Urban Regeneration & Mega Event Case Study Olympics 2012 - Essay Example

?Urban Regeneration & Mega Event Case Study Olympics Proposal Introduction The study proposes to examine the urban regeneration effort that is linked to the 2012 London Olympic Games, which is soon to be held. Just a little more than two months away, most of the construction and upgrading that were undertaken have already either been completed, or are close to being completed. The UK has exerted a huge effort in order to win the bid to host the Olympics for this year, and there is little doubt that its selection was greeted with much celebration. Two benefits are expected to be derived from the mega-sporting event: the economic windfall profit, and the legacy that is left after the event, in the form of the constructed stadiums, housing, transportation networks and infrastructure. The purpose of the study is to determine whether or not a net benefit, either from economic gain or legacy, or both, is likely in the case of the London Olympics. Key concepts and theories Urban regeneration - Officially, the term ‘regeneration’ is described as ‘the positive transformation of a place – whether residential, commercial, or open space – that has previously displayed symptoms of physical, social and/or economic decline’ (Dept. of Culture, Media and Sports, 2004) Mega-event - The term ‘mega-events’ is used to refer to those high-profile events that last for a short duration but which require a great deal of expense and years of preparation. Mega-events are generally seen as having a great potential to promote tourism, and are expected to have a strong economic impact for the country hosting the event (Hiller, 2000, p. 439). Boosterism – The term ‘boosterism’ generally refers to ‘the necessary exaggeration that accompanies human endeavors’ (Amato, 1993, p. 50). In urban regeneration for mega-events, ‘boosterism’ refers to the exaggerated optimism in extolling the benefits of hosting a mega-event. Legacy planning – The term ‘legacy planning’ in relation to mega-sporting events refers to planning for deriving the maximum benefit of what is left of all the developments after the games have ended (Parliament HL, 2005). Crowding out – ‘Crowding out’ happens when visitors to the mega-event discourage regular visitors from taking their trip at the same time because of the difficulty of finding accommodations and getting access to other services; also known as ‘displacement’ (Barclay, 2009, p. 64). Supply-side leakages – ‘Supply-side leakages’ refer to the temporary entry of external firms which sell products during the Games, but whose revenues do not benefit the locality (Barclay, 2009, p. 64). Outline plan of the final essay 1. Introduction The introduction provides the background of the topic and an explanation for the importance of studying such a topic (Single, 2009, p. 70). This portion gives the context for understanding what the rest of the research will be about. The case study focuses on trying to weigh the economic costs against the economic benefits and the legacy the Olympic Games will create. 2. Urban regeneration The concept of urban regeneration is introduced first because it is the most important concept on which the case study is based. In explaining urban regeneration, the emphasis is placed on renewal and reconstruction of degraded part of the city. All projects that are undertaken as ‘regeneration’ projects should therefore enhance the areas of aspects of the city that are already in need of repair or upgrading. 3. Mega-event and its role in urban regeneration In this section, the idea of ‘mega-event’ is linked with that of ‘urban regeneration’. The two concepts are not or do not seem to be naturally related. The first refers to entertainment, something spectacular. The second refers to reconstruction. By discussing these two concepts in relation with each other, the importance of mega-events as a way of staging urban regeneration projects is given focus. 4. Urban regeneration for Olympics 2012 This section introduces the 2012 Olympic Games to be held in London. While the previous section provides a theoretical discussion of the relationship between mega-events and urban regeneration, this section builds on that by examining the specific projects and venues of the 2012 Olympics. It explains why east London, in particular Stratford, was chosen for the site. The explanations mention the venues which are shown in pictures provided in the Appendix. 5. Predicting costs and benefits of ‘mega-events’ In order to be able to appreciate any net economic gains and compare them to the economic costs, this section explains how these costs and benefits are created. The concepts are further explored within the context of the past and present events, and distortions experienced in assessing such costs and benefits. 