Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    1/55

    London 2012 Olympic legacies:Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and

    Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    www.communities.gov.ukcommunity, opportunity, prosperity

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    2/55

    London 2012 Olympic legacies:Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and

    Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    Laura Keogh

    September 2009Department for Communities and Local Government: London

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    3/55

    AbstractThis report explores the concept o Olympics legacy in relation to the London 2012 Olympic Games. Itsuggests ways in which Communities and Local Government might organise its work to maximise theprobability that a successul legacy is achieved or the Lower Lea Valley (LLV) and East London. It ishighlighted that there will not be just one legacy rom the Olympics but a set o legacies, and that thereis potential to develop an Olympics leverage agenda to address the regeneration needs o East London.

    This report is produced by Laura Keogh, Department o Geography, Kings College London, The Strand,London, WC2R 2LS, Email: [email protected], on behal o Communities and Local Government.The author would like to thank those who have given up their time to participate in this research. Inparticular the author would also like to thank and acknowledge Ralph Ward, Georey Tierney andKatharine Rees (Communities and Local Government Olympic Programme) or their views andcontributions which have inormed this report. Responsibility or the inal product is, o course, theauthors own.

    The report was written in May 2008 and reflects the situation at that time.

    Department or Communities and Local GovernmentEland HouseBressenden PlaceLondon SW1E 5DUTelephone : 020 7944 4400Website : www.communities.gov.uk

    Queens Printer and Controller o Her Majestys Stationery Oice, 2009.

    Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

    This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced ree o charge in any ormat or medium orresearch, private study or or internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it beingreproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged asCrown copyright and the title o the publication speciied.

    Any other use o the contents o this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply or aClick-Use Licence or core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writingto the Oice o Public Sector Inormation, Inormation Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU

    e-mail: [email protected]

    Any other use o the contents o this publication would require a copyright licence. Further inormationcan be obtained rom www.opsi.gov.uk

    I you require this publication in an alternative ormat please email: [email protected]

    Communities and Local Government PublicationsTel: 030 0123 1124Fax : 030 0123 1125Email: [email protected] via the Communities and Local Government website : www.communities.gov.uk

    September 2009

    Product Code: 08ACST05645

    ISBN: 978 1 4098 08299

    The indings in this report are those o the authors and do not necessarily representthose o the Department or Communities and Local Government.

    mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]
  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    4/55

    Contents

    Chapter 1 5Introduction

    Chapter 2 15

    The challenge o delivering a successul legacy: lessons rom previous Olympics,mega-events and large scale regeneration projects

    Chapter 3 23

    Planning or legacy in East London

    Chapter 4 39Communities and Local Government and London 2012 Olympic Legacies

    Chapter 5 47

    Conclusions

    Annex 1 49

    Reerences 50

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    5/55

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    6/55

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    7/55

    6 | London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    What role can the Department play in securing a successul legacy and3.

    how can the Olympics contribute to departmental objectives and wider

    regeneration ambitions or East London?

    Map 1 The Olympic Park

    Source: Communities and Local Government (2008)

    In the rst section, this study begins to answer the question what is legacy? by

    examining the various ways in which legacy is dened in both academic literature

    and by those institutions responsible or delivering the Olympics in 2012.

    With reerence to the experiences o previous host cities and other large scale

    regeneration projects, the study then highlights the main challenges o securing a

    successul legacy rom the Games. In the next section the various legacy plans and

    strategies or the LLV and East London are reviewed and areas o similarity and

    dierence are noted. Drawing on a series o interviews with key stakeholders in

    East London and the Olympics, the multiple perspectives on legacy are examined.

    These perspectives then inorm a discussion o the Departments role in securing

    a successul legacy and how the Olympics might be used to leverage benetsthat contribute towards departmental objectives, in particular the development

    o sustainable communities. Public sector investment o 9.3bn has been

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    8/55

    Chapter 1 Introduction | 7

    committed to the Olympics2, directed mainly at building the Olympics site and

    venues rather than unding legacy delivery. While additional legacy unding may

    be required, there is potential to secure legacy ambitions through identiying

    existing strategies, programmes and projects which can be enhanced by theOlympics. The study highlights that there are particular needs in the LLV and

    East London which, i mobilised eectively, the Olympics could play a role in

    alleviating.

    1.2 What is legacy?

    Legacy has increasingly become a part o the Olympics in recent years but it

    remains a concept that is ill dened and oten contested. In a general sense,

    Olympics legacy is understood to be the impacts, over varying timescales, o

    hosting the Games, whether these impacts are positive or negative. Legacy

    should be thought o in the plural there will not be just one legacy rom the

    2012 Games but a set o legacies (see Figure 1).

    Figure 1 Typology o Olympic legacies

    Type o legacy Possible examples

    Economic Number o jobs created

    Investment in London associated with OlympicsNew hotel developments

    Social New housing o a decent standard

    Community capacity building through involvement in theGames

    Improved disability awareness generated by the ParalympicGames

    Health Increased sports and physical activity participation

    Provision o sports acilities or local communities

    Improved air quality in and around Olympic Park

    Environmental Remediation o contaminated land

    Removal o overhead power lines

    Creation o green spaces and biodiverse parkland

    Improved public transport routes and new cycle andpedestrian walkways

    Cultural Benets o Cultural Olympiad Programme

    Celebration o East London cultures

    Provision o arts/cultural acilities or community uses.

    2 Tessa Jowells statement o 15th March 2007

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    9/55

    8 | London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    Figure 1 Typology o Olympic legacies

    Type o legacy Possible examples

    Governance Partnerships between 5 host boroughs

    New ways o joined up working

    Community engagement in planning and hosting theGames

    Hard Construction o Olympic Stadium

    Improved rail station at Stratord

    Sot Innovative training and skills programmes

    Sel esteem and condence generated rom volunteering

    or working at the GamesDirect Number o Olympic Park jobs taken by people resident in

    Host Boroughs

    Indirect New housing developments in areas surrounding OlympicPark

    Visible / tangible Creation o new parkland

    New walkways and cycle routes in and around OlympicPark

    Invisible /

    intangible

    Impacts o Olympics development on perceptions o East

    London as a place to live, visit and work.Sense o pride or host borough communities

    These legacies include social, economic, cultural, environmental and governance

    legacies. Some legacies will be inevitable as they are required to stage the

    Games themselves. These include the remediation o contaminated land in

    the Olympic Park, the creation o parkland and improvements to transport

    inrastructure. Other legacies require steps to identiy and capture them and

    are perhaps better understood as Olympics opportunities.3 There will also be

    hard and sot legacies, whereby a hard legacy may comprise the constructiono sporting venues and associated inrastructure and sot legacies may relate to

    increased sporting participation and the up-skilling o local communities. Direct

    and indirect legacies will also be generated. An example o a direct legacy might

    be the number o construction jobs in the Olympic Park taken by people living in

    the host boroughs, whereas a progressive increase in employment rates in areas

    surrounding the Olympic Park would be an indirect legacy.

    Legacies can also be thought o in terms o visible and invisible or tangible and

    intangible. Tangible legacies can be readily seen and measured, such as the

    creation o new parkland within the Olympic Park. Intangible legacies are more

    3 This idea was raised through discussions with Ralph Ward, Communities and Local Government Olympics Programme.

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    10/55

    Chapter 1 Introduction | 9

    dicult to measure, an example might be the impacts o new parkland on

    perceptions o this part o East London by potential residents and investors. These

    dierent legacies are not always distinct, an economic legacy can generate a

    subsequent social legacy, or as LERI (2007) highlights, hard legacies can createsot legacies. For example, they note that The hard legacy o a stadium while

    depending on a good subsequent unctional ollow-up use post Games, will

    always also carry various memento eects, hard legacy serving simultaneously

    as sot legacy in iconic assertion o the citys status as an Olympic host(ibid: 21).

    There is also scope to consider whether a Paralympics legacy is dierent rom

    Olympics legacy will the Paralympics generate distinct legacies? Or perhaps the

    Olympics may lever specic sporting legacies or disabled people?4. It has been

    noted that Paralympic legacy is an area which is under researched and there is

    limited evidence rom previous Games which evaluates Paralympic legacy (LERI2007). Legacy should be understood as a rich concept that can mean dierent

    things to dierent people and organisations and that will change over time and

    space. This multiplicity should be considered when the Department and other

    institutions are planning and developing strategies or securing benets rom the

    Olympics or the LLV and East London.

