The Influence of the Olympics 2012 - Essay Example

Urban Regeneration & Mega Event Case Study Olympics Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Urban Regeneration 3 The Mega-event and its role in urban regeneration 4 Urban regeneration for Olympics 2012 5 Predicting costs and benefits of ‘Mega-events’ 6 The Barcelona and Sydney Olympics 7 Costs and benefits in London Olympics 2012 9 Boosterism, its advantages and disadvantages 11 Legacy planning in the London Olympics 13 Conclusion 16 References 17 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 Smith (2009), 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. 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). The Barcelona and Sydney Olympics To gain perspective on the eventual outcome after London 2012, it would be useful to compare it with two previous mega-events, that Barcelona 1992 Olympics and the Sydney 2000 Olympics. Probably one of the most successful urban regeneration projects as a result of the hosting of a mega-event is that of Barcelona. Because of the success of the urbanization that resulted out of this event, the manner of its planning and execution, as well as the governance that has overseen the development, has since been repeatedly referred to as the “Barcelona model” (Marshall, 2000; Monclus, 2003). The “Barcelona model” is divided into four types of planning: the “normal” urban planning; strategic planning; infrastructure planning; and regional/metropolitan planning. These are shown in the following table: Kinds of planning and main plans in the Barcelona region (Marshall, 2000, p. 304) “Normal” or land-use urban planning involved the redevelopment of brownfield land which is normally devoted to industrial purposes. This planning is directed mainly by architects, and its main concern is the development of creating good urban form and ensuring the completion of implementable projects within a reasonable timescale (i.e., within 10 years). This would result in the public acquisition of abandoned industrial sites and their conversion into parks and social facilities. There are three particular characteristics of the Barcelona model, namely (1) the joint operation of plans, instruments and projects; (2) the highly urbanized planning, preferring the dense, compact city building; and (3) the political quality of planning, involving a tight collaboration among politicians, professionals, and the citizenry, principally stewarded by a strong political leadership (Marshall, 2000, pp.304-306). The second type of planning is strategic planning which directs attention more at the infrastructure and metropolitan or regional planning of the area beyond the city boundary, but within the city region. This would be in the nature of urban corporate planning, which revolves around the core economic development goals, together with social and environmental objectives (for instance, it would encompass the overall transport planning projects within and immediately outside the city boundary) (Marshall, 2000, p. 307-308). Third, after normal and strategic planning, is infrastructure planning which refers to the development of ports, airports, rail, as well as the ecological implications of the proposed changes or expansion in infrastructure (Marshall, 2000, p. 309). Political implications are taken into consideration in the potential infrastructure models to be adopted; however, the planning at this stage tends to degrade into one dominated by experts or technicians and thereby become depoliticize and defeat the opportunity for open public debate (Barber & Eastaway, 2010). Finally, there is the metropolitan-regional planning, the general plan extending into the metropolitan region; understandably this overlaps with infrastructure planning. This is broad, developmental-based urbanization, including new road building along the regional transport grid (Marshall, 2000, p. 310-311). As an added note, quality of life considerations, beyond the merely economic, were considered in Barcelona as well as its effects on urban growth, such being factored in during the various stages of planning (Royuela, Moreno & Vaya, 2010). The other mega-event which bears comparison is that of Sydney, Olympic venue in 2000. Waitt (2001) underscores two principal themes, that of city as spectacle during the period leading to and including the Olympics itself; the other theme is social polarization, where there is a wide variation in the plurality of social contexts through which the hosting of the mega-event can be regarded, whether favourably or unfavourably. For the most part, however, the prospect of hosting the Olympics tended to dissipate the polarity, and the citizenry for once were united in pursuit of the common goal, which is to project Sydney to the world. The anticipatory emotional build-up leading to the start of the Olympics further demonstrated the symptoms of civic boosterism, where hallmark events operate to generate an inordinate feeling of pride, community spirit and nationalism (Waitt, 2001). Another observation of the dynamics in the Sydney Olympics was that of urban entrepreneurialism. Evidence of urban entrepreneurialism manifests as local variations in the manner of governance of those sites impacted by the mega-event. Urban entrepreneurialism in Sydney was seen in the centralisation of planning powers in the local political leadership, the increasing involvement of the private sector in activities of the local government, relaxation in planning processes, reduction of transparency and candor, and also reduction in accountability and public participation. The general elation was not unanimously shared, however, although individuals so disposed were in the minority. The local community activism and empowerment was material in securing the participation of the general community and, thereafter, lock in those significant long-term benefits that may be realized as a result of the Olympics (Owen, 2002). 