Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

London 2012 Olympic legacies:
Conceptualising legacy, the role of Communities and Local Government and the regeneration of East London
www.communities.gov.uk
community, opportunity, prosperity
London 2012 Olympic legacies:

Conceptualising legacy, the role of Communities and Local Government and the regeneration of East London
Laura Keogh September 2009 Department for Communities and Local Government: London
The findings in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Abstract This report explores the concept of Olympics legacy in relation to the London 2012 Olympic Games. It suggests ways in which Communities and Local Government might organise its work to maximise the probability that a successful legacy is achieved for the Lower Lea Valley (LLV) and East London. It is highlighted that there will not be just one legacy from the Olympics but a set of legacies, and that there is potential to develop an Olympics leverage agenda to address the regeneration needs of East London. This report is produced by Laura Keogh, Department of Geography, Kings College London, The Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, Email: laura.2.keogh@kcl.ac.uk, on behalf of Communities and Local Government. The author would like to thank those who have given up their time to participate in this research. In particular the author would also like to thank and acknowledge Ralph Ward, Geoffrey Tierney and Katharine Rees (Communities and Local Government Olympic Programme) for their views and contributions which have informed this report. Responsibility for the final product is, of course, the authors own. The report was written in May 2008 and reflects the situation at that time. Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone : 020 7944 4400 Website : www.communities.gov.uk Queens Printer and Controller of Her Majestys Stationery Office, 2009. Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU e-mail: licensing@opsi.gov.uk Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Further information can be obtained from www.opsi.gov.uk If you require this publication in an alternative format please email: alternativeformats@communities. gsi.gov.uk Communities and Local Government Publications Tel: 030 0123 1124 Fax : 030 0123 1125 Email: product@communities.gsi.gov.uk Online via the Communities and Local Government website : www.communities.gov.uk September 2009 Product Code: 08ACST05645 ISBN: 978 1 4098 08299
Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 The challenge of delivering a successful legacy: lessons from previous Olympics, mega-events and large scale regeneration projects Chapter 3 Planning for legacy in East London Chapter 4 Communities and Local Government and London 2012 Olympic Legacies Chapter 5 Conclusions Annex 1 References 49 50 47 39 23 15 5
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Research scope and objectives
This study is about what constitutes a successful Olympics legacy and suggests ways in which Communities and Local Government might organise its work to maximise the probability that a successful legacy is achieved for the Lower Lea Valley (LLV) and East London. The geographical scope of the research is confined to the LLV and East London, as it is in these places where legacy potential is considered to be greatest (see Map 1). The Olympics1 has cast a spotlight on this part of London and there is a significant political commitment to ensure that the hosting of the event generates a positive legacy for this comparatively deprived area. This may not be straightforward in light of research which shows how previous host cities have failed to provide lasting and significant benefits for local communities surrounding Olympic sites (see for example Gold and Gold 2008, UEL 2007, IPPR and DEMOS 2004, Raco 2004). Research highlights that the top down fast-track approach to development, encouraged by unmovable Olympic deadlines, can fail to be responsive to wider interests, with a lack of ownership and connection with longer term community needs (IPPR and DEMOS 2004: 131). Olympics legacy is also important at a wider geographical scale in contributing to national policy aspirations, which range from encouraging healthy lifestyles and sports participation to promoting economic development and the UK as a place to visit and invest. These wider legacy ambitions are not covered in detail in this study as 1) they are not the Departments lead responsibility and 2) it is argued that the Departments resources can be used most effectively to secure benefits from the Olympics for those communities in the LLV, East London and the wider Thames Gateway. This study seeks to answer the following research questions, 1. What is a successful Olympics legacy for East London? 2. What are the different perspectives on legacy that stakeholders in East London have?