    Prior to the 1960 Rome Olympics, legacy was not a priority in bidding or and

    hosting the Olympics. The increase in scale and levels o investment required or

    hosting the Olympics, in conjunction with the new commitments to sustainable

    development, have changed this and we now have a context where legacy is

    central to the Olympics brand (Gold and Gold 2008). In order to comply with

    principles o sustainable development, it is not acceptable or the Olympics to be

    just 29 days o sporting spectacle it has to provide long term benet or host

    communities (IPPR and DEMOS 2004). This notion has been embraced by cities

    bidding or mega events like the World Cup, European Capital o Culture and the

    Olympics, which have become seen as attractive mechanisms or driving urban

    regeneration and development (LERI 2007, IPPR and DEMOS 2004). In London or

    example, the Commission or a Sustainable London 2012 has been established

    by the Greater London Authority (GLA) and London Organising Committee othe Olympic Games (LOCOG) to provide credible, independent assurance on the

    sustainability status o the London 2012 Games (CSL 2007: 1).

    It is widely believed that London won the 2012 bid in large part because o its

    ocus on creating a successul legacy or East London and the wider UK. The

    geography o the Olympic site played a part in securing the bid, as there was

    recognition that the event could provide the opportunity to stimulate a vital

    economic regeneration programme in Londons poorest and most deprived area

    (London 2012 Candidate File 2005: 23). The bid aspirations or legacy are notedin Figure 2, divided into legacy outcomes within the Olympic Park and outside it.

    4 The notion o a specic Paralympic legacy is not explored in this report, but is a policy area which requires urther research.

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    11/55

    10 | London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    Figure 2 London 2012 Olympic Bid legacy aspirations

    Legacy aspirations within the Olympic Park

    the creation o a desirable, socially diverse and balanced new residential areaproviding a housing legacy or London

    a model or social inclusion, bringing communities together

    a high quality environment or neighbouring mixed use communities

    sporting venues to be converted to educational uses including nurseries,primary and secondary schools and lielong learning centres

    expanding Londons green credentials

    a magnicent legacy park that expands the Lee Valley Regional Park (LVRP)

    the creation o a hub or East London

    Legacy aspirations that extend beyond the Olympic Park

    catalyst or economic and social regeneration in and around the OlympicPark

    employment creation or people across the UK and London, but especially inthe LLV

    opening up opportunities or education, cultural and skills development.

    a legacy or sport in Britain in terms o increased sport participation andworld-class sports acilities

    a positive transport legacy

    Source: London 2012 Candidate File (2005)

    In line with the London bid and the requirements o the International Olympic

    Committee (IOC), HM Government have established a set o programme

    objectives and sub-objectives or the Olympics and assigned responsibility

    or delivery o these objectives to specic organisations and government

    departments. The our programme objectives are:

    To stage an inspirational Olympic Games and Paralympic Games or the1.

    athletes, the Olympic amily and the viewing public.

    To deliver the Olympic Park and all venues on time, within agreed budget2.

    and to specication, minimising the call on public unds and providing or a

    sustainable legacy.

    To maximise the economic, social health and environmental benets o3.

    the Games or the UK, particularly through regeneration and sustainable

    development in East London.

    To achieve a sustained improvement in UK sport beore, during and ater the4.

    Games, in both elite perormances particularly in Olympic and Paralympic

    sports, and grass roots participation.

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    12/55

    Chapter 1 Introduction | 11

    These objectives indicate how legacy is conceptualised at a cross government

    level. O particular interest to Communities and Local Government is objective 3,

    and sub objectives 3.1.5 which the department leads on, and 3.1.8 which it has a

    keen interest in:

    3.1.5 Ensure that the Games contribute to Sustainable Communities priorities

    including the wider Thames Gateway.

    3.1.8 Ensure the UKs diverse communities are engaged with and benet rom

    the changes and opportunities arising rom hosting the Games in the UK.

    A Public Service Agreement5 (PSA 22) has been created or the Olympics and

    the headline ambition or this agreement is to deliver a successul Olympic

    Games and Paralympic Games with a sustainable legacy and get more children

    and young people taking part in high quality PE and sport(HM Treasury 2007).

    The agreement ocuses both on the successul hosting o the event in terms o

    delivering venues and inrastructure on time and within budget, and the legacy

    potential o the Olympics. The PSA outlines a number o perormance indicators,

    and it is indicator two Maximising the regeneration benets or the 2012 Games

    which is o signicant interest to the Department. However, this indicator is

    very much aboutplanning or regeneration and the development o the Legacy

    Masterplan Framework (LMF)6 as the period covered by PSAs is only up until

    2011.

    In addition to the PSA and Olympics programme objectives, Government have

    made ve distinct legacy promises:

    Make the UK a world-leading sporting nation1.

    Transorm the heart o East London2.

    Inspire a generation o young people to take part in local volunteering,3.

    cultural and physical activity

    Make the Olympic Park a blueprint or sustainable living4.

    Demonstrate the UK is a creative, inclusive and welcoming place to live in,5.

    visit and or business

    5 A PSA details the aims and objectives o government departments. Each PSA is underpinned by a delivery agreement and covers a

    three year period in line with the Comprehensive Spending Review. Departmental budgets are linked to perormance in relation toPSAs.

    6 The LMF process, led by the LDA, entails development o a masterplan or the legacy use o the Olympic Park. Stakeholder andcommunity consultation is a key part o this process (LDA 2008) and it is anticipated that a planning application will be submitted in2009.

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    13/55

    12 | London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    At the London level o governance, the Mayor7 is keen to secure a successul

    legacy rom the Olympics and has published his ve legacy commitments (GLA

    2008), which ocus on benets or London and Londoners that can be gained

    rom the Olympics:

    Commitment 1: Increased opportunities or Londoners to become involved in

    sport.

    Commitment 2: Ensuring Londoners benet rom new jobs, businesses, and

    volunteering opportunities.

    Commitment 3: Transorming the heart o East London

    Commitment 4: Delivering a sustainable Games and developing sustainable

    communities.

    Commitment 5: Showcasing London as a diverse, creative and welcoming city

    Figure 3 outlines how these various legacy promises, commitments and objectives

    relate to the initial bid aspirations established in 2005. The bid aspiration to create

    a hub or East London is refected in the various legacy commitments in the

    language o transormation, and the development o a revived urban centre.

    Several points can be made about these legacy promises and commitments in

    terms o spatial scale, scope and expected changes. Firstly legacy impacts are

    envisaged across dierent spatial scales rom the local areas surrounding the

    Olympic Park in East London, to the national scale, where it is hoped to use the

    Olympics to increase young peoples participation in sport. The legacy ambitions

    are closely related to improving quality o lie or people in the UK whether

    this is through increased sports participation, employment opportunities,

    environmental improvements, or the promotion o sustainable ways o living.

    Other themes underpinning the legacy promises include addressing the issues o

    worklessness in East London, and the opportunities or economic development in

    terms o tourism and inward business investment related to the Olympics.

    7 At time o writing, Ken Livingstone was Mayor o London. The new Mayor, Boris Johnson has yet to make clear his position on theOlympics, but it is noted that a campaign pledge emphasised the sporting legacy or London over regeneration benets o hosting theGames (see The Guardian, 15.05.08)

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    14/55

    Chapter 1 Introduction | 13

    Figure 3 Legacy aspirations

    Legacy aspirations detailed in Bid

    (Candidate File 2005)

    OlympicProgramme

    Objectives

    PSA22

    Government5leg

    acy

    promises

    Mayors5Legacy

    Commitments

    Within the Olympic Park

    The creation o a desirable, socially diverse andbalanced new residential area providing a housinglegacy or London.

    a a a a

    A model or social inclusion, bringing communitiestogether

    a a

    A high quality environment or neighbouring mixeduse communities

    a a

    Sporting venues to be converted to educationaluses including nursery, primary, secondary schoolsand lielong learning centres

    a

    Expanding Londons green credentials a a a a

    A magnicent legacy park that expands the LVRP a a a

    The creation o a hub or East London a a a

    Beyond the Olympic Park

    Catalyst or economic and social regeneration inand around the Olympic Park

    a a a a

    Employment creation or people across the UK andLondon, but especially in the LLV.

    a a a

    Opening up opportunities or education, culture

    and skills development

    a a a a

    A legacy or sport in Britain in terms o increasedsport participation and world-class sports acilities

    a a a a

    A positive transport legacy a a a

    The degree o change and investment required to achieve the legacy

    commitments and promises is signicant. The ambition to transorm East

    London includes a diverse range o issues such as employment creation or

    local communities, new housing, transport improvements, improvements to

    the quality o the environment and a positive change in place image to namea ew. Delivering this promise undoubtedly means a very signicant degree o

    change and eective partnership working across all levels o government and

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    15/55

    14 | London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    with Olympic bodies such as the Olympic Development Agency (ODA) and

    LOCOG. Partnership working is necessary or the achievement o all the legacy

    commitments and promises. For example, the pledges to make the UK a world-

    leading sporting nation and increase opportunities or Londoners to participate insport, require investment in sporting venues, sporting technologies and coaching,

    the co-ordination o school sport initiatives that will require the Department or

    Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), Sport England and local authorities to

    play a role, in addition to active participation rom communities. Drawing on

    the experiences o previous host cities and other mega-events, the next section

    highlights some key legacy challenges or London.