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, its advantages and disadvantages 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). 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). These notwithstanding, there are advantages to urban boosterism in that the groundswell of positive public sentiment propels efforts towards accelerated and significant improvement. This was most evident in the Sydney Olympics, where traditionally opposing political parties had for once united in their effort to bring about an Olympic Games the city could be proud of. At least for the duration of the Olympic Games, boosterism had concentrated hegemonic power by generating “feelings of enthusiasm for community and national pride in an era noted for its culture of nihilism” (Waitt, 2001, p 249). 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. One of the more important legacies which the London 2012 Olympics aims at is the sports legacy. Efforts towards this end are shared by the five agencies/offices which are listed in the table on the page following (Gold & Gold, 2009, p. 190): 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 is also present for this year’s event. As Gold & Gold (2009) quoted Secretary of State Tessa Jowell as saying, had they known of the threat of recession at the time, they would certainly have not bid to host the Olympics. That being said, there are still non-economic benefits that hosting a mega-event such as the Olympics may provide to its host location, benefits which are grouped under the general term “legacy” because they are effective in the long-term and tend to give rise to other favourable repercussions. The non-economic “legacy” are not necessarily intangible: there are the physical legacy, in the form of new sporting venues and facilities. Other forms of legacy are in the increased interest of the citizenry in sports, through the development of sports administration, to encourage spectatorship and to foster participation (Gold & Gold, 2009). In the overall assessment, Olympic games as a mega-event is capable of bringing about lasting and permanent change (Essex & Chalkley, 2010), and the Olympic Games legacy contributes to urban regeneration efforts, not only in terms of short-term benefits but also as a significant factor in the advancement of long-term sustainability (Leopkey & Parent, 2011). 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 Barber, A & Eastawau, P 2010 “Leadership challenges in the inner city: planning for sustainable regeneration in Birmingham and Barcelona,” Policy Studies, vol. 31, no. 4, July, pp. 393-411 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 Essex, S & Chalkley, B 2010 “Olympic Games: catalyst of urban change.” Leisure Studies. Vol. 17, issue 3, pp. 187-206 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 Gold, J R & Gold, M M “Future Indefinite? London 2012, the Spectre of Retrenchment and the Challenge of Olympic Sports Legacy.” The London Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 179-196 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 Leopkey, B & Parent, M M 2011 “Olympic Games legacy: from general benefits to sustainable long-term legacy.” The International Journal of the History of Sport. DOI:10.1080/09523367.2011.623006 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/ Marshall, T 2000 “Urban Planning and Governance: Is there a Barcelona Model?” International Planning Studies, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 299-319 Monclus, F J 2003 “The Barcelona Model: and original formula? From ‘reconstruction ‘ to strategic urban projects.” Planning Perspectives, vol. 18, October, pp. 399-421 Otley, T 2010 ‘Get set for 2012.’ Business Traveller (UK/Europe Edition), Nov2010, p80-83 Owen, K A 2002 “The Sydney 2000 Olympics and Urban Entrepreneurialism: Local Variations in Urban Governance.” Australian Geographical Studies, November, vol. 40 issue 3, pp. 323-336 Project Britain 2012 ‘London Olympic Venues.’ Accessed 11 April 2012 from http://projectbritain.com/olympics/venues.html Royuela, V; Moreno, R; & Vaya, E 2010 “Influence of Quality of Life on Urban Growth: A Case Study of Barcelona, Spain.” Regional Studies, vol. 44, June, issue 5, pp. 551-567 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/ Waitt, G 2001 “The Olympic spirit and civic boosterism: the Sydney 2000 Olympics.” Tourism Geographies, vol. 3, issue 3, pp. 249-278 Read More