Olympic Village 2026: sustainability or cementification?

The Scalo di Porta Romana, abandoned since the 1990s, has long been a "grey area" of 190,000 square metres. However, during these decades of waiting, something extraordinary happened: a spontaneous re-naturalisation. The "wild greenery" created a self-sufficient ecosystem that reclaimed the industrial remnants of the early 20th century. What appeared to be a forgotten area was, in fact, a natural laboratory of urban biodiversity. Today, with the 2026 Winter Olympics, this process comes to a halt. Although the project marks the end of neglect, it is crucial to reflect on what we are sacrificing in terms of authentic and unplanned nature in favour of new construction.

The new Olympic Village aims for the highest sustainability standards, with the goal of being "Carbon Neutral" and obtaining BREEAM certification. The buildings incorporate advanced technologies, from photovoltaics to water recovery, and will become the largest student accommodation in Italy. However, despite these credentials, the physical impact on the area is clear: it involves a permanent sealing of the soil. Where nature had begun to breathe again, new concrete is now being laid. This raises a central question for the future of Milan: are energy-efficient buildings enough to define a project as "sustainable" if it means permanently foregoing the full return of nature to the city?

With XNatura, it is possible to assess the ecological integrity of the site using MSA Land Use (Mean Species Abundance), an indicator that measures the average abundance of original species compared to an intact ecosystem. This tool assigns a score ranging from 0 (completely degraded ecosystem) to 100 (natural and pristine state). In the case of the Olympic Village, the recorded MSA value is 5. This figure highlights an extremely low biodiversity within the new urbanised environment. Despite the greenery designed in the renderings, the site's capacity to host a rich and varied fauna and flora drastically collapses compared to the area's potential, confirming that biological integrity struggles to coexist with the massive artificialisation of the territory.

The technologies for an ecological transition are already at our disposal, but the case of Porta Romana suggests that they are not sufficient without effective governance and bold choices. The challenge is not only to construct modern buildings but to decide how much of the city should remain free from concrete to ensure climate resilience. Milan desperately needs extensive and deep green areas capable of countering heat islands. Choosing to further densify areas that had already begun a process of natural healing raises doubts about the long-term strategy: we are building a technologically advanced city, but perhaps one that is ecologically poorer than it could have been.

The Olympic Village will leave an important legacy in terms of services and student accommodation, but true progress should be based on a deeper balance between the built environment and nature. We need a trust in progress that does not see nature as an obstacle, but as a fundamental partner in design. Concrete solutions must involve a closer collaboration between urban planning and biology, prioritising the protection of remaining biodiversity. Only with a vision that prioritises soil health over volumetric yield can we say we have built a truly resilient Milan. The future of Porta Romana teaches us that, beyond green roofs, we need the courage to leave space for open land.