meet the youths’ proposals. Only the first step (the inquiry) was executed, as shortly afterward the town decided not to continue with its bid. Questionnaires were distributed to all elected politicians during a town council meeting. The councillors were asked to grade on a scale from 1 to 10, 16 different themes characterizing the city, both for the present (“how do you see the city now regarding [theme]”) as for the future (“how much do you want the city to invest in [theme] until 2018?”). The results were shown in the form of a radar chart (see diagram). All results scored higher for 2018 than they scored for present. There were no themes that were disapproved of for the future. A few themes scored poorly, like “aesthetic city” or “coastal city”.
“Radar chart” showing the results of the municipal The highest scores for 2018 were the areas where the city had high competence and wished it to strengthen this. The themes in this category were “culture city”, “safe and friendly city” and “knowledge city”. Second, it listed those aspects with the greatest difference between today’s score and the 2018 score (high increase in value). This expressed the city’s ambition and the areas where investment would be needed because most change was desired, e.g., “sustainable city”, “arctic centre”, and “sports city”. Third, the standard deviation was calculated for each theme. Those with the lowest standard deviation were the themes where there was on average the least difference in scores between the councillors; in other words, those where there was most agreement. These consensual themes were “culture city” and “shopping city”. The councillors reacted positively to this inquiry, which gave them an occasion to participate early on in the planning process. Subsequently, the inquiry helped to define the strategic aims of the planning process. Planning Difficulties One of the major challenges the town faces is to know what to do with the areas that were designated as Olympic infrastructure. Should construction be put on hold in the face of a possible future candidacy or should they be opened for other projects? The debate is currently gripping local politics. Reserving these strategic areas for a possible future candidacy retires them from the market and makes future investment in them less likely. On the other hand, releasing them to building projects takes away useful sites from a possible future candidacy. A major difficulty that many members of the planning board expressed was the need to both plan for an event and for its aftermath. For example, how could the building of a new high-capacity water pipeline through the fjord be useful after the event? Another is to cope with the failed expectations! There was a buzz surrounding the city as major architects’ offices showed interest in taking part in the planning. This has partially lapsed. Key Lessons The Master Plan had three key focus areas. The first focus was on compact games, i.e., arena location as close as possible to the city centre and major infrastructure. Secondly, there was a focus on sustainable development and “zero-emission” games. Thirdly, the infrastructure was to be suitable for post-Olympic use. All three areas were challenging for planners. Public participation is not only a prerequisite for such a plan, but it should be an essential part of it. Because so many people are involved and because the realization requires a lot of cooperation, public participation should be present right at the start of the planning process. Participation should pursue three different aims. Firstly, include broad information in sufficient quality and quantity throughout the whole process. Next, participation should also give the possibility for the public to air their opinion at given moments of planning. Finally, decision-making teams (“work groups”) should be constituted representing major and representative stakeholders in the planning process. Criticism of the project should be addressed constructively and solutions found in dialogue. A good method needs to be set up to identify suitable places and ways to translate ambitions into planning. This is a difficult question, with economical, social, and environmental implications. Multicriteria decision-making is a useful tool. Finally, a local authority should keep in mind the possibility that a bid could fail, and make the Master Plan so that it also contains a “Plan B” situation. The planning process is a usual first step in a project, but the follow-up doesn’t always happen. An interesting study would be to find a method to use plans where the first scenario doesn’t work out. Sources:
1. “by” means “town/city”, i.e. “miljøby” means “sustainable city”. Translations are proposed. |