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    16/55

    Chapter 2 The challenge o delivering a successul legacy: lessons rom previous Olympics, mega-events and large scale regeneration projects | 15

    Chapter 2

    The challenge o delivering asuccessul legacy: lessons romprevious Olympics, mega-eventsand large scale regenerationprojects

    As with other mega-events and large scale regeneration projects, the delivery

    o a successul legacy, or a set o legacies, rom the Olympics is a considerable

    challenge (LERI 2007, IPPR and DEMOS 2004, NWDA 2004). The National Audit

    Oce (2007) has highlighted six key areas o risk associated with delivering a

    successul Games in London, one o which is identied as Planning or a lasting

    legacy. A key theme rom reviews o previous Olympics and the impacts on host

    cities is that the hard legacy outcomes, such as improved inrastructure and

    sports venues, are more readily achievable than the sot legacy benets that

    include skills, employment, sports participation, community empowerment anddisability awareness. It has also been noted that a degree o scepticism surrounds

    event regeneration strategies (Smith and Fox 2007: 1125). Drawing on research

    which assesses the legacies o previous Olympics, mega-events and large scale

    regeneration projects, this section briefy highlights the key challenges or

    delivering successul legacies within the Olympic Park, in the surrounding LLV and

    East London area, and the wider context o London and the UK.

    2.1 Legacy challenges inside the Olympic Park

    Modern Olympics tend to concentrate most o the sporting venues and Games

    inrastructure (such as a broadcasting centre) within one site. In 2012, the

    majority o the Olympics activities will take place within the Olympic Park at

    Stratord, with some exceptions such as sailing (Weymouth and Portland, Dorset)

    and ootball (Wembley Stadium, Millennium Stadium or example). The Olympic

    Park is associated with hard legacy gains, and it has been noted that all host

    cities pursue these gains which include inrastructure, the reorientation o city

    spaces, improved amenity, new types o land use and economic activity. (LERI

    2007: 9).

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    17/55

    16 | London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    Mega sporting events leave a legacy o sporting venues that represent signicant

    economic investment. Previous host cities have had varying levels o success at

    nding productive long-term uses or the venues. Sydneys Olympic Stadium

    or example is thought to be heavily under used and loss making (Gold andGold 2008). In Athens, the Olympics Sports Complex at Maroussi similarly

    remains underused and relatively inaccessible to communities (ibid, and LERI

    2007). Securing long term ownership, management and uses or venues

    and other acilities such as the broadcasting centre is thought to be key to

    achieving a successul legacy within the Olympic Park. As LERI (2007: 9) states

    planned in legacy osets white elephant syndrome in some casesin all

    cases legacy needs to be built into initial conceptions, design and delivery o

    Olympic acilities. One example rom London is that the Lea Valley Regional Park

    Authority has ownership o the Velodrome in the Olympic Park and will overseethe management o this venue ater 2012. This approach could be replicated

    with other venues and acilities in the Olympic Park and is an important actor in

    securing successul legacies rom London 2012.

    A signicant challenge or fagship regeneration projects like the Olympic Park is

    how they relate to surrounding areas and integrate with existing communities.

    As Raco (2004: 34) highlights agships can create islands o development that

    barely connect to the localities in which they are situated. This integration, and

    the blurring o boundaries between the park and surrounding areas is a key

    criteria or legacy success. Achieving this is not easy and requires a combination o

    (a) hard planning and design mechanisms to promote linkages between places,

    provide accessibility or all and ensure sensitivity to the existing environment

    and (b) sot approaches which eectively engage local communities and do

    not overlook local attachments to place. Regeneration o the scale o the

    Olympic Park has the potential to redene the geography o a large

    section o East London. There is a need to ensure that local communities

    are part o this process, with strategic eorts made to prevent

    communities eeling that this new space is not or them. It is suggested

    that the Olympics needs to generate development o, not just in local areas(Raco 2004: 37). This is key or securing successul legacies rom 2012 the

    development oand not just in East London.

    This relates to another issue highlighted in research on previous host cities

    who will the Olympic Park be or? Concerns raised rom experiences o other

    host cities include provision o aordable housing or local communities versus

    housing or a wider catchment area (LERI 2007), and gentrication which

    to some degree are an inevitable part o regeneration endeavours but have

    potentially detrimental impacts, such as existing communities being priced out othe local housing market, the displacement o local services and the development

    o alternative services (public, entertainment, retail) that do not necessarily meet

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    18/55

    Chapter 2 The challenge o delivering a successul legacy: lessons rom previous Olympics, mega-events and large scale regeneration projects | 17

    the needs o existing communities. These issues have implications or sustainable

    community building and community cohesion both departmental objectives or

    Communities and Local Government.

    The experiences o previous Olympics suggest that the planning and

    management o the Olympic Park can be an arena or competing legacies to

    arise. For example, a successul legacy or the IOC may be about achieving a

    debt ree Olympics which may compete with local authorities and communities

    ambitions to secure raised living standards in and around the park (IPPR and

    DEMOS 2004: 10). The desire to raise local living standards is likely to involve

    additional investment which LOCOG and the ODA are not equipped to provide.

    As LERI (2007: 10) highlights, the defnition o assurance o legacy alongside

    cost is typically at the heart o stakeholders agendas. The Olympic Park is alsothe ocus o environmental sustainability issues and concerns associated with

    climate change. As these concerns have grown in signicance (see Stern Review

    2006) there is increasing pressure to deliver a green and sustainable Olympics

    (ODA 2007). Previous host cities have achieved varying levels o success in terms

    o positive environmental legacy, but London has pledged that the 2012 Games

    will be the most sustainable Games to date. It will be a challenge to meet this

    ambition in terms o balancing environmental losses and gains, investing in new

    technologies, reducing carbon ootprints yet encouraging people to visit the

    Games. There is scope here or best practice and technological innovation

    to be shared between the Olympics and the work that the Department

    and partners are doing to develop an eco-region in the Thames Gateway.

    2.2 Legacy challenges outside the Olympic Park:regeneration or local communities

    Research on previous Olympics shows that the event and associated activities

    do have a degree o leverage, meaning that additional benets can accrue

    rom hosting the Games (LERI 2007, IPPR and DEMOS 2004, Preuss 2004). Thechallenge is how to capture these Olympic eects. It is in the area surrounding the

    Olympic Park where this leverage could be most signicant and used to urther

    local priorities and address needs (Map 2 highlights how the Olympic Park cuts

    across the boroughs o Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest).

    It is acknowledged that the Olympics can have a positive impact on the economic

    perormance o a host city but that it is oten dicult to dierentiate between

    Olympic eects and the eects o other changes, such as Cross Rail in London or

    changes in the economic climate (LERI 2007, GVA Grimley and RICS 2006).