5.1. Lessons from the past This subsection speaks mainly of the last Olympic games, the Beijing Olympics, and examines the costs and benefits of that event four years after, so the advantages and disadvantages are better appreciated. 5.2. Costs and benefits in London Olympics 2012 The London Olympics is still to come, but already some costs and benefits have already been realized. The situation is described from the point of view of the present. 5.3. Boosterism and other distortionary influences on cost and benefit estimations Some lessons learned from past mega-events are described here, and some influences that tend to distort the true values of predicted costs and benefits are identified. 6. Legacy planning in the London Olympics The preceding chapter discussed those benefits and costs which may be explained in economic terms or values. In this section, the manner of planning for the maximum legacy of the mega-event – referring to the benefits that are left behind after the Olympic games have ended – are described. The purpose is to broadly determine whether or not the possible legacy that will be left justifies the cost that London is presently shouldering. 7. Conclusion In this section, a generalization is made about whether or not it is likely that London will realise a net benefit, either in terms of economic value or in terms of legacy. It should be realised that the case study cannot be conclusive because the London Olympic games has not yet taken place. Only after the games have ended can the full costs and benefits be conclusively determined. Preliminary bibliography listing Amato, J A 1993 The Great Jerusalem Artichoke Circus: The Buying and Selling of the Rural American Dream. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN Barclay, J 2009 ‘Predicting The Costs And Benefits Of Mega-Sporting Events: Misjudgement Of Olympic Proportions?’ Economic Affairs, Jun 2009, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p62-66; DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0270.2009.01896.x Bianchini, F. 1993 ‘Remaking European cities: the role of cultural policies’, in: F. Bianchini & M. Parkinson (Eds) Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: the West European Experience, pp. 1–19 (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Binns, L 2005 ‘Capitalising on Culture: An Evaluation of Culture-Led Urban Regeneration Policy.’ The Future Academy, Faculty of the Built Environment, DIT, Ireland. Accessed 11 April 2012 from http://www.labforculture.org/en/resources-for-research/contents/research-in-focus/european-capitals-of-culture/resources/capitalising-on-culture-an-evaluation-of-culture-led-urban-regeneration-policy Blanchard, B & Fan, H 2012 ‘Beijing grapples with Games legacy four years on’ Reuters. Accessed 11 April 2012 from http://www.euronews.com/sport/1477224-beijing-grapples-with-games-legacy-four-years-on/ Branson, A 2009 ‘All To Play For.’ Regeneration & Renewal, 7/6/2009, p18-21 Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 2010 “Plans for the Legacy from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.? December. Accessed 11 April 2012 from http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/201210_Legacy_Publication.pdf Florio, S & Edwards, M 2001 ‘Urban Regeneration in Stratford, London.’ Planning Practice & Research, May, Vol. 16 Issue 2, p101-120; DOI: 10.1080/02697450120077334 Garcia, B 2004 ‘Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration in Western European Cities: Lessons from Experience, Prospects for the Future.’ Local Economy, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 312-326 Glasson, J & Wood, G 2009 ‘Urban regeneration and impact assessment for social sustainability.’ Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal, Dec, Vol. 27 Issue 4, p283-290; DOI: 10.3152/146155109X480358 Great Britain, Parliament, House of Lords 2005 The Parliamentary Debates. Official Report, Volume 678 Hiller, H H 2000 ‘Mega-Events, Urban Boosterism and Growth Strategies: An Analysis of the Objectives and Legitimations of the Cape Town 2004 Olympic Bid.’ International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Vol. 24, issue 2, pp. 439-458 London Olympics 2012.com 2012 ‘Structure and Finance.’ Accessed 11 April 2012 from http://www.londonolympics2012.com/2012-information/2012-structure-finance/ Otley, T 2010 ‘Get set for 2012.’ Business Traveller (UK/Europe Edition), Nov2010, p80-83 Project Britain 2012 ‘London Olympic Venues.’ Accessed 11 April 2012 from http://projectbritain.com/olympics/venues.html Smith, M K 2009 Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies. Routledge, New York, NY Supple, B 2010 ‘Going for Gold: How the London Olympics Will Set the Record for Sustainability.’ Kennedy School Review, Vol. 10, p60-63 Tallon, A 2009 Urban Regeneration in the UK. