ARTICLE
All Form, No People
Why the architectural icons Beijing built for the Olympic Games stand empty.
Melinda Liu
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Apr 6, 2009
China is a command economy run by engineers, a fact that served the nation well during the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Leaders cleaned up pollution in the city prior to the event by shutting down factories and ordering more than half of Beijing's vehicles off the road. Even better, visitors were wowed by a host of stunning new buildings—including the "Bird's Nest" National Stadium, the gravity-defying China Central Television (CCTV) headquarters complex and the surrealistic National Performing Arts Center—that NEWSWEEK feted as the most exciting and complete architectural transformation of a city since the 1865-1887 redesign of Paris by Baron Haussmann.
But Haussmann didn't produce an empty shell. Now Beijing's new icons are highlighting not so much a national genius for design and construction, but the country's utter lack of marketing savvy. The Bird's Nest, CCTV tower and arts center, which together cost more than $1.5 billion to build, have become commercial disasters, suffering from money and image problems thanks to a calamitous fire and a lack of forward planning on how to generate cash post-Games. Unlike cities such as Sydney, which used Olympic structures and publicity to create a longer-term flow of tourists and business traffic, Chinese leaders adopted a "build it and they will come" attitude, not giving much thought to exactly which folks might come to see what events after the Games. "As always in China, the software lags behind the hardware," says Beijing-based consultant James MacGregor, author of "One Billion Customers."
Consider the National Stadium, which alone took $450 million to build, and now requires $15 million in yearly maintenance. Yet the only steady revenue is from tourists who pay $9 a pop to take happy snaps of an empty bowl. The number of tourists visiting the stadium has declined from 80,000 daily in October to just 10,000 last week. At this rate, it's impossible for Beijing authorities to meet their eventual target of $30 million in annual revenue at the Nest.
Originally, there had been talk of making the stadium home to Beijing's football franchise. But leaders decided that because the team is less than stellar, it might "hurt the feelings of the Chinese people" to house it there. Unfortunately, the ideas being floated now seem even more humiliating—plans are afoot to build a theme park next to the stadium, and possibly even turn it into what managers call a "tourist products venue" (they deny rumors that this means a shopping mall).
Still, such headaches are nothing compared with the Feb. 9 calamity at the yet-unopened CCTV headquarters (construction price tag: more than $731 million). Illegal fireworks set off near the tower ignited an inferno that killed one firefighter and destroyed a 158-meter-high building in which a Mandarin Oriental hotel was due to open in May. To celebrate the Lantern Festival, CCTV's construction boss had ordered up heavy-duty pyrotechnics of the sort used during the Olympic opening ceremonies—but he didn't bother getting the required permit. Recently the Chinese media announced the formal arrests of a dozen people for violating controls on handling dangerous goods. The tower itself, which Beijing residents call "the giant underpants" because it resembles upright long johns, remains standing—and empty, as CCTV ponders what to do with the gutted hulk beside it.
The futuristic titanium-and-glass-domed National Center for the Performing Arts, designed by French architect Paul Andreu and nicknamed the "Duck's Egg," also languishes, having failed to attract many world-class performances. Meanwhile, routine upkeep requires a "huge amount of money," admits a spokesperson; in fact, the building recently closed for a month of maintenance. Prospects for recouping the center's $400 million building costs are slim.
The worry now is that Shanghai is about to repeat the folly of Beijing. The city is preparing to host the 2010 World Expo (formerly known as the World's Fair) designed to highlight global progress in business, culture and technology. Officials have great expectations, estimating the extravaganza will be the biggest in the event's 158-year history, drawing 70 million visitors over a six-month period. But the U.S. has yet to commit in writing to attend the event, due largely to a U.S. law requiring that the planned $61 million American pavilion be built entirely with private funds, which have dried up as a result of the global financial crisis. Shanghai authorities blithely assumed Washington would pressure U.S. businesses to foot the bill (after all, that's what would happen if it were China's pavilion). But that's not happening, and now America may pull a no-show, something municipal authorities privately say would be an unforgettable snub.
Instead of accepting financial reality or working harder to sell the event, Chinese officials have resorted to strong-arming U.S. firms to try to get them to cough up. Not long ago one of the expo's organizers, Hong Hao, told a U.S. business group that "American companies that help will be remembered." "And those that don't will sleep with the fishes," quips Briton Paul French, a Shanghai-based business consultant.
Even so, French says, the show must go on—and he predicts that it will, even if Shanghai has to "help" some participants over their cash-flow difficulties in order to get all the pavilions built. The problem is, by the time the expo kicks off in May 2010, Shanghai is slated to spend at least $4.2 billion for infrastructure and operations; most overseas participants will have dropped tens of millions more. Yet the national pavilions are required by law to be dismantled once the six-month event is finished.