In this report, Olympics refers to both the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
London 2012 Olympic legacies: Conceptualising legacy, the role of Communities and Local Government and the regeneration of East London
3. What role can the Department play in securing a successful legacy and how can the Olympics contribute to departmental objectives and wider regeneration ambitions for East London? Map 1 The Olympic Park
Source: Communities and Local Government (2008)
In the first section, this study begins to answer the question what is legacy? by examining the various ways in which legacy is defined in both academic literature and by those institutions responsible for delivering the Olympics in 2012. With reference to the experiences of previous host cities and other large scale regeneration projects, the study then highlights the main challenges of securing a successful legacy from the Games. In the next section the various legacy plans and strategies for the LLV and East London are reviewed and areas of similarity and difference are noted. Drawing on a series of interviews with key stakeholders in East London and the Olympics, the multiple perspectives on legacy are examined. These perspectives then inform a discussion of the Departments role in securing a successful legacy and how the Olympics might be used to leverage benefits that contribute towards departmental objectives, in particular the development of sustainable communities. Public sector investment of 9.3bn has been
committed to the Olympics2, directed mainly at building the Olympics site and venues rather than funding legacy delivery. While additional legacy funding may be required, there is potential to secure legacy ambitions through identifying existing strategies, programmes and projects which can be enhanced by the Olympics. The study highlights that there are particular needs in the LLV and East London which, if mobilised effectively, the Olympics could play a role in alleviating.
1.2
What is legacy?
Legacy has increasingly become a part of the Olympics in recent years but it remains a concept that is ill defined and often contested. In a general sense, Olympics legacy is understood to be the impacts, over varying timescales, of hosting the Games, whether these impacts are positive or negative. Legacy should be thought of in the plural there will not be just one legacy from the 2012 Games but a set of legacies (see Figure 1). Figure 1 Typology of Olympic legacies Type of legacy Economic Possible examples Number of jobs created Investment in London associated with Olympics New hotel developments New housing of a decent standard Community capacity building through involvement in the Games Improved disability awareness generated by the Paralympic Games Increased sports and physical activity participation Provision of sports facilities for local communities Improved air quality in and around Olympic Park Remediation of contaminated land Removal of overhead power lines Creation of green spaces and biodiverse parkland Improved public transport routes and new cycle and pedestrian walkways Benefits of Cultural Olympiad Programme Celebration of East London cultures Provision of arts/cultural facilities for community uses.
Social
Health
Environmental
Cultural
Tessa Jowells statement of 15th March 2007
Figure 1 Typology of Olympic legacies Type of legacy Governance Possible examples Partnerships between 5 host boroughs New ways of joined up working Community engagement in planning and hosting the Games Construction of Olympic Stadium Improved rail station at Stratford Innovative training and skills programmes Self esteem and confidence generated from volunteering or working at the Games Number of Olympic Park jobs taken by people resident in Host Boroughs New housing developments in areas surrounding Olympic Park Creation of new parkland New walkways and cycle routes in and around Olympic Park Impacts of Olympics development on perceptions of East London as a place to live, visit and work. Sense of pride for host borough communities
Hard Soft
Direct Indirect Visible / tangible
Invisible / intangible
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 of contaminated land in the Olympic Park, the creation of parkland and improvements to transport infrastructure. Other legacies require steps to identify and capture them and are perhaps better understood as Olympics opportunities.3 There will also be hard and soft legacies, whereby a hard legacy may comprise the construction of sporting venues and associated infrastructure and soft legacies may relate to increased sporting participation and the up-skilling of local communities. Direct and indirect legacies will also be generated. An example of a direct legacy might be the number of 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 of in terms of visible and invisible or tangible and intangible. Tangible legacies can be readily seen and measured, such as the creation of 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.
difficult to measure, an example might be the impacts of new parkland on perceptions of this part of East London by potential residents and investors. These different legacies are not always distinct, an economic legacy can generate a subsequent social legacy, or as LERI (2007) highlights, hard legacies can create soft legacies. For example, they note that The hard legacy of a stadium while depending on a good subsequent functional follow-up use post Games, will always also carry various memento effects, hard legacy serving simultaneously as soft legacy in iconic assertion of the citys status as an Olympic host (ibid: 21). There is also scope to consider whether a Paralympics legacy is different from Olympics legacy will the Paralympics generate distinct legacies? Or perhaps the Olympics may lever specific sporting legacies for disabled people?4. It has been noted that Paralympic legacy is an area which is under researched and there is limited evidence from previous Games which evaluates Paralympic legacy (LERI 2007). Legacy should be understood as a rich concept that can mean different things to different 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 for securing benefits from the Olympics for the LLV and East London. Prior to the 1960 Rome Olympics, legacy was not a priority in bidding for and hosting the Olympics. The increase in scale and levels of investment required for 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 of sustainable development, it is not acceptable for the Olympics to be just 29 days of sporting spectacle it has to provide long term benefit for host communities (IPPR and DEMOS 2004). This notion has been embraced by cities bidding for mega events like the World Cup, European Capital of Culture and the Olympics, which have become seen as attractive mechanisms for driving urban regeneration and development (LERI 2007, IPPR and DEMOS 2004). In London for example, the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 has been established by the Greater London Authority (GLA) and London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) to provide credible, independent assurance on the sustainability status of the London 2012 Games (CSL 2007: 1). It is widely believed that London won the 2012 bid in large part because of its focus on creating a successful legacy for East London and the wider UK. The geography of 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 for legacy are noted in Figure 2, divided into legacy outcomes within the Olympic Park and outside it.