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon. Urban Regeneration & Mega Event Case Study Olympics 2012 Introduction The Olympic Games is the world’s largest sports mega-event, with a history spanning more than 100 years (Garcia, 2008). The UK has exerted a huge effort in order to win the bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games, and considers it a great honour to be chosen. In relation to this, a huge urban regeneration effort was undertaken in the principal site, Stratford and London’s south east, as well as other venues for the events. Two benefits are expected to be derived from the mega-sporting event: the economic windfall profit, and the legacy that is left after the event, in the form of the constructed stadiums, housing, transportation networks and infrastructure. The purpose of the study is to determine whether or not a net benefit, either from economic gain or legacy, or both, is likely in the case of the London Olympics. Urban Regeneration The concept of regeneration is often associated with the idea of ‘renaissance’ which means ‘being reborn’. This means, however, that the location which is the target of ‘regeneration’ has at some point in the past ‘degenerated’ or degraded to a point where it requires more than simple restoration or repair (Binns, 2005). Officially, the term ‘regeneration’ is described as ‘the positive transformation of a place – whether residential, commercial, or open space – that has previously displayed symptoms of physical, social and/or economic decline’ (Dept. of Culture, Media and Sports, 2004; Smith, 2004 p.165 ). What one might pick up from the definition is that the cause of degeneration may be traced in particular to industrial decline. Therefore, it used to be that mostly developed countries are the ones that undertook regeneration, while those countries still in the process of development do not. Formerly, ‘regeneration’ referred almost exclusively to developed Western countries; however, more recently ‘regeneration’ has already been used to refer to the modern cities in the developing countries, such as Hong Kong, Tokyo, Hanoi, Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok, in the context of their economic, environmental and social development programmes (Smith, 2004, p. 166). The direct and detailed meaning of ‘regeneration’ is not easy to put into words, since it is a concept made of several aspects brought together in a single process that displays ‘economic, environmental, social, cultural, symbolic, and political dimensions’ (Bianchini, 1993, p. 1). The different aspects of regeneration and activities undertaken under each are given in UR-2, p. 167 as follows: Regeneration as - A ‘panacea’ for economic decline A tool for social development Physical improvement Aestheticisation or beautification A political or image-enhancing tool Job creation Attraction of investment Tourism development Housing Education Entertainment Conservation Environmental protection Renovation Landscaping Public art Animation Flagship buildings Mega-events Branding The foregoing table shows the wide scope of projects which may be classified under urban regeneration. In our discussion for this paper, the urban regeneration of London in preparation for a mega-event, the Olympics 2012, will be examined and discussed in greater detail after a brief theoretical and historical background review of urban regeneration in the UK. The Mega-event and its role in urban regeneration The recently coined term ‘mega-events’ is used to refer to those high-profile events that last for a short duration but which require a great deal of expense and years of preparation. Mega-events are generally seen as having a great potential to promote tourism, and are expected to have a strong economic impact for the country hosting the event (Hiller, 2000, p. 439). The best known of these are the international sports events such as the World Cup, World Fairs, and of course the Olympics. Certainly, the immediate and most important consideration in being selected as a site for such a mega-event as the Olympics is the tremendous national honour to have been singled out among all the possible international venues. Of course together with this consideration come the advantages that have to do with the nature of the event and the fact that it is held within the locality. For most sports events, this means that the host country will be able to maximize its athletes’ participation among majority of the events, and host country athletes would not have to suffer the negative effects of sudden changes in geographic location such as jet lag, change in climate, and differences in food preparation. Beyond these, however, mega-events have become showcases of the positive side of the host country’s own political ideologies and government policies. They also serve as instruments for the country to accumulate more capital by attracting corporate sponsorships, media audiences, and the sale of