Industry Comment

After Beijing's triumphant staging of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, the world will be watching London very closely in 2012. Dr Jim Coleman and Chris Paddock assess whether the long-term legacy of the Games is now in danger of being sidelined by the accelerating priority associated with staging the event as well as the increasing financial pressures placed on event delivery.

Back in the heady summer of 2005, winning the bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympics looked like a golden opportunity for London. In addition to attracting the world's sporting elite, the bid held the promise of substantial regeneration in the Lower Lea Valley area of East London. The only large tract of available land for development in Greater London, this location would benefit from desperately needed new housing, employment and social infrastructure.

The initial strategies for both hosting the 2012 Games and the much lauded legacy potential were, of course, designed and drawn up in more buoyant economic times. Things have changed rapidly and substantially, and we now all operate in a much more challenging economic climate.

So how will this affect the original regeneration strategy and aspiration for the 2012 Games? The potential benefits initially identified were broadly threefold. Firstly, the physical legacy of large scale brownfield remediation, significant volumes of new housing, new sport, cultural and community facilities and significant new, quality green space in the heart of this giant conurbation.

Secondly, the non-physical regenerative benefits associated with sustainable skills upgrading, securing new employment for local communities as well as the business and multiplier benefits of a revitalised East London. These are economic benefits that we might expect to accrue well into the future as a lasting impact of the Games.

Finally, there are the direct benefits linked to the immediate run up to the Games, including skills enhancement, new contracts for local suppliers, access to emerging employment opportunities and new enterprise formation.

On balance, the overarching objective for all organisations involved in London 2012, all the way from the highest levels of central Government down to multifarious local organisations, is to host a ‘good’ Games. London will be in the spotlight, and therefore the event must be perceived globally as a success, especially if the full legacy benefit is to be secured.

Conflicting priorities

The difficulty here is that there is a clear trade-off between the time remaining until the actual event and the priority attached to staging a successful Olympic Games. With less than four years to go, the requirement to construct and stage the event on time (and ideally within budget) becomes increasingly dominant. The downside of this is that gradually the priority attached to the additional, and especially non-physical, elements of the event’s legacy will begin to decline in relative importance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the full legacy and non-physical benefits of the Games are to be realised, then substantial planning and delivery mechanisms need to be in place already to achieve this. It is not clear at this stage that these mechanisms do exist. It is too late to start thinking about skills needs for target groups now – this should have been completed a long time ago. This is especially the case given the rapidly deteriorating economic climate, although it was of course impossible to foresee how this was to pan out in such a short space of time. Significant employment and business opportunities will still arise, but these will flow easily to suppliers best equipped to respond, and they may not necessarily be locally based in East London.

The whole process has indeed been complicated inordinately by the deteriorating economic conditions. The legacy of the 2012 Olympics was to be delivered essentially by the private sector, through attractive commercial investments in new facilities and housing. There is now a serious limitation on the private sector in terms of its ability to raise finance for the construction and delivery of the Olympic legacy. We are already reading about the scaling back of proposed developments, especially business and employment space (such as the International Broadcast Centre), but also some housing, that were seen initially as cornerstones of the legacy-driven success of the Olympics. Of course, with any long term development provision recession will have been built into Olympic Legacy planning. The important thing now is that partners think strategically and concentrate their efforts on developing strategic and delivery structures to ensure maximum legacy impact once investor confidence returns.

Governance overload?

An additional complication is the sheer volume of governance and operational structures that circulate around the Olympics and East London generally. The process involves five local authorities, seven planning authorities, one development corporation, one elected assembly as well as a multitude of additional partnerships, boards and regeneration and economic development bodies. The coordination of all of these entities is in itself a full-time job and bears an enormous cost. Even at this late stage, new structures are developing that seek to direct the overall regeneration benefit.

As priority switches from legacy design and impact increasingly towards staging the London Olympic Games, this giant collection of governance and organisational entities will need to move swiftly and flexibly. Otherwise they will fail to make the best of any remaining opportunity to embed the economic and legacy benefit of the Games as fully as possible into East London. What are the chances of that happening? It is not apparent currently that this will be possible in the time remaining.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is imperative that from within this range of governance structures a single leadership role emerges, responsible for quickly establishing the final economic priorities for London 2012 and driving them forward in these troubled economic times. Who can take on this role?

Assessing the legacy plans so far

So what progress is actually being made in terms of planning for an effective legacy from London 2012? It is perhaps useful to look to the work of Andrew Smith of the University of Westminster, who has undertaken extensive research on the regenerative impacts of major sports related events . He suggests that there are 10 main criteria that must be addressed if legacy impacts of major events are to be secured successfully. We can consider the situation in London therefore in the light of these criteria, as set out in the table below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Securing the legacy prize

One of the big questions that underpins the entire Olympic Games project is: who will actually benefit? Clearly, there is a national benefit that comes from staging a (hopefully) successful Games. Arguments and mechanisms can also be proposed for different forms of impact across the various regions and nations of the United Kingdom.

Looking at the initial rationale for the Olympic Games in London, taking forward a large scale regeneration programme in East London is clearly a key goal. This would not happen without the massive interventions and re-engineering – physical and social - associated with the Olympic Games. This benefit appears, however, to rest upon an Olympic ‘Park’ legacy specifically being achieved. It is worth remembering that areas in Stratford to the east of the Olympic Park are amongst the most deprived in the UK. Whilst Europe’s largest new park for 150 years will be a fantastic addition locally, a package of well thought out, high impact (capital and revenue) interventions are required to complement this, if London is to secure real long term benefit.

There are a number of critical things which must be put in place quickly to try to ensure the maximum legacy benefit:

• A strong leadership role that can rise above and circumvent the complex governance and management structures that now exist;
• Planning for an Olympic Park legacy and green space that will be truly accessible and have resonance for surrounding communities;
• Developing an East London wide economic strategy within which the Olympic legacy can act as a platform for a wide ranging sub-regional economic uplift.

A successful Olympic legacy requires an East London wide Economic Strategy to provide both a context and a platform for ongoing development and the achievement of enhanced prosperity. This strategy is missing completely from the equation currently. Who is going to provide it, and will they be able to beat the clock?