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    19/55

    18 | London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    A key lesson rom other Olympics, particularly Barcelona (1992), and also

    Manchester Commonwealth Games (2002), is that the mega-event must be part

    o and complement a wider regeneration agenda (LERI 2007). The Barcelona

    Olympics is oten cited as a model or London, but the contexts are very dierent.In Barcelona, city leaders sought to regenerate the entire city o 3 million people

    (ibid) whereas in London the event is very much ocused on a section o the city

    (2.5 square kilometres, albeit with a signicant population living in the ve host

    Boroughs). Comparisons may be made between East London and Barcelona, but

    the scale o the wider regeneration agenda in East London, which the Olympics

    can realistically contribute to, should be careully considered. The Olympics in

    London complements a signicant existing regeneration programme the LLV is

    identied as a key opportunity area in the London Plan (GLA 2004) and is a ocus

    o activities or the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC).

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    20/55

    Chapter 2 The challenge o delivering a successul legacy: lessons rom previous Olympics, mega-events and large scale regeneration projects | 19

    Map 2 The Olympic Boroughs and the Olympic Park

    Source: Communities and Local Government (2008)

    The mixed use development o Stratord City, which will include the Olympic

    Village, was planned prior to the Olympics bid, and the Olympic Park is within the

    boundaries o the Thames Gateway, a designated growth area and governmentpriority programme. It is thought that the Olympics will add credibility and

    visibility to the much wider regeneration that is taking place in East London.

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    21/55

    20 | London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    (Experian 2006: 55) This wider regeneration agenda has a long history and the

    East London area has received support rom national and European regeneration

    initiatives. These include the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) and Stratord City

    Challenge which ocused on improvements to the town centre, and EuropeanRegional Development Fund (ERDF) objective 2 investment in the regional station

    at Stratord.

    Research on the Manchester Commonwealth Games (2002) suggests that mega-

    events can be used to prompt a concentrated regeneration eort. Smith and

    Foxs (2007) research highlights how in 1995, when Manchester was awarded

    the Commonwealth Games, the city took action to create a wider regeneration

    agenda themed around the event in the East Manchester area. The East

    Manchester Regeneration Company was established, the area was designated anEducation, Health and Sport Action Zone by Sport England, and was targeted or

    Sure Start, SRB and New Deal or Communities support (ibid). A similar approach,

    concentrating regeneration programmes in and around the Olympics, could

    be developed in the LLV and East London to complement and enhance existing

    strategies that seek to address needs in this area.

    The Olympics in London are anticipated to create signicant employment

    opportunities but lessons rom previous Games raise questions about who the

    jobs will be or, the types o employment in terms o skill level and duration o

    employment (Crookston 2004). Research suggests that Olympics employment

    peaks in the pre-Games period and the challenge or a host city is to sustain

    this growth through programmes and structures post-Games. Construction

    employment at the Olympic Park and Stratord City is expected to peak at

    20,000 in 2010 (ODA 2008). Previous host cities have a poor record o achieving

    signicant improvements to the skills o local communities (LERI 2007, Experian

    2006) a key challenge or London in light o the comparatively low levels o skills

    in the ve host boroughs. The ODAs Employment and Skills Strategy(February

    2008) is a positive step in addressing these issues within the Olympic Park, but

    is very much ocused on pre-Games and Games time employment. It has alsobeen suggested that communities should be engaged in the ormulation o

    employment and training schemes to ensure that programmes meet their needs

    (Experian 2006).

    LERI (2007) in their review o previous Olympics recommend that the knowledge

    base developed in preparing or and hosting the Olympics should not be

    dispersed ater the Games. They suggest that the expertise o individuals and

    organisations such as the ODA and LOCOG should be retained ater 2012 and

    the knowledge gained should be put to eective use in urthering regenerationagendas or the areas in and around the Olympic Park. This approach could

    be valuable or the LLV area a number o highly experienced proessionals

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    22/55

    Chapter 2 The challenge o delivering a successul legacy: lessons rom previous Olympics, mega-events and large scale regeneration projects | 21

    have been drated in to deliver the Olympics and it would be benecial or local

    regeneration agendas i some o this expertise could be captured post 2012.

    Improvements to inrastructure, particularly transport inrastructure, are widelyrecognised as a key legacy benet o the Olympics. Improvements to existing

    transport systems and the development o new networks and connections

    associated with hosting the Games are expected to leave a legacy or local

    communities and businesses long into the uture. Transport is one area where

    Olympics leverage is particularly clear, in terms o the Olympics speeding up

    transport development and instigating new transport improvements. Evidence

    rom Barcelona, Atlanta and Athens suggests that the Olympics can accelerate

    inrastructure projects (LERI 2007). This legacy is arguably more readily

    achievable than some o the other legacy ambitions (participation in sport orexample). The ambition in London is to host a public transport Games and

    inrastructure improvements in Stratord and the Olympic Park are planned and

    under construction to deliver this. Transport developments include upgrading

    the capacity o the DLR, improvements to the North London Line and Stratord

    Regional and International stations. The wider regeneration o the LLV area

    should benet rom these improvements and local planning agendas should seek

    to capitalise on these developments.

    2.3 Wider Olympic benets

    The wider legacies o the Olympics on a broader geographical scale, together

    with the more indirect legacies, are perhaps the most dicult to conceptualise

    and then to achieve. These wider legacy outcomes centre on the potential or a

    sporting and cultural legacy across the whole nation and draw on the notion that

    the Games can be inspirational or the host country and all its communities.

    An important part o the London 2012 bid was the potential benets that

    hosting the Games could generate not just or the communities in and around

    the Olympic sites but across the UK. Olympic Programme Objective our andLegacy Promise one (see pages 7-8) make commitments to secure nationwide

    sporting, skills, and cultural benets. These benets are intended to be achieved

    through a range o initiatives (including the Cultural Olympiad) and through a

    range o partners. Nations and Regions or example, are currently drating plans

    to capitalise on the Olympics (Nations and Regions East 2007 or example). A

    Legacy Trust endowed with 40m has been created to oster the development

    o sports, education and cultural benets rom the Olympics between 2008

    and 2012. The trust aims to lever an additional 40m o match unding and

    organisations including community groups will be able to bid or unding to

    deliver projects across the UK. Following rom previous Olympics and other mega-

    events (including Manchester Commonwealth Games), volunteering is thought

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    23/55

    22 | London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    to be a mechanism to raise aspirations and enhance peoples employability and a

    volunteering programme Personal Best has been created or 2012.

    Previous Olympics suggest that securing a sporting legacy o increased sportsparticipation is dicult to achieve. In Barcelona and Sydney there is some

    evidence o short term impacts but researchers note that most evidence on

    sports participation is anecdotal (LERI 2007). A report produced or the London

    Development Agency (LDA) and London Health Commission (ERM 2004) ound

    little evidence o a link between the Olympics and uptake in sport and physical

    activity. Similarly there is limited evidence to suggest that previous Olympics

    have generated health improvements in host communities. Research on the

    Manchester Commonwealth Games suggests that sports events can help to

    access groups most difcult to reach(Smith and Fox 2007: 1141). This highlightsthat there may be potential to use sporting events associated with the Olympics in

    London, to engage with hard to reach groups and work to ensure that they gain

    some benets rom the Games.

    2.4 Summary

    The above sections outline some o the major lessons in securing successul

    legacies rom previous Olympics and other mega-events and projects. The

    key points or London 2012 and those that are o particular relevance toCommunities and Local Government in terms o meeting departmental

    objectives and sub-objective 3.1.5 are summarised below:

    sot legacy outcomes (such as employment or local communities, skills

    improvements, sports participation, healthier liestyles and overall quality o

    lie) will require a range o programmes and initiatives to support ambitions.

    This is particularly relevant or the LLV and East London where programmes

    should seek to capture the opportunities conerred by the Olympics and

    address local needslegacy uses or sporting venues and acilities should be identied as early as

    possible and be incorporated in planning and the LMF process

    engagement with local places and people to oster a sense o ownership with

    the Olympics is important

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    24/55

    Chapter 3 Planning or legacy in East London | 23

    Chapter 3

    Planning or legacy in East London

    The section examines the planning or Olympics legacy in the LLV and East

    London. Firstly the various legacy plans and strategies produced by a range o

    stakeholders are reviewed. This reveals a degree o coherence across legacy

    priorities, but also a variable geography o legacy, whereby some priorities are

    deemed more important by some areas than others. The ollowing sub-sections

    examine the multiple perspectives that stakeholders have on legacy. These

    perspectives can contribute to dening what successul legacies or East London

    might entail and the challenges o achieving them. The section concludes by

    highlighting that stakeholders thought an agreed strategic vision or this area or

    quarter o East London was important or achieving successul Olympics legacies

    3.1 Review o legacy plans

    Numerous legacy plans, strategies and statements have been produced by

    a range o stakeholders involved in the Olympics. These include plans andstrategies by HM Government (DCMS, orthcoming), government departments,

    the Nations and Regions, Regional Development Agencies (SEEDA 2007 or

    example), the Local Government Association, (LGA 2007), local authorities

    across the UK, business organisations (London First 2007 or example) and

    British Waterways. This section will ocus on the strategies and plans that are

    most relevant to the LLV and East London. In summary these are the plans by

    government, the Mayor o London, the LDA and the ve host boroughs. Figure

    4 maps the legacy priorities outlined in these strategies and highlights that the

    key priorities which all stakeholders commit to are job creation and business/

    investment opportunities.