entertainment and broadcasting rights (Hiller, 2000, p. 439-440). It is only when one considers these additional effects of mega-events that their connection to urban processes becomes clearer. Most important among the impacts is the conversion of wide areas of the city into landmark structures by the creation of architectural works of art. Easy examples of this from the past mega-sports events are the ‘Bird’s Nest’ and the ‘Water Cube’, which are more formally referred to as the Beijing National Stadium and the Beijing National Aquatics Center, respectively, that were built to house the events in the 2008 Summer Olympic games. Together with these structures, the transportation and infrastructure have been greatly improved because they are intended to support and sustain the much higher volume of traffic expected. Then, as in the case of the Beijing Olympics, there is also the motivation to accelerate their efforts in order to comply with international environmental standards particularly for land, water and air pollution and greenhouse gas emission. The pressure of the international community creates negative feedback in cases where the country appears to have made no efforts to meet the internationally accepted limits, particularly for pollutants. Urban regeneration for Olympics 2012 London is noticeably divided into north and south by the river, and into east and west by property values. The east generally is a less expensive place to live in, as may be seen from the upmarket riverside apartments in converted warehouses, and the financial centre of Canary Wharf. It appears that the reason then for the choice of Stratford and the Lea Valley in East London as the venue for the Olympics is partly because of this area’s need for regeneration, and partly because of the large plots of derelict land in the locality (Otley, 2010, pp. 80-81). To provide an idea of the magnitude of the event and the amount of logistics involved, there are to be 25 Olympic sports events which will be held in 34 venues; after to the Olympics, the Paralympics will also be held comprising of 20 events in 21 venues (see Appendix B for visuals of the sites). Some 17,000 athletes are expected to participate representing 205 nations. More than 9 million tickets for admission to the events have been prepared, and coverage of the Games will be broadcast to a worldwide audience of four billion viewers, for which reason hotel and other temporary accommodations should be allocated for 20,000 members of the press and media (Otley, 2010, p. 81). A fuller description of the projects undertaken, their costs, and the expected tangible and intangible benefits shall be described in the next sections. Predicting costs and benefits of ‘Mega-events’ Whenever the time comes for the next host of the Olympic Games or the FIFA Football World Cup to be selected, countries vigorously compete for this special honour, knowing very well the extremely high costs it entails. In part, one can say that this is due to national pride; from a more practical point of view, though, national leaders are made aware of the windfall economic gain brought by the inflow of millions of visitors who will be spending millions of tourist dollars in the country, generating more productive activity. The country also becomes the focus of attention of billions of televisions audiences and could therefore promote it as an attractive tourist spot. The question lies now on whether the expected gains would be more than the costs involved in staging such a large sports spectacle. The hosting country first of all has to have the various stadiums built in order to serve as venues for the sporting events; thus as the number of events grow, the number of sites necessary to hold them in also grows. Needed also to be constructed are housing facilities for the athletes, known as the Olympic Village. Aside from these direct costs, as earlier mentioned, most host cities also take the opportunity to improve their city-wide infrastructure including their communication systems, traffic networks and transportation systems, as well as enhance their lodgings and accommodations. The intention is to maximize the usefulness of the short-term costs by building in long-term benefits that may likewise be realized from these expenditures (Barclay, 2009, p. 62). Lessons from the past The Beijing Olympics is accepted by many to be one of the most spectacular mega events in recent history, and most likely from the time such events had been first held. No expense was spared in taking advantage of the 2008 Olympics, in order to display the great economic progress China had made, and to exhibit the advantages of the Chinese communist model and ideology. As earlier mentioned, the urban regeneration projects that were undertaken in preparation for that event included the Bird’s Nest stadium and the Water Cube stadium, both of which were