4
The notion of a specific Paralympic legacy is not explored in this report, but is a policy area which requires further research.
10
Figure 2 London 2012 Olympic Bid legacy aspirations Legacy aspirations within the Olympic Park the creation of a desirable, socially diverse and balanced new residential area providing a housing legacy for London a model for social inclusion, bringing communities together a high quality environment for neighbouring mixed use communities sporting venues to be converted to educational uses including nurseries, primary and secondary schools and lifelong learning centres expanding Londons green credentials a magnificent legacy park that expands the Lee Valley Regional Park (LVRP) the creation of a hub for East London Legacy aspirations that extend beyond the Olympic Park catalyst for economic and social regeneration in and around the Olympic Park employment creation for people across the UK and London, but especially in the LLV opening up opportunities for education, cultural and skills development. a legacy for sport in Britain in terms of increased sport participation and world-class sports facilities a positive transport legacy
Source: London 2012 Candidate File (2005)
In line with the London bid and the requirements of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), HM Government have established a set of programme objectives and sub-objectives for the Olympics and assigned responsibility for delivery of these objectives to specific organisations and government departments. The four programme objectives are: 1. To stage an inspirational Olympic Games and Paralympic Games for the athletes, the Olympic family and the viewing public. 2. To deliver the Olympic Park and all venues on time, within agreed budget and to specification, minimising the call on public funds and providing for a sustainable legacy. 3. To maximise the economic, social health and environmental benefits of the Games for the UK, particularly through regeneration and sustainable development in East London. 4. To achieve a sustained improvement in UK sport before, during and after the Games, in both elite performances particularly in Olympic and Paralympic sports, and grass roots participation.
11
These objectives indicate how legacy is conceptualised at a cross government level. Of 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 benefit from the changes and opportunities arising from hosting the Games in the UK. A Public Service Agreement5 (PSA 22) has been created for the Olympics and the headline ambition for this agreement is to deliver a successful 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 focuses both on the successful hosting of the event in terms of delivering venues and infrastructure on time and within budget, and the legacy potential of the Olympics. The PSA outlines a number of performance indicators, and it is indicator two Maximising the regeneration benefits for the 2012 Games which is of significant interest to the Department. However, this indicator is very much about planning for regeneration and the development of 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 five distinct legacy promises: 1. Make the UK a world-leading sporting nation 2. Transform the heart of East London 3. Inspire a generation of young people to take part in local volunteering, cultural and physical activity 4. Make the Olympic Park a blueprint for sustainable living 5. Demonstrate the UK is a creative, inclusive and welcoming place to live in, visit and for business
A PSA details the aims and objectives of 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 performance in relation to PSAs. The LMF process, led by the LDA, entails development of a masterplan for the legacy use of the Olympic Park. Stakeholder and community consultation is a key part of this process (LDA 2008) and it is anticipated that a planning application will be submitted in 2009.
12
At the London level of governance, the Mayor7 is keen to secure a successful legacy from the Olympics and has published his five legacy commitments (GLA 2008), which focus on benefits for London and Londoners that can be gained from the Olympics: Commitment 1: Increased opportunities for Londoners to become involved in sport. Commitment 2: Ensuring Londoners benefit from new jobs, businesses, and volunteering opportunities. Commitment 3: Transforming the heart of 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 for East London is reflected in the various legacy commitments in the language of transformation, and the development of a revived urban centre. Several points can be made about these legacy promises and commitments in terms of spatial scale, scope and expected changes. Firstly legacy impacts are envisaged across different spatial scales from 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 of life for people in the UK whether this is through increased sports participation, employment opportunities, environmental improvements, or the promotion of sustainable ways of living. Other themes underpinning the legacy promises include addressing the issues of worklessness in East London, and the opportunities for economic development in terms of tourism and inward business investment related to the Olympics.