    Government are in the process o publishing a national Legacy Action Plan,

    which seeks to elaborate on the ve legacy promises made previously. The

    nationwide ambitions, such as increased sports participation, and celebration

    o cultural diversity are relevant to East London but in particular it is the promise

    to transorm the heart o East London that is most striking. The Mayor has

    produced a compelling legacy strategy in his ve legacy commitments (GLA

    2008), setting out an aspirational vision or the legacies o the Games or London.

    It is concise, outlines milestones and targets or a range o outcomes, andprovides details on how outcomes will be achieved through specic programmes

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    25/55

    24 | London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    and initiatives. Figure 5 outlines some o the key programmes detailed in the

    strategy which are designed to accrue legacy benets or London.

    As Figure 4 highlights, there are a number o legacy themes that reoccur in thedierent legacy strategies and plans. This demonstrates that there are some

    shared priorities and a degree o agreement over what a successul Olympics

    legacy or East London might look like. Refecting governments legacy promises,

    these shared priorities centre on sports participation or all, young peoples

    activity, job creation, skills training and environmental improvement. These are

    primarily the soter legacy outcomes that, as noted in section 2, are recognised

    to be more challenging to achieve. The issues associated with worklessness

    in East London and within the host boroughs are perhaps the top priority or

    Olympic legacy. It is hoped that hosting the Olympics can really make an impacton addressing this issue through tangible actions such as job brokerage

    schemes, training initiatives and volunteering programmes and the anticipated

    (i somewhat ambitious) intangible impacts on peoples aspirations, sel esteem

    and willingness to participate in the labour market. All the host boroughs have

    job brokerage programmes that work to secure employment or local people

    in construction within the Olympic Park and Stratord City. Employment gures

    rom the ODA or February 2008 indicate that out o 2,478 construction workers

    currently employed at the Olympic site, 430 (17.35 per cent) are rom the ve

    host boroughs (ODA 2008a).

    The ve host boroughs Greenwich, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets and

    Waltham Forest have all produced documentation on Olympics legacies. For

    Hackney and Tower Hamlets, this is the orm o a legacy plan while or the

    others, it is a statement o objectives and work in progress towards securing

    benets rom the Olympics. There is a signicant degree o coherence within

    the boroughs strategies and objectives in terms o headline commitments

    to legacy. However, the strategies do reveal clear variation in the perceived

    geography o legacy and highlight that the individual boroughs place more

    importance on some legacy ambitions than others. The strategies suggest thereis a hierarchy o legacies within the individual boroughs, ie or some boroughs

    the employment legacy is top priority but or others this has less importance. For

    example, Greenwichs legacy objectives place more emphasis on sport, culture

    and capturing the visitor economy o the Olympics. These objectives refect

    Greenwichs spatial distance rom the Olympic Park, its existing tourism market

    and also that the borough has existing venues that can be used or the Olympics

    (or example the O2, the Royal Artillery Barracks and Greenwich Park).

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    26/55

    Chapter 3 Planning or legacy in East London | 25

    Figure

    4PlanningOlympicslegacyfo

    rEastLondon

    Olympiclegacypriorities

    Legacyp

    lan/strategy

    Lead

    partner

    Sport s participation

    Elite sport

    Disabled peoples sportingactivity

    Job creation

    Addressing worklessnesthrough skills and training

    Housing or London

    Increase aordable housing

    Parkland/new open space

    Young peoples activity

    Sustainable liestyles

    Transport improvements

    Business/investmentopportunities

    Place image and perception

    Reduction in carbonemissions

    Culture and diversitycelebration

    Healthy living

    Community cohesion

    Enhanced visitor economy

    LegacyAc

    tionPlan(2008)

    GOE/DCMS

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    FiveLegacyCommitments

    (2008)

    Mayorof

    London

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    LegacyNo

    w:Shapingthe

    OlympicP

    arklegacy(2008)

    LDA

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    Legacypriorities

    LBGreenwich

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    Ahostfor

    2012:TheLondon

    Olympica

    ndParalympic

    Games(2007)

    LBHackney

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    OurObjectivesfor2012

    LBNewham

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    Olympica

    ndParalympic

    GamesLe

    gacy:Strategyand

    Programm

    e

    LBTower

    Hamlets

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    Itshappe

    ninghereandyou

    areinthe

    frontrow

    LBWaltham

    Forest

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    27/55

    26 | London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    Figure 5 Programmes to encourage participation in London

    Programme/Initiative Lead organisations Aims

    London Employmentand Skills Taskorce(LEST) or 2012

    LSC and LDA Use the Olympics tomake permanentreductions inworklessness acrossLondon. Includesinitiatives such asEmployers Accord and

    job brokerage schemes

    Personal Best LSC and LDA Encourage

    disadvantaged peopleto learn new skillsand to volunteer withthe aim o improvingemployability

    Summer o Sport LDA, Sport England,London Councils

    Annual event toencourage participationin sport

    Winter o Sport Mayor and DCSF Increase young peoplesparticipation in sport

    through ater schoolclubs and coaching

    National Skills Academyor Construction at theOlympic Park (proposed)

    ODA, LDA and LSC Provide people withconstruction skills andimprove employability

    Lets get moving (pilot) DH, NHA London,Sport England, NaturalEngland and Londonboroughs

    Training or healthproessions toencourage patientsto get more physically

    active.

    The geography o legacy is also apparent in Hackneys Olympics priorities. The

    International Broadcast Centre and Media and Press Centre (IBC/MPC) is located

    within the area o the park that alls within Hackney. As a result, one o their

    main priorities is the legacy o this venue in terms o creating employment or

    local communities, inward investment and the development o a new creative

    hub or East London. The dierentiation between the boroughs legacy priorities

    the geography o legacy is a message that emerged rom interviews with

    stakeholders and is explored urther in section 3.2.1. The recognition that

    there is a variable geography o legacy is important or the planning o

    legacy in East London. Dierent places in and around the Olympic park

    have dierent legacy priorities and programmes designed to achieve

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    28/55

    Chapter 3 Planning or legacy in East London | 27

    a successul legacy will need to refect this diversity and recognise that

    they will have varying impacts in dierent places. As the department o

    place (Communities and Local Government 2007), Communities and Local

    Government should be aware o this geography and ensure that this context isconsidered in the development o legacy agendas, and the development o the

    LMF.

    3.2 Perspectives on legacy

    The previous section outlined the key strategies and plans or legacy in East

    London and highlighted a degree o coherence in legacy priorities across

    stakeholders. Drawing on interviews with a number o these stakeholders this

    section will now examine some o the dierent perspectives on legacy.8 These

    multiple perspectives can contribute to dening what successul legacies or East

    London might entail and the challenges o achieving these.

    3.2.1 The geography o legacyDiscussions with stakeholders highlighted that there is spatial variation in (or a

    geography o) their plans and expectations or Olympics legacy. This geography

    was perceived in terms o inside and outside the Olympic Park and also the

    dierent geographies o the host boroughs in relation to the Olympic Park. A key

    point made by all stakeholders was that the integration o the Olympic Park withsurrounding areas was crucial to achieving success. There should be no red line

    boundary around the Olympic Park ater 2012 and it was suggested that a sign

    o long term success would be that i you go to East London ater the Games you

    should not be able to tell where the boundary was. Integration o the Olympic

    Park with surrounding areas in terms o how the place looks, eels and is

    managed was thought to be an important part o legacy success. LVRP Authority

    or instance would like to see the quality o parkland sustained throughout the

    Olympic Park and LLV, and were keen to ensure that service delivery in the area

    was joined up. For example, post 2012, people should be able to hire a bike in thenorth o the Lea Valley and return it in the Olympic Park.