greatly admired architectural achievements of the Chinese planners. The much admired planning and execution of the opening and closing ceremonies emphasized the view that the Beijing Games set the standard for future mega events to follow and try to exceed. Four years after that event, lessons of a different kind are being taught by the Beijing venues. The much publicized architectural projects had begun too soon to show the effects of poor maintenance and lack of use (Liauw, 2009). The Bird’s Nest and the Water Cube, once praised by Jacque Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, as ‘beautiful’ and ‘unprecedented’ venues, had been showing signs of deterioration and neglect because their maintenance was considered too costly to undertake properly. No longer are they mainly used for major sporting events, which is the purpose for which they were made. Instead, their greatest use now is as a tourist site and theme park, which attracts about 5 million visitors per year. This is unfortunate, because venues designed for sports tend to last over a longer period of time the more frequently they are used for sports activities, and have a shorter life when they are used for other purposes (Blanchard & Fan, 2012). Other Beijing Olympic venues have suffered worse fates. The kayaking and rowing events are not popular in China, therefore their venues have been left to deteriorate with no attempt to maintain them. The kayaking venue has been abandoned; the remaining water was sucked up by a large pipe to irrigate the surrounding park, while the rowing venue, which is found in a remote northeastern suburb, is used by small fishing boats. The venues for the more popular games, including table tennis and wrestling, have been constructed within universities; unfortunately, university officials had no training in managing events, and therefore these venues are presently being underused (Blanchard & Fan, 2012). There are other benefits which Beijing derived from its preparations for the Games, one of which is the shutting down of polluting factories in an attempt to upgrade the air quality. It should be recalled that air pollution was a factor for some countries to debate whether they should still send their athletes. Unfortunately, after four years these closures were seen to have only limited overall effect, and a thick cloud of smog still hangs over Beijing because of this (Traveltruth.com, 2011). The cost of building the Bird’s Nest is approximately 30 billion yuan, equivalent to US $480 million, which, at the current revenues earned by this venue, will take about 30 years to recover. The Water Cube, while it is benefitting from a state subsidy and the revenues from the nearby theme park constructed after the Olympics, continues to lose about 11 million yuan per year, or almost US $2 million. This is money that the government could hardly afford to waste on non-productive venues, as these resources may be channelled to more meaningful developmental purposes. Costs and benefits in London Olympics 2012 The London Olympic games could not push through if the funds used for the preparations were not sufficient or if they were not properly managed. There are four institutions which enable the Olympic preparations to get underway and on time. These are the British Olympic Association (BOA), the Department of Culture, Media and Sports (DCMS), the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG), and the Olympic Delivery Authority, (ODA). The BOA is officially tasked to work with the Olympic Governing Bodies in selecting the team from the best sportsmen and women in the UK to participate in the 28 summer and 7 winter Olympic sports. Independent of the UK government the BOA relies on commercial sponsorship and fund raising income in order to finance its Olympic-related activities (London Olympics 2012.com). The DCMS is the lead department of the Government which is in charge of the 2012 Olympic games and the Paralympic games. It works closely with the Olympic organisations as well as government departments and agencies in ensuring that the 2012 Games is successfully carried out, and that it would leave a lasting legacy and create the maximum benefits for the city of London and for the country (London Olympics 2012.com). The LOCOG is charged with running the games following the success of the bid. On the other hand, the ODA is responsible for the construction of the venues and the infrastructure which will support the 2012 Games (London Olympics 2012.com). Contributing to the event are 34 commercial sponsors, with 36 licensees manufacturing more than 10,000 individual pieces of merchandise. Originally, the plan had been for the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) to contract the services of a private developer to create the Olympic Village complex, for ?1 billion. The facility is intended to house the 17,000 