At time of writing, Ken Livingstone was Mayor of London. The new Mayor, Boris Johnson has yet to make clear his position on the Olympics, but it is noted that a campaign pledge emphasised the sporting legacy for London over regeneration benefits of hosting the Games (see The Guardian, 15.05.08)
13
Figure 3 Legacy aspirations

Government 5 legacy promises Olympic Programme Objectives Mayors 5 Legacy Commitments
Legacy aspirations detailed in Bid (Candidate File 2005)
Within the Olympic Park The creation of a desirable, socially diverse and balanced new residential area providing a housing legacy for London. A model for social inclusion, bringing communities together A high quality environment for neighbouring mixed use communities Sporting venues to be converted to educational uses including nursery, primary, secondary schools and lifelong learning centres Expanding Londons green credentials A magnificent legacy park that expands the LVRP The creation of a hub for East London Beyond the Olympic Park Catalyst for economic and social regeneration in and around the Olympic Park Employment creation for people across the UK and London, but especially in the LLV. Opening up opportunities for education, culture and skills development A legacy for sport in Britain in terms of increased sport participation and world-class sports facilities A positive transport legacy a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
PSA 22
a a
a a
a a a
a a a
The degree of change and investment required to achieve the legacy commitments and promises is significant. The ambition to transform East London includes a diverse range of issues such as employment creation for local communities, new housing, transport improvements, improvements to the quality of the environment and a positive change in place image to name a few. Delivering this promise undoubtedly means a very significant degree of change and effective partnership working across all levels of government and
14
with Olympic bodies such as the Olympic Development Agency (ODA) and LOCOG. Partnership working is necessary for the achievement of all the legacy commitments and promises. For example, the pledges to make the UK a worldleading sporting nation and increase opportunities for Londoners to participate in sport, require investment in sporting venues, sporting technologies and coaching, the co-ordination of school sport initiatives that will require the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), Sport England and local authorities to play a role, in addition to active participation from communities. Drawing on the experiences of previous host cities and other mega-events, the next section highlights some key legacy challenges for London.
Chapter 2 The challenge of delivering a successful legacy: lessons from previous Olympics, mega-events and large scale regeneration projects
15
Chapter 2
The challenge of delivering a successful legacy: lessons from previous Olympics, mega-events and large scale regeneration projects
As with other mega-events and large scale regeneration projects, the delivery of a successful legacy, or a set of legacies, from the Olympics is a considerable challenge (LERI 2007, IPPR and DEMOS 2004, NWDA 2004). The National Audit Office (2007) has highlighted six key areas of risk associated with delivering a successful Games in London, one of which is identified as Planning for a lasting legacy. A key theme from reviews of previous Olympics and the impacts on host cities is that the hard legacy outcomes, such as improved infrastructure and sports venues, are more readily achievable than the soft legacy benefits that include skills, employment, sports participation, community empowerment and disability awareness. It has also been noted that a degree of scepticism surrounds event regeneration strategies (Smith and Fox 2007: 1125). Drawing on research which assesses the legacies of previous Olympics, mega-events and large scale regeneration projects, this section briefly highlights the key challenges for delivering successful legacies within the Olympic Park, in the surrounding LLV and East London area, and the wider context of London and the UK.
2.1
Legacy challenges inside the Olympic Park

Modern Olympics tend to concentrate most of the sporting venues and Games infrastructure (such as a broadcasting centre) within one site. In 2012, the majority of the Olympics activities will take place within the Olympic Park at Stratford, with some exceptions such as sailing (Weymouth and Portland, Dorset) and football (Wembley Stadium, Millennium Stadium for example). The Olympic Park is associated with hard legacy gains, and it has been noted that all host cities pursue these gains which include infrastructure, the reorientation of city spaces, improved amenity, new types of land use and economic activity. (LERI 2007: 9).