    There was a concern raised by some stakeholders that the LMF process should

    not just be about the uture o the Olympic Park, but ocus on the wider LLV

    area, incorporating the LLV Opportunity Area Planning Framework (GLA 2007).

    The ringe masterplans are a clear priority or the our boroughs surrounding

    the Olympic Park and these are reerred to in the proposed LMF. However

    there is some concern that the ringes outside the Olympic Park will be second

    stage areas relative to the Olympic Park, where better land uses that generate

    higher economic returns or provide higher standards o design quality will be

    8 See Annex 1 or list o stakeholder organisations interviewed

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    29/55

    28 | London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    given priority. The renewal o town centres is a priority in East London (see GLA

    2007) and the London Thames Gateway (Communities and Local Government,

    2007), and there is perhaps potential or the Olympics to be used strategically to

    accelerate these regeneration aims over this wider geography.

    As noted in previous sections, there is a geography o legacy in terms o the

    host boroughs pursuing slightly dierent legacy ambitions. The host boroughs

    do have similar characteristics but it is important to recognise that their starting

    points or regeneration and socio-economic contexts do dier. It was suggested

    that some boroughs have greater place aspirations (Newham, Tower Hamlets)

    whilst others prioritise people aspirations (Greenwich). Greenwich or example

    prioritises sports and cultural legacies rom the Olympics and has developed

    initiatives such as a Sport-a-thon, a Paralympic Forum, and a proposal or a Centreo Excellence or Arts. This refects Greenwichs distance rom the Olympic Park,

    the boroughs regeneration context, and local needs. Greenwich already has its

    Olympics venues in place, and the major physical development projects in the

    area, such as Woolwich town centre, are not directly related to the Olympics.

    Priorities in Newham and Waltham Forest also highlight this geography o

    legacy. Newhams starting point or regeneration is (arguably) more advanced

    that some o the other host boroughs. Stratord City is a major mixed-use

    development that includes signicant transport improvements, the potential to

    change the character o the Stratord area and create thousands o jobs (5,000

    jobs by 2016 projected in the Thames Gateway Delivery Plan, 30,000 proposed

    by LB Newham by completion o the development). In light o this development

    context, an Olympics legacy priority or Newham is to use the Olympics to inspire,

    encourage and support the boroughs residents to benet rom new employment

    opportunities. In contrast, Waltham Forest has limited physical development

    within the borough and has jurisdiction over a comparatively small section o

    land in the Olympic Park (see Map 2). In light o this regeneration context and

    geography, the boroughs legacy priorities are ocused on ensuring communities

    can access the opportunities on oer beyond their boundary, at Stratord Cityor example. A successul legacy or Waltham Forest would entail improving

    connections with the Olympic Park and wider LLV area in terms o public transport

    provision and inrastructure such as bridges, pathways and cycle routes.

    Figure 6 suggests the host boroughs top legacy priorities as indicated in interview

    by borough ocers. These priorities may provide the ocus or an Olympics

    related Multi Area Agreement (MAA). There appears to be support rom the

    boroughs in principle or an MAA, an initiative which is unlikely to have emerged

    without the impetus o the Olympics in East London. Cross borough working isoten dicult to achieve in practice and it is thought that an MAA might help co-

    ordinate the boroughs plans or the areas around the Olympic Park. The act that

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    30/55

    Chapter 3 Planning or legacy in East London | 29

    the boroughs have dierent legacy priorities does not detract rom the easibility

    o an MAA it perhaps provides more reason to have this agreement and a orum

    or communication, with the potential to coordinate the dierent priorities.

    Joined-up working oers the potential to gain added value rom regenerationplans and investments. Co-ordination can allow the boroughs to make the most

    o developments outside their boundaries.

    Figure 6 Five host boroughs legacy priorities based on discussions withborough ocers

    Borough Top legacy priority

    LB Greenwich Increasing participation in sport and culture, and

    promoting the visitor economyLB Hackney Securing the legacy use o the IBC/MPC to benet local

    communities and develop a cultural/creative centre inthe borough.

    LB Newham Use the Olympics to raise aspirations and improvepeoples capacity to benet rom major developments inEast London

    LB Tower Hamlets Addressing the wider regeneration needs andstructural socio-economic issues in the borough

    LB Waltham Forest Good connectivity to the Olympic Park and otherdevelopment projects in East London to enable localcommunities to access services and employmentopportunities

    3.2.2 Olympic OpportunitiesStakeholders expressed mixed views on the opportunities that the Olympics could

    provide or the LLV and East London. This section will briefy highlight some o

    these perceptions

    The Olympics can be used as a hook to raise aspirationsThe GLA and host boroughs noted that the Olympics can be used to raise

    host communities sel-esteem, condence and sense o sel. This in turn is

    thought to improve peoples quality o lie and employment opportunities.

    In Newham, or example, the local authority showed condence in the bid

    process alone. The Local Strategic Partnership allocated 1m o Neighbourhood

    Renewal Funding to the Olympics bid, and a urther 12m or kick starting

    legacy processes.9 Research suggests that in London a key impact o hosting

    the Games could be achieved by capitalising on the inspirational potential to

    create a undamental shit in peoples aspirations, through the desire to be part

    9 The nature o Neighbourhood Renewal Funding meant that the latter unds (12 million) were not expended until ater the securingo the Games.

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    31/55

    30 | London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    o such a successul and exciting event(Experian 2006: 55). Evaluation o the

    Manchester Commonwealth Games supports this view and highlights that the

    event provided a good hook or participation rom needy benefciaries, as well as

    rom project workers and key players(Smith and Fox 2007: 1141). Experienceso previous Olympics host cities do not however provide strong support or this

    hypothesis (LERI 2007, IPPR and DEMOS 2004), but it is highlighted that the

    Olympics can potentially be used as a mechanism or raising aspirations and

    mobilising communities,

    Enthusiasm, perhaps inspired by the powerul aective charge associated with

    the Olympic brand, can encourage an overestimation and presumption, in terms

    o specifc socio-cultural outcomes ushered in by the magic o the Olympics.

    Nevertheless it is also the case that the presence or a period o the the Olympicspirit in the host city, and in the national imaginary, does oer a real and rare

    opportunity to develop and mobilise cultural, communal and social action

    opportunities to catalyse large scale transormation.(LERI 2007: 16).

    Some stakeholders refected this view and thought that a careul balance was

    required between maximising the opportunities o the Olympics and raising

    expectations too high.

    Awareness that legacy outcomes will not just happenRefecting research on mega-events such as the Olympics, European Capital o

    Culture, World Cup and estivals, there was recognition amongst all stakeholders

    interviewed that a successul legacy would not happen by accident. There

    was awareness that programmes and initiatives are required to deliver legacy

    outcomes. As a representative or Newham commented, the opportunities

    or a successul Olympics legacy are there to have but we need to go out and

    get them . This refects Smith and Foxs (2007: 1130) argument that securing

    regeneration rom events requires careul planning and event managers who are

    sensitive to the importance o legacy.Securing uses and owners or Olympicsvenues at the earliest stage possible was thought to be important in achieving

    a successul legacy or East London. There is potentially a role or Communities

    and Local Government here, as lead department or regeneration, in terms o

    monitoring and supporting this process.

    Role of the private sector in maximising Olympic opportunities

    Some stakeholders, particularly those that represent and work with businesses

    stressed the importance o engaging the private sector in planning or Olympics

    legacies (see also London First et al 2007). East London Business Alliance (ELBA)

    and London First argued that the private sector should be a key part o the

    LMF process, and not just be involved at the delivery stage once the majority o

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    32/55

    Chapter 3 Planning or legacy in East London | 31

    planning decisions have been made. It was argued that the worst scenario or

    the private sector would be that the public sector alone decides the vision or the

    Olympic Park. Stakeholders suggested quite strongly that the private sector are

    enthusiastic about opportunities associated with the Olympics and arekeen to play an active role in the planning o the Olympic Park and LLV.