participating athletes. The deal was eventually scrapped, with current construction being financed by the ODA with plans of eventually turning over the village to the private sector after the Olympics. At that time, the development will be converted into permanent housing, in order to allow the ODA to recover its investment (Otley, 2010, p. 81). While Stratford is the direct and most important beneficiary of the economic gains of the Olympic games, it is expected that the entire of London which will eventually be the recipient of more than ?11 billion worth of fresh investments, in a wide number of different projects such as new hotels, upgraded transport links, community-based ventures and small business initiatives. Two years from the start of the four-year preparation period, contracts have already been awarded in the amount of ?2.7 billion, for the creation of venues and infrastructure in London’s south-east end, which was half of the entire expense of ODA to that date. The rest were shared by companies in the north-east and south-west (Otley, 2010, p. 82). As time grows short and the project deadlines begin to pile up, questions as to whether the budget will be surpassed or not remains uncertain. Two years into the development, the cost of the Olympic Stadium which is to seat 80,000 had been revised significantly upward from the originally estimated ?280 million, to ?496 million. Meantime, another upwards adjustment was made on the Aquatics Centre, which was first estimated at ?74 million, but later adjusted to nearly triple this amount, at ?215 million (Otley, 2010, p. 82). A visual of these projects may be viewed in Appendix B of this paper. Boosterism and other distortionary influences on cost and benefit estimations With the increase in the number of mega-events being held, a lot of excitement is generated when a country wins in its bid to act as host. Because of the popularity of these events, it has become a topic of debate as to whether or not the economic benefits expected to be received from such events truly materialise. Several impact studies have been conducted after the events are held, where it is found that the gains are frequently overestimated and the costs are underestimated, making it difficult to understand why countries compete intensely to host these mega-events (Barclay, 2009, p. 62). The overstatement of gains is in part caused by the thought that millions of visitors to the events will be flooding the hotels, restaurants, shops, and other establishments of the host city. In the past, these estimates were highly optimistic. For instance, the Atlanta Olympic Organizing Committee predicted that it would realise a US$5.1 billion revenues with employment increasing by 77,000. The Sydney Olympic Games predicted that it will realize US$6.3 billion and 100,000 new jobs. Because of such predictions, the forecasted expenses rise to about the same level, because the costs were considered investments from which the city and the country will earn more. Such estimates have been criticized, however, because observers from the academic community felt that the studies were prepared or contracted by parties who had an interest in the holding of the event. These include individuals or groups who will benefit from the public subsidies that will be allocated for the event (Barclay, 2009, p. 63). There are many factors which would introduce errors in estimating the number of expected visitors in a place because of the holding of an event. Some revenues are overestimated because the planners fail to realize that probably a large portion of this is really going to be realised by the city in the form of other regular types of tourist spending, whether or not there is an event or not. The number of visitors is also overestimated, because again the planners did not take into account that some of these visitors are part of the annual number of tourists even without the event, except that they timed their visits for that year to coincide with the holding of the event. In short, ticket sales are not always a good indicator or measure of the number of additional visitors that the mega-event will attract, because many of those who purchased tickets in advance may just as well have planned to visit that city (or country) within that year, only they decided to visit the event at the same time they are touring the country (Barclay, 2009, p. 63). There is also the problem of ‘crowding out’ caused by these mega-events. Oftentimes, mega-events are held not in the out-of-the-way places where visitors do not go to, but to those tourist spots that are already popular and therefore already attract a regular number of visitors every year. When a mega-event is held, the expected large groups of people may actually discourage the regular visitors (who are not interested to attend the event) from going at that time of year, because