Recently expo organizers have suggested less wasteful options, such as relocating the biggest expo buildings to nearby Dongtan. Once hailed as China's showcase low-carbon city, Dongtan was supposed to have 50,000 green homes finished in time for the expo. That project stalled after its godfather, a former Shanghai party secretary, was jailed for corruption. Not a single green home was built. Dongtan, laid out without a viable plan for environmental protection or marketing, was an "ecofraud," as French puts it. That it stands empty makes Dongtan an appropriate home for Shanghai's expo leftovers. But if China is serious about creating cities that rival Paris, it has to learn how to fill its gorgeous new buildings.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/191492
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEW
In the article, the author compared the 1865-1887 redesign of Paris by Baron Haussmann with the Beijing’s new icons, which was built in view of the 2008 Beijing Olympics Games where he placed the focus on China’s utter lack of marketing savvy. These icons caused billions of dollars to build and takes a large sum of money to maintain. Despite the case, these icons were not rather put to good use such as making the stadium home to Beijing's football franchise so as to generate some income. Just by collecting entrance fees as the only source of income, it is definitely not sufficient. As a result, these icons would suffer losses and large amount of money would have gone to waste. Especially when the world economy is undergoing a global financial crisis, such wastage of money, which could be used to help stimulate the economy instead, would ought to receive criticism.
After realising the mistake Beijing had made in building these Olympic icons, we should now prevent Shanghai from repeating the same mistake when organising the 2010 World Expo. This is where planning plays an important role where long term consideration needs to be taken into account. In the recent time when the economy is bad, there is definitely a need to cut down on cost which might in turn means cutting down the scale of event. Not only had the cost be cut down, a source of income has to be generated to ensure that the cost is covered by the profits and not the other way round. By doing so, extensive planning and management of finance is required in order to ensure that all the money is properly managed.
This lead us into thinking if the upcoming projects on building the new national stadium and two integrated resorts in Singapore would be successful and not run into debt years later. In the case of integrated resorts, although it could ensure a source of income for Singapore’s economy, it not necessary would be enough to cover the cost in building and maintaining the buildings especially when the future outlook of the economy is not good. Whereas that of the new national stadium, though activities have been lined out to ensure that the sports faculties will be made use of, no one could ever be sure that all these plans can be successfully be put into actions. However, it is too early to say to judge if a project will fail now. At least one thing that could be done is to ensure the necessary precautions is taken so as to prevent repeating the same mistakes as what Beijing had made.
All Form, No People
Why the architectural icons Beijing built for the Olympic Games stand empty.
Melinda Liu
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Apr 6, 2009
China is a command economy run by engineers, a fact that served the nation well during the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Leaders cleaned up pollution in the city prior to the event by shutting down factories and ordering more than half of Beijing's vehicles off the road. Even better, visitors were wowed by a host of stunning new buildings—including the "Bird's Nest" National Stadium, the gravity-defying China Central Television (CCTV) headquarters complex and the surrealistic National Performing Arts Center—that NEWSWEEK feted as the most exciting and complete architectural transformation of a city since the 1865-1887 redesign of Paris by Baron Haussmann.
But Haussmann didn't produce an empty shell. Now Beijing's new icons are highlighting not so much a national genius for design and construction, but the country's utter lack of marketing savvy. The Bird's Nest, CCTV tower and arts center, which together cost more than $1.5 billion to build, have become commercial disasters, suffering from money and image problems thanks to a calamitous fire and a lack of forward planning on how to generate cash post-Games. Unlike cities such as Sydney, which used Olympic structures and publicity to create a longer-term flow of tourists and business traffic, Chinese leaders adopted a "build it and they will come" attitude, not giving much thought to exactly which folks might come to see what events after the Games. "As always in China, the software lags behind the hardware," says Beijing-based consultant James MacGregor, author of "One Billion Customers."
Consider the National Stadium, which alone took $450 million to build, and now requires $15 million in yearly maintenance. Yet the only steady revenue is from tourists who pay $9 a pop to take happy snaps of an empty bowl. The number of tourists visiting the stadium has declined from 80,000 daily in October to just 10,000 last week. At this rate, it's impossible for Beijing authorities to meet their eventual target of $30 million in annual revenue at the Nest.
Originally, there had been talk of making the stadium home to Beijing's football franchise. But leaders decided that because the team is less than stellar, it might "hurt the feelings of the Chinese people" to house it there. Unfortunately, the ideas being floated now seem even more humiliating—plans are afoot to build a theme park next to the stadium, and possibly even turn it into what managers call a "tourist products venue" (they deny rumors that this means a shopping mall).
Still, such headaches are nothing compared with the Feb. 9 calamity at the yet-unopened CCTV headquarters (construction price tag: more than $731 million). Illegal fireworks set off near the tower ignited an inferno that killed one firefighter and destroyed a 158-meter-high building in which a Mandarin Oriental hotel was due to open in May. To celebrate the Lantern Festival, CCTV's construction boss had ordered up heavy-duty pyrotechnics of the sort used during the Olympic opening ceremonies—but he didn't bother getting the required permit. Recently the Chinese media announced the formal arrests of a dozen people for violating controls on handling dangerous goods. The tower itself, which Beijing residents call "the giant underpants" because it resembles upright long johns, remains standing—and empty, as CCTV ponders what to do with the gutted hulk beside it.