    The uniqueness of the Olympics

    Overall there was a genuine passion rom the host boroughs and other

    stakeholders to embrace the unique opportunities o the Olympics. The sense

    that this is a one o event and an opportunity to diverge rom the norm in terms

    o scope o policies and ways o working was expressed. It was noted that the

    Olympics could contribute to a transormational change in East London, with

    the potential to revitalise the environment, improve place perception and theareas relationship with West London and the rest o the capital. The opportunity

    presented by the Olympics was compared to the transormational change

    that has been witnessed in Canary Whar. Canary Whar is not necessarily

    viewed by everyone as a model or regeneration, butit does demonstrate the

    scale o change that regeneration can create. There has undoubtedly been a

    transormation in Canary Whar. Whether this is a positive transormation

    continues to be ercely debated but the scale o regeneration here cannot be

    disputed. Some stakeholders also compared the opportunity presented by

    the Olympic Park to that o the Southbank area in London. Over a longer time

    period this area has undergone a major transormation and has been redened

    as a cultural quarter which is a popular place to visit. The Royal Festival Hall, The

    Hayward, Coin Street, and the Millennium Eye are thought to have played a key

    part in transorming this place successully. It is dicult to conjure up a model

    or successul regeneration one approach might be to draw on a range o best

    practice examples, the parts that worked well in other regeneration projects in

    London, the UK and across the world.

    3.2.3 Accelerating regeneration in the Lower Lea Valley and East London

    There is a shared view that the Olympics will, or already is, contributing to theacceleration o regeneration in this area o East London It is thought that the

    Olympics has encouraged an anything is possible mentality or the LLV which

    was previously perceived by developers and many stakeholders as an area o

    limited development value. It is dicult to measure this acceleration eect and

    assess whether developments and changes in perception o the LLV might have

    happened without the arrival o the Olympics. The important point however is

    that developments areplanned and taking place in the LLV and there is a sense

    that regeneration is happening, whether this is as a result o the Olympics, wider

    market eects, or other projects in East London such as Stratord City, Cross Railand Canary Whar.

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    33/55

    32 | London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    It was noted that projects such as improvements to the North London Line,

    increased DLR capacity, and the housing phases o Stratord City have been

    accelerated by the Olympics. The LVRP Authority noted that the Olympics have

    accelerated and unded their ambitions to create a Velopark and canoe course.However, the acceleration o regeneration is spatially selective some areas and

    projects are prioritised over others. For example, Waltham Forest commented that

    Leyton underground station is scheduled or upgrade post-2012 and suggested

    that this development could have been brought orward to coincide with the

    Olympics.

    Some stakeholders raised concerns about possible implications and unintended

    outcomes o a speeded up process o regeneration. Burdens might be placed on

    host boroughs social-rented housing supply in order to accommodate an infuxo migrant workers associated with the construction sites. Some stakeholders

    expressed concern about the need or host boroughs to increase their capacities

    in terms o stang and resources to capture the benets o the Olympics or local

    communities. Accelerated regeneration may have implications or community

    cohesion in terms o creating divided urban spaces (inside/outside the Olympic

    Park), tensions over who development is or and the risks o overlooking

    existing communities attachment to place and uture aspirations. Who is

    development or? is an important question or Communities and Local

    Government when thinking about Olympics legacies.

    Sustaining a momentum or regeneration ater the Games was thought to be key

    to securing successul Olympics legacies or East London. The risk o a lengthy

    time-lag between the Games and subsequent public use o the site was viewed as

    detrimental to legacy ambitions. It was suggested that provision should be made

    to ensure that some areas within the Olympic Park are accessible as soon ater the

    Games as possible. In terms o the transormation o the park, some stakeholders

    thought that careul planning and management will be required to ensure that

    post 2012 there is not a revert back to what the area was like beore. Another

    potential risk to legacy ambitions was that ater a period o time, the OlympicPark might just be regarded as another development project and that this would

    be a missed opportunity. There was a sense that i the Olympic Park became

    just another development project it would lose its Olympics leverage, perhaps

    in terms o delivering better regeneration, higher standards o environmental

    sustainability and quality o design.

    3.2.4 The sot legaciesSome stakeholders said that the sot legacy outcomes were just as important, i

    not more so than the hard legacy o the Olympics. Some reached this conclusionbecause they thought that the hard legacy, such as improved public realm, new

    transport connections and sports venues, were given, clearly on-track to be

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    34/55

    Chapter 3 Planning or legacy in East London | 33

    achieved and were being monitored through the Olympics PSA and programme

    objectives. Others thought that the hard legacy might ail to deliver on all its

    claims and that eort should be invested in sot legacies, as real benets or East

    London could be achieved here. Representatives rom the GLA, GovernmentOce London (GOL) and the boroughs commented that the soter legacies were

    their domain o responsibility and a legacy priority. There was the view that the

    ODA, LOCOG and even the LDA are involved in the Olympics in the short term

    and ocused mainly on the hard legacy o Games time while the boroughs are the

    institutions that will continue to exist and be accountable in the longer term.

    Encouraging people to get involved in sport, education, culture, and the Olympics

    event itsel, are perceived as ways o improving peoples quality o lie in East

    London. Refecting government legacy promises, increasing young peoplesactivity is perceived as an important part o a successul legacy. There is a view

    that the Olympics should have a positive impact on the Olympics generation.

    Some stakeholders commented that there is a potential policy gap here, in that

    the engagement o older people in the Olympics might get overlooked. In general

    it is somewhat easier to encourage young people to participate in sport through

    schools and the national curriculum, than it is to encourage working age people

    to become more active.

    As highlighted in section 3.1, it is thought that the Olympics can contribute to

    alleviating the problems o worklessness in East London. Some stakeholders

    said that employment is the key to so many other quality o lie issues income,

    housing, health, activity, living environment that it warrants signicant attention

    and investment. It was suggested that a successul Olympics legacy or East

    London has to achieve a marked reduction in worklessness. Skills and training or

    local communities are highlighted as key to securing an employment legacy rom

    the Olympics. The London Employment and Skills Taskorce (LEST) and the City

    Strategy Pathnder Pilot initiatives are very much welcomed by stakeholders but

    there is a sense that more needs to be done to address the underlying problem o

    worklessness in East London. It was suggested that education, in terms o qualityand not just numbers o schools, was an issue that the Olympics could potentially

    be used to address. Jobs will be created in the Olympic Park, Stratord City and

    wider LLV, but stakeholders raised questions about a) the types, skill levels and

    duration o the jobs that will be created b) the capacity or local communities to

    obtain the higher paid and graduate level jobs and c) the risks o the Olympic Park

    becoming a place to work or people living elsewhere rather than providing jobs

    or those who live there.

    3.2.5 Economic constraints on legacyA recurrent theme that stakeholders highlighted was the economic constraintson achieving a successul Olympics legacy. As previous Games have suggested,

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    35/55

    34 | London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    there is tension between the dual aspects o the Olympics the running o a

    spectacular sporting event and the longer term impacts o that event on the host

    city and country. Stakeholders were condent that the Olympic Park would be

    delivered on time, but there were concerns that as we get closer to 2012 costmight become more o an issue with the risk that unds could be diverted rom

    legacy priorities to the event itsel.

    Stakeholders thought that unding or legacy was not a priority or all

    organisations involved in the Olympics. Some elt that the legacy aspirations

    in the bid were about appeasing the IOC and winning the bid, and that because

    o spending cycles, nancial planning or legacy is a challenge. The Aquatics

    Centre was noted as an example o the tensions that can arise between cost,

    Games time priorities and legacy. The plans or the Aquatics Centre proposedthe construction o two 50 metre swimming pools. The ve host boroughs

    collectively raised concerns that this acility would not be o use to local

    communities ater 2012 and that they would like to see leisure water provision

    in the centre. Newham and Tower Hamlets have now agreed to und this

    provision and are contributing 6.5m to secure the legacy o the Aquatics Centre.

    These are the types o tensions which might increase i the Olympics budget

    becomes more o an issue closer to 2012. This example highlights that it is the

    use value o the Olympics venues and inrastructure that is key to a successul

    legacy.

    A range o stakeholders noted that there are questions about legacy unding.

    Whereas some boroughs very much embraced the Olympics opportunity, others

    expressed more concern about nancial burdens associated with hosting the

    Olympics and thought that a lot was being asked o under resourced (in terms o

    nances and expertise) local authorities.