16
Mega sporting events leave a legacy of sporting venues that represent significant economic investment. Previous host cities have had varying levels of success at finding productive long-term uses for the venues. Sydneys Olympic Stadium for example is thought to be heavily under used and loss making (Gold and Gold 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 for venues and other facilities such as the broadcasting centre is thought to be key to achieving a successful legacy within the Olympic Park. As LERI (2007: 9) states planned in legacy offsets white elephant syndrome in some casesin all cases legacy needs to be built into initial conceptions, design and delivery of Olympic facilities. One example from London is that the Lea Valley Regional Park Authority has ownership of the Velodrome in the Olympic Park and will oversee the management of this venue after 2012. This approach could be replicated with other venues and facilities in the Olympic Park and is an important factor in securing successful legacies from London 2012. A significant challenge for flagship regeneration projects like the Olympic Park is how they relate to surrounding areas and integrate with existing communities. As Raco (2004: 34) highlights flagships can create islands of development that barely connect to the localities in which they are situated. This integration, and the blurring of boundaries between the park and surrounding areas is a key criteria for legacy success. Achieving this is not easy and requires a combination of (a) hard planning and design mechanisms to promote linkages between places, provide accessibility for all and ensure sensitivity to the existing environment and (b) soft approaches which effectively engage local communities and do not overlook local attachments to place. Regeneration of the scale of the Olympic Park has the potential to redefine the geography of a large section of East London. There is a need to ensure that local communities are part of this process, with strategic efforts made to prevent communities feeling that this new space is not for them. It is suggested that the Olympics needs to generate development of, not just in local areas (Raco 2004: 37). This is key for securing successful legacies from 2012 the development of and not just in East London. This relates to another issue highlighted in research on previous host cities who will the Olympic Park be for? Concerns raised from experiences of other host cities include provision of affordable housing for local communities versus housing for a wider catchment area (LERI 2007), and gentrification which to some degree are an inevitable part of regeneration endeavours but have potentially detrimental impacts, such as existing communities being priced out of the local housing market, the displacement of local services and the development of alternative services (public, entertainment, retail) that do not necessarily meet
17
the needs of existing communities. These issues have implications for sustainable community building and community cohesion both departmental objectives for Communities and Local Government. The experiences of previous Olympics suggest that the planning and management of the Olympic Park can be an arena for competing legacies to arise. For example, a successful legacy for the IOC may be about achieving a debt free 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 definition of assurance of legacy alongside cost is typically at the heart of stakeholders agendas. The Olympic Park is also the focus of environmental sustainability issues and concerns associated with climate change. As these concerns have grown in significance (see Stern Review 2006) there is increasing pressure to deliver a green and sustainable Olympics (ODA 2007). Previous host cities have achieved varying levels of success in terms of 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 of balancing environmental losses and gains, investing in new technologies, reducing carbon footprints yet encouraging people to visit the Games. There is scope here for 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 for local communities
Research on previous Olympics shows that the event and associated activities do have a degree of leverage, meaning that additional benefits can accrue from hosting the Games (LERI 2007, IPPR and DEMOS 2004, Preuss 2004). The challenge is how to capture these Olympic effects. It is in the area surrounding the Olympic Park where this leverage could be most significant and used to further local priorities and address needs (Map 2 highlights how the Olympic Park cuts across the boroughs of Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest). It is acknowledged that the Olympics can have a positive impact on the economic performance of a host city but that it is often difficult to differentiate between Olympic effects and the effects of other changes, such as Cross Rail in London or changes in the economic climate (LERI 2007, GVA Grimley and RICS 2006).
18
A key lesson from other Olympics, particularly Barcelona (1992), and also Manchester Commonwealth Games (2002), is that the mega-event must be part of and complement a wider regeneration agenda (LERI 2007). The Barcelona Olympics is often cited as a model for London, but the contexts are very different. In Barcelona, city leaders sought to regenerate the entire city of 3 million people (ibid) whereas in London the event is very much focused on a section of the city (2.5 square kilometres, albeit with a significant population living in the five host Boroughs). Comparisons may be made between East London and Barcelona, but the scale of the wider regeneration agenda in East London, which the Olympics can realistically contribute to, should be carefully considered. The Olympics in London complements a significant existing regeneration programme the LLV is identified as a key opportunity area in the London Plan (GLA 2004) and is a focus of activities for the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC).