of the difficulty in getting accommodations and such. The new visitors who intend to visit the event therefore ‘crowd out’ the regular visitors, so that the regulars opt instead to visit some other place. A ‘displacement’ therefore occurs, and the net effect of the new visitors, even if they came for the event itself, is not that big (Barclay, 2009, p. 64). Aside from the demand-side overestimations, there are the supply-side ‘leakages’. These refer to the increase in sales which planners predicted would take place because of the event, and which contribute to the increase in revenue. Leakages are caused by the temporary entry of external firms which sell products during the Games, but whose revenues do not benefit the city (or country). In the case of the Olympics, the market is often ‘cornered,’ so to speak, by the many foreign sponsors or corporations who have bought the privilege of conduct their business in the best venues. Local businesses and entrepreneurs are often excluded from these venues, and therefore local residents do not reap the economic advantages of these added sales (Barclay, 2009, p. 64).. The same may be said of manpower, because if employment is already maximised in the locality, or if the local employees do not have the proper skills needed for the job, then qualified people will be temporarily hired from outside the locality. The effect is that the benefit of the added income does not circulate with the locality, but outside it where the temporary workers reside. Finally, construction for mega-events should be considered more as a cost than a benefit. Huge government spending on construction of stadiums may reduce spending for public services, and take away government funds from more important development projects. In order to raise the money, the government will either resort to higher borrowings, or maybe increase taxes, or both, which in the long run are not beneficial to the local taxpayers (Barclay, 2009, p. 64). Besides, the benefits of having many new world-class stadiums which are designed to hold hundreds of thousands of people are also not that significant in smaller localities. This is similar to the situation in the Beijing Bird’s Nest and Water Cube. After the Olympics, World Cup, or other sporting event, it is doubtful if there would be many sporting events that would need the size and quality of these stadiums. In developing countries in particular, sports is only a luxury good, and the demand for sports is expected to fall sharply after the mega-event (Barclay, 2009, p. 64). Legacy planning in the London Olympics Similar to other mega-events and, in particular, previous Olympic games, talk of the ‘legacy’ is the centre of attention. The legacy refers to what is left of all the developments after the Olympic games have been ended. If the country is able to demonstrate a significant legacy, it provides a justification for the extremely high cost of staging the event, and especially during a time of economic weakness for the U.K. Stratford has been Europe’s largest construction site during the years leading up to 2012, involving the demolition of more than 200 buildings within the 2.5 square kilometre area that is to be Olympic Park (Dept of Culture, Media & Sports, 2010). Supple (2010) describes the site of the Olympic Games as a neglected neighbourhood in more ways than one – the people even look and speak differently from the more developed area of London. The area is polluted because of the wastes from industrial activity which ‘permits the growth of only the harshest and most unsightly weeds’ (p. 60). This may be a factor why participants generally express doubts about the security of accommodations at the games (Konstantaki & Wickens, 2010). As a result of urban regeneration, the locality is expected to be a model of sustainability, and the impact on the residents is expected to be one of pride in their community and a renewal of self-esteem long after the Olympics have concluded (Supple, 2010, p.61). Aside from the direct effects on the Stratford area, other features highlight ‘legacy planning in all phases of the Olympic life cycle, measuring and reducing the carbon footprint’ in each stage of the games, and generating more ‘public interest in environmental stewardship and social inclusion’ (Supple, 2010, p.62). Examples are the use of low-emissions vehicle fleets, storing of rainwater for flushing toilets in the venues, design of the Olympic village to be 44 percent more energy efficient, and use of a ‘low-carbon fuel solution’ for the Olympic torch. Conclusion The preceding discussion points to the possibility that the net economic benefits expected from the 2012 Olympics may likely not materialise; from the literature, the boosterism described for previous earlier Olympics. The legacy measures appear mostly showcasing, except for the use of the Olympic village as sustainable, affordable housing. Given the data so far, I tend to agree with Supple (2010) that ‘London may fall short on many of its environmental and social goals’ (p. 63). This goes also for the economic costs and benefits. According to the Economist, ‘By combining the games with a regeneration project, Britain has added to the cost of both…Building an 80,000-seat stadium for half a billion pounds then scaling it back after a few weeks’ use seems close to madness’ (The Economist, cited in Otley, 2010, p. 82). However, judgment should be suspended until after the Olympic games. References Amato, J A 1993 The Great Jerusalem Artichoke Circus: The Buying and Selling of the Rural American Dream. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN Barclay, J 2009 ‘Predicting The Costs And Benefits Of Mega-Sporting Events: Misjudgement Of Olympic Proportions?’ Economic Affairs, Jun 2009, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p62-66; DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0270.2009.01896.x Bianchini, F. 1993 ‘Remaking European cities: the role of cultural policies’, in: F. Bianchini & M. Parkinson (Eds) Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: the West European Experience, pp. 1–19 (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Binns, L 2005 ‘Capitalising on Culture: An Evaluation of Culture-Led Urban Regeneration Policy.’ The Future Academy, Faculty of the Built Environment, DIT, Ireland. Accessed 11 April 2012 from http://www.labforculture.org/en/resources-for-research/contents/research-in-focus/european-capitals-of-culture/resources/capitalising-on-culture-an-evaluation-of-culture-led-urban-regeneration-policy Blanchard, B & Fan, H 2012 ‘Beijing grapples with Games legacy four years on’ Reuters. Accessed 11 April 2012 from http://www.euronews.com/sport/1477224-beijing-grapples-with-games-legacy-four-years-on/ Branson, A 2009 ‘All To Play For.’ Regeneration & Renewal, 7/6/2009, p18-21 Department of Culture, Media and Sports 2004 Evidence Toolkit – DET (Formerly, The Regional Cultural Data Framework), Technical Report, DCMS Department of Culture, Media and Sport. 2010 “Plans for the Legacy from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.? December. Accessed 11 April 2012 from http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/201210_Legacy_Publication.pdf Florio, S & Edwards, M 2001 ‘Urban Regeneration in Stratford, London.’ Planning Practice & Research, May, Vol. 16 Issue 2, p101-120; DOI: 10.1080/02697450120077334 Garcia, B 2004 ‘Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration in Western European Cities: Lessons from Experience, Prospects for the Future.’ Local Economy, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 312-326 Garcia, B 2008 ‘One hundred years of cultural programming within the Olympic Games (1912-2012): origins, evolution and projection.’ International Journal of Cultural Policy. Vol. 14, no. 4, Nov., pp. 361-376 Glasson, J & Wood, G 2009 ‘Urban regeneration and impact assessment for social sustainability.’ Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal, Dec, Vol. 27 Issue 4, p283-290; DOI: 10.3152/146155109X480358 Great Britain, Parliament, House of Lords 2005 The Parliamentary Debates. Official Report, Volume 678 Hiller, H H 2000 ‘Mega-Events, Urban Boosterism and Growth Strategies: An Analysis of the Objectives and Legitimations of the Cape Town 2004 Olympic Bid.’ International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Vol. 24, issue 2, pp. 439-458 Konstantaki, M & Wickens, E 2010 ‘Residents’ Perceptions of Environmental and Security Issues at the 2012 London Olympic Games’ Journal of Sport & Tourism, vol. 15, no. 4, Nov., pp. 337-357 Liauw, L 2009 “Urbanization of Post-Olympic Beijing.” Media. pp. 215-221. Accessed 11 April 2012 from http://www.306090.org/MEDIA/00120.pdf London Olympics 2012.com 2012 ‘Structure and Finance.’ Accessed 11 April 2012 from http://www.londonolympics2012.com/2012-information/2012-structure-finance/ Otley, T 2010 ‘Get set for 2012.’ Business Traveller (UK/Europe Edition), Nov2010, p80-83 Project Britain 2012 ‘London Olympic Venues.’ Accessed 11 April 2012 from http://projectbritain.com/olympics/venues.html Single, P B 2009 Demystifying Dissertation Writing: A Streamlined Process from Choice of Topic to Final Text. Stylus Publishing, LLC, Sterling, Virginia Smith, M K 2009 Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies. Routledge, New York, NY Supple, B 2010 ‘Going for Gold: How the London Olympics Will Set the Record for Sustainability.’ Kennedy School Review, Vol. 10, p60-63 Tallon, A 2009 Urban Regeneration in the UK. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon. Traveltruth.com 2011 ‘A Smog Shrouded Postards from Beijing,’ Traveltruth.com. Accessed 11 April 2012 from http://www.traveltruth.com/2011/12/21/a-smog-shrouded-postcard-from-beijing/ Read More