The futuristic titanium-and-glass-domed National Center for the Performing Arts, designed by French architect Paul Andreu and nicknamed the "Duck's Egg," also languishes, having failed to attract many world-class performances. Meanwhile, routine upkeep requires a "huge amount of money," admits a spokesperson; in fact, the building recently closed for a month of maintenance. Prospects for recouping the center's $400 million building costs are slim.
The worry now is that Shanghai is about to repeat the folly of Beijing. The city is preparing to host the 2010 World Expo (formerly known as the World's Fair) designed to highlight global progress in business, culture and technology. Officials have great expectations, estimating the extravaganza will be the biggest in the event's 158-year history, drawing 70 million visitors over a six-month period. But the U.S. has yet to commit in writing to attend the event, due largely to a U.S. law requiring that the planned $61 million American pavilion be built entirely with private funds, which have dried up as a result of the global financial crisis. Shanghai authorities blithely assumed Washington would pressure U.S. businesses to foot the bill (after all, that's what would happen if it were China's pavilion). But that's not happening, and now America may pull a no-show, something municipal authorities privately say would be an unforgettable snub.
Instead of accepting financial reality or working harder to sell the event, Chinese officials have resorted to strong-arming U.S. firms to try to get them to cough up. Not long ago one of the expo's organizers, Hong Hao, told a U.S. business group that "American companies that help will be remembered." "And those that don't will sleep with the fishes," quips Briton Paul French, a Shanghai-based business consultant.
Even so, French says, the show must go on—and he predicts that it will, even if Shanghai has to "help" some participants over their cash-flow difficulties in order to get all the pavilions built. The problem is, by the time the expo kicks off in May 2010, Shanghai is slated to spend at least $4.2 billion for infrastructure and operations; most overseas participants will have dropped tens of millions more. Yet the national pavilions are required by law to be dismantled once the six-month event is finished.
Recently expo organizers have suggested less wasteful options, such as relocating the biggest expo buildings to nearby Dongtan. Once hailed as China's showcase low-carbon city, Dongtan was supposed to have 50,000 green homes finished in time for the expo. That project stalled after its godfather, a former Shanghai party secretary, was jailed for corruption. Not a single green home was built. Dongtan, laid out without a viable plan for environmental protection or marketing, was an "ecofraud," as French puts it. That it stands empty makes Dongtan an appropriate home for Shanghai's expo leftovers. But if China is serious about creating cities that rival Paris, it has to learn how to fill its gorgeous new buildings.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/191492
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEW
In the article, the author compared the 1865-1887 redesign of Paris by Baron Haussmann with the Beijing’s new icons, which was built in view of the 2008 Beijing Olympics Games where he placed the focus on China’s utter lack of marketing savvy. These icons caused billions of dollars to build and takes a large sum of money to maintain. Despite the case, these icons were not rather put to good use such as making the stadium home to Beijing's football franchise so as to generate some income. Just by collecting entrance fees as the only source of income, it is definitely not sufficient. As a result, these icons would suffer losses and large amount of money would have gone to waste. Especially when the world economy is undergoing a global financial crisis, such wastage of money, which could be used to help stimulate the economy instead, would ought to receive criticism.
After realising the mistake Beijing had made in building these Olympic icons, we should now prevent Shanghai from repeating the same mistake when organising the 2010 World Expo. This is where planning plays an important role where long term consideration needs to be taken into account. In the recent time when the economy is bad, there is definitely a need to cut down on cost which might in turn means cutting down the scale of event. Not only had the cost be cut down, a source of income has to be generated to ensure that the cost is covered by the profits and not the other way round. By doing so, extensive planning and management of finance is required in order to ensure that all the money is properly managed.
This lead us into thinking if the upcoming projects on building the new national stadium and two integrated resorts in Singapore would be successful and not run into debt years later. In the case of integrated resorts, although it could ensure a source of income for Singapore’s economy, it not necessary would be enough to cover the cost in building and maintaining the buildings especially when the future outlook of the economy is not good. Whereas that of the new national stadium, though activities have been lined out to ensure that the sports faculties will be made use of, no one could ever be sure that all these plans can be successfully be put into actions. However, it is too early to say to judge if a project will fail now. At least one thing that could be done is to ensure the necessary precautions is taken so as to prevent repeating the same mistakes as what Beijing had made.
Posts
I would like to add on to the review. I feel that China should also look at how France have structured buildings. This is because France, being a developed country, may have more experience in structuring buildings and China, being a developing country, may just not have the experience of building cost-efficient infrastructures. This could prevent wastage of money like infrastructures such as the "Birdnest" and give China more ideas on how to build cost-efficient buildings.
ReplyDeleteNajib 08S13