Don’t get the idea that I’m speaking from any sort of moral high ground, or even from a moral hillock, but Chris Wise’s comments about steel were interesting and I thought perhaps ought to be brought to their logical conclusion (9 October, page 28)
Which is: why have new buildings for Olympic Games at all? Why not refurbish old ones in rundown bits of the host country where they would benefit everyone instead of being centred in a “village” near an already well-served and well-financed capital city?
Or, why have Olympics at all? Surely the global carbon footprint reduction would be massive. Then, come to think of it, why have Formula 1 with all the expensive cars and teams flying round the globe to race? World superbikes, the World Cup, and Winter Olympics could also come under scrutiny.
Of course, the Tour de France would continue. That’s low carbon (except for the bikes) isn’t it? Apart from the three-mile long entourage, helicopters, team cars … bugger!
Greg Gilding, Fisher Wrathall Architectural
No comments yet