It’s now nearly three years since that memorable day in July 2005 when London won the race to host the Olympic Games in 2012. Scenes of jubilation were splashed across the front pages of every newspaper the following day. Fast forward two years and it’s a very different picture. Now the majority of headlines appear to dwell only on the escalating costs of staging the Games.
Strange isn’t it that acquiring a vast swathe of previously derelict, contaminated land in fragmented ownership in one of the most expensive cities in the world and regenerating it into an area fit to host the biggest show on earth is costing a lot of money. Perhaps stranger still the fact that one of the wealthiest countries on the planet is struggling to justify the expenditure required?
Somewhere along the line we seem to have forgotten that the opportunities the Games bring for regeneration in all of its guises was one of the main reasons for bidding in the first place, and indeed one of the main factors in winning it. So, forgetting for a moment the headline grabbing costs – will the Games actually live up to their regeneration promise and deliver the much vaunted benefits for local communities in East London. I suppose the first question we need to ask ourselves is, do we understand all of the implications both positive and negative of hosting an Olympic Games?
There is an expectation that local authorities should be leading the charge on behalf of their residents and businesses in dealing with all things Olympics, but in reality how well prepared are they? Also, in a climate of significant budget restrictions how realistic is it to expect local councils to both understand and fully manage the implications of an event on this unprecedented scale?
Certainly in the ‘host’ boroughs – considerable efforts are being made to capture the benefits of staging the Games, with all of them employing dedicated 2012 resources to differing levels. The emphasis so far has been focussed understandably on the Olympic precinct itself, ensuring that the Games does indeed bring a lasting physical legacy to East London. However, it is in the context of making a place that we realise that staging the Games is only part of the story.
Yes, there will be a rich legacy of sporting infrastructure left after 2012 but there will also be significant development opportunities on the Olympic site itself after the Games. The proximity of Stratford City with its retail, residential and office development brings additional opportunity and potentially added complexity. The Legacy Masterplanning Framework process will frame the nature of this area for generations to come and so it is for this very reason that the nature of the place must take precedence over the desire to maximise value from the site. Failure to do so would have a significant impact on how the Games will be remembered.
Unless you are directly involved with one of the borough’s hosting the Games it is easy to forget that they are taking place in one of the most deprived areas in Western Europe. It is understandable then that opportunities for residents to gain skills and employment as a result of this wholesale physical regeneration are of paramount importance. Each of the host boroughs has already put in place training and brokerage services in an attempt to maximise local benefit. These are some of the positive consequences of staging the Games. But there are some downsides.
For those boroughs in the immediate vicinity of the park clearly there will be a significant impact on all of their services to a greater or lesser degree. They are already having to deal with road closures, construction traffic, a myriad of planning applications in addition to looking at how to maximise the wider social and economic benefits that can be had from being a host for the Games. Speculative land banking around the Olympic site in anticipation of value uplift is something else that the boroughs will be forced to deal with.
But it shouldn’t just be left to those boroughs that are most immediately affected. Local authorities further afield should also be considering how to take advantage of the 2012 Games. They should be thinking about opportunities that exist to up-skill residents; to get them involved in coaching; to raise sports participation levels amongst children and young people – as well as building capacity of local businesses to bid for contracts. There are also opportunities to act as a host, to accommodate visitors and spectators and the knock on benefits that brings in terms of the ‘visitor economy’.
All of these things can be promoted on the back of an event like the Olympics but how well are councils really equipped and how keen are they to undertake this role? And of course its not just local authorities who are facing these issues. I wonder how many borough commanders have thought about policing their boroughs when their officers are all on duty in the East End? Or how many PCTs have begun considering how the Olympics can be used as a catalyst for the healthy living agenda? Or indeed whether these discussions are being had within LSPs?
Experience from elsewhere can help answer some of these questions. If we look at how Manchester went about maximising the impact of hosting the Commonwealth Games then it is clear that there are some valuable lessons to be learnt. They developed a coordinated approach to volunteering, coaching, participation and employment, ensuring that the Commonwealth Games left a lasting social impact as well as some state of the art sporting venues.
So forget the current headlines, it is without doubt a story of so far so good. In 2005 we all knew that this really was a once in a lifetime event, wouldn’t it be a shame if in 10 years time we’re left thinking “If only I’d thought of that earlier……….”
Jon Stout, Renaisi Principal Consultant, is the former Interim Head of 2012 in Waltham Forest. Renaisi has been working with three of the host boroughs to help design and implement programmes and projects to maximise the benefits of the Games. For more information please contact Jon on j.stout@renaisi.com