    There were real concerns raised about the implications o the LDAs rst call on

    receipts to repay their 650m investment in the Olympics. The implications o

    this might be that developments with the highest return value are built rst at theexpense o local community priorities or that higher densities may be used as a

    mechanism to increase returns. One stakeholder suggested that government has

    taken a long-term view in relation to planning or legacy (the LMF or example)

    but in nancial terms their rationale is distinctly short term. It was thought

    that the role o the public sector should not be to go in and set the ground or

    development and then sell out, but rather to invest in the long-term.

    3.2.6 Timescales o legacyThe dierent time scales or Olympics legacy were considered to be important in

    dening legacy success or East London. Stakeholders shared a number o views

    on timescales o legacy which are outlined below,

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    36/55

    Chapter 3 Planning or legacy in East London | 35

    Legacy is happening now and not just after 2012

    There is widespread acknowledgment that Olympics legacies can start now.

    However, some aspects o legacy such as increasing young peoples sports

    participation are easier to deliver now than others, such as raising aspirations andpromoting healthy living. These legacy ambitions are anticipated to be easier to

    achieve closer to Games time.

    Legacy should be viewed over a long time scale

    Most stakeholders recognised that regeneration takes a long time. 2020 was a

    milestone used by several stakeholders, who thought that by this time most o

    the physical development within the Olympic Park will be complete (or example

    ELBAs tagline, London Legacy 2020). A longer timescale was suggested or the

    regeneration o the wider LLV area and town centres in the areas surroundingthe Olympic Park. One stakeholder suggested the timescale o 2050 or a

    generational change in East London, whereby lie chances, quality o lie, and

    the geography o the area are transormed.

    Legacy is an on-going and evolving process

    It was highlighted that Olympics legacy is an on-going process, and it will

    be dicult to create an arbitrary cut o or when legacy has been achieved.

    Successul legacy is in part about setting in motion a regeneration trajectory that

    leads to irreversible change in East London. As one stakeholder commented,

    it will not be a case o right chaps lets go and get some legacy legacy is an

    evolving process. The recently revived O2 arena was reerred to as an example

    o how legacy can evolve. Previous host cities have witnessed this trend also,

    whereby sports venues may or a period o time be regarded as having a negative

    legacy with limited use value, only or new ideas or unding to change their

    ortunes. The notion that Olympics legacies are an on-going process presents

    a challenge or evaluating legacy and measuring legacy success. As time-scales

    lengthen, the boundaries between impacts o the Olympics and other non-

    Olympic developments or initiatives, become increasingly blurred (LERI 2007).

    3.2.7 Governance o legacyThe governance o legacy now and ater 2012 was a theme that all stakeholders

    raised. The host boroughs took similar views o how legacy should be managed

    within the borough. Their approaches ocus on the creation o distinct 2012

    units which work to embed Olympics in the boroughs directorates and day to

    day working. The Olympics has encouraged partnership working between the

    boroughs a task which traditionally local authorities have ound challenging.

    At ocer level, cross borough working has oten been a success but at a political

    level there has been more o a challenge. It was suggested that one legacyoutcome o the Olympics might be a new way o governing and delivering local

    services. The proposal or an MAA might be a way to ormalise cross borough

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    37/55

    36 | London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    working around the Olympic Park and provide coherence to regeneration

    ambitions and plans or this area o East London. There were also concerns raised

    about the role o the LDA as lead partner in legacy planning or the Olympic Park,

    given that the LDA has a property-led approach that might compromise theachievement o soter legacy ambitions.

    The issue o legacy management ater the Games was discussed by stakeholders

    and there was general condence that the LMF process would generate

    appropriate governance options. The ollowing options were highlighted by

    stakeholders:

    Extension o LTGDC ater 2014 to manage legacy o Olympic Park and LLV

    An innovative special purpose vehicle that diered rom a UDC

    A private estate, similar to the Grosvenor Estate in West London

    Business as usual the boroughs retain planning powers and responsibilities

    A role or the new Homes and Communities Agency

    3.3 Creating a new quarter or East London

    Government legacy promises and the Olympic bid ambitions envisage the

    development o a new quarter or district in East London centred on the Olympic

    Park and LLV. This aspiration is evident in the various legacy strategies relevant to

    East London (see Figure 4) and was shared by stakeholders interviewed or this

    study. Discussions with stakeholders considered the question What type o place

    do we want to create in this area o East London?

    In discussing the agenda or this new quarter o London, questions were raised

    about current planning requirements in London and the notion o a sustainable

    community. One concern that Newham and Tower Hamlets raised related to the

    provision o aordable housing in the development o the Olympic Park and LLVarea. It was suggested that these boroughs already have signicant amounts o

    social-rented housing and that more private housing is required to address this

    imbalance. The Olympics may provide the opportunity to deviate rom normal

    planning requirements and it was thought that the types o housing needed and

    desired or this area o East London is an issue that should be debated. Other

    stakeholders refected the view that housing, in terms o tenure, density, type,

    mix and design was a key issue in creating a successul legacy or the LLV and East

    London.

    Several stakeholders supported the view that a high-level strategic vision is

    required or the regeneration o this area, and that the LMF process has the

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    38/55

    Chapter 3 Planning or legacy in East London | 37

    potential to create this vision. In a similar way to the vision or the Southbank a

    cultural quarter, and Canary Whar an international business centre, a strategic

    vision could engender an identity or this area o East London. The need to think

    big was noted by ELBA and London First and the argument that the vision has tooverride the reality was made. Stakeholders ideas on the vision or the Olympic

    Park and surrounding areas are summarised below:

    watercity waterways o the LLV provide the ocus or development,

    encouraging water based recreation, and waterront ca culture

    sporting quarter world class centre or grassroots and elite sport.

    Possibilities or innovative sports development such as extreme sports and

    snow dome or example

    urban park parkland and green space as ocus o development with high

    densities increasing the amount o green and wildlie spaces. Suggestion that

    this park should be on a par with Londons Royal Parks

    cultural centre centred on development o the IBC/MPC as a creative

    industries hub. Potential or innovative developments Tate East was one

    idea suggested

    iconic landmark/eature to provide centre or development and attract

    visitors similar to London Eye

    European quarter idea that development could capitalise on high speed

    train connections to Paris and other European cities, and promote relocation

    o European business headquarters to the Olympic Park

    3.4 Summary

    This section has highlighted a range o perspectives on Olympics legacy that key

    stakeholders in East London have expressed. The key points, o most relevance to

    the Department, are summarised below:

    there is a geography to legacy, particularly the division between inside and

    outside the park. This means that legacy will be played out dierently in

    dierent places. The same programmes will have very dierent implications

    and impacts in dierent places. A positive legacy or some places might not

    be viewed the same in others

    seamless integration o Olympic Park and surrounding areas is thought to be

    key to a successul legacy

    the role o the private sector in legacy planning requires clarication

    regeneration momentum post-2012 needs to be sustained

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    39/55

    38 | London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role o Communities and Local Government and the regeneration o East London

    the Olympics should be used to address problems o worklessness in East

    London and make a marked improvement in host communities lie chances

    concerns about lack o unding or legacy development

    Olympics legacy is an ongoing process

    the Olympics can potentially provide the impetus or new ways o working

    and the timely opportunity to address regeneration ambitions or East

    London

  • 8/3/2019 Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

    40/55

    Chapter 4 Communities and Local Government and London 2012 Olympic Legacies | 39

    Chapter 4

    Communities and Local Governmentand London 2012 Olympic Legacies

    This section outlines why Olympics legacy is important to the Department in

    terms o meeting departmental strategic objectives and wider regeneration

    aims to develop sustainable communities. Drawing on these objectives a

    denition o legacy success or East London is set out that ocuses on legacy

    within the Olympic Park and beyond the Olympic Park boundaries. Stakeholderviews on Communities and Local Governments role in Olympics legacy are

    then highlighted and the development o a wider legacy agenda, driven by the

    Department, which addresses regeneration needs in East London, is suggested.

    4.1 Departmental objectives, sustainable communitiesand the Thames Gateway

    Olympics legacy in a broad sense is important to Communities and Local

    Government because it relates to the Departments strategic objectives (seeFigure 7) and national agendas to create sustainable communities. Securing

    a successul legacy in East London will contribute to the Departments aims to

    deliver sustainable regeneration and to the delivery o the Thames Gateway

    agenda. The Department has pledged to establish a role as