19
Map 2 The Olympic Boroughs and the Olympic Park
Source: Communities and Local Government (2008)
The mixed use development of Stratford City, which will include the Olympic Village, was planned prior to the Olympics bid, and the Olympic Park is within the boundaries of the Thames Gateway, a designated growth area and government priority programme. It is thought that the Olympics will add credibility and visibility to the much wider regeneration that is taking place in East London.
20
(Experian 2006: 55) This wider regeneration agenda has a long history and the East London area has received support from national and European regeneration initiatives. These include the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) and Stratford City Challenge which focused on improvements to the town centre, and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) objective 2 investment in the regional station at Stratford. Research on the Manchester Commonwealth Games (2002) suggests that megaevents can be used to prompt a concentrated regeneration effort. 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 an Education, Health and Sport Action Zone by Sport England, and was targeted for Sure Start, SRB and New Deal for 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 significant employment opportunities but lessons from previous Games raise questions about who the jobs will be for, the types of employment in terms of skill level and duration of employment (Crookston 2004). Research suggests that Olympics employment peaks in the pre-Games period and the challenge for a host city is to sustain this growth through programmes and structures post-Games. Construction employment at the Olympic Park and Stratford City is expected to peak at 20,000 in 2010 (ODA 2008). Previous host cities have a poor record of achieving significant improvements to the skills of local communities (LERI 2007, Experian 2006) a key challenge for London in light of the comparatively low levels of skills in the five 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 focused on pre-Games and Games time employment. It has also been suggested that communities should be engaged in the formulation of employment and training schemes to ensure that programmes meet their needs (Experian 2006). LERI (2007) in their review of previous Olympics recommend that the knowledge base developed in preparing for and hosting the Olympics should not be dispersed after the Games. They suggest that the expertise of individuals and organisations such as the ODA and LOCOG should be retained after 2012 and the knowledge gained should be put to effective use in furthering regeneration agendas for the areas in and around the Olympic Park. This approach could be valuable for the LLV area a number of highly experienced professionals
21
have been drafted in to deliver the Olympics and it would be beneficial for local regeneration agendas if some of this expertise could be captured post 2012. Improvements to infrastructure, particularly transport infrastructure, are widely recognised as a key legacy benefit of the Olympics. Improvements to existing transport systems and the development of new networks and connections associated with hosting the Games are expected to leave a legacy for local communities and businesses long into the future. Transport is one area where Olympics leverage is particularly clear, in terms of the Olympics speeding up transport development and instigating new transport improvements. Evidence from Barcelona, Atlanta and Athens suggests that the Olympics can accelerate infrastructure projects (LERI 2007). This legacy is arguably more readily achievable than some of the other legacy ambitions (participation in sport for example). The ambition in London is to host a public transport Games and infrastructure improvements in Stratford and the Olympic Park are planned and under construction to deliver this. Transport developments include upgrading the capacity of the DLR, improvements to the North London Line and Stratford Regional and International stations. The wider regeneration of the LLV area should benefit from these improvements and local planning agendas should seek to capitalise on these developments.
2.3
Wider Olympic benefits

The wider legacies of the Olympics on a broader geographical scale, together with the more indirect legacies, are perhaps the most difficult to conceptualise and then to achieve. These wider legacy outcomes centre on the potential for a sporting and cultural legacy across the whole nation and draw on the notion that the Games can be inspirational for the host country and all its communities. An important part of the London 2012 bid was the potential benefits that hosting the Games could generate not just for the communities in and around the Olympic sites but across the UK. Olympic Programme Objective four and Legacy Promise one (see pages 7-8) make commitments to secure nationwide sporting, skills, and cultural benefits. These benefits are intended to be achieved through a range of initiatives (including the Cultural Olympiad) and through a range of partners. Nations and Regions for example, are currently drafting plans to capitalise on the Olympics (Nations and Regions East 2007 for example). A Legacy Trust endowed with 40m has been created to foster the development of sports, education and cultural benefits from the Olympics between 2008 and 2012. The trust aims to lever an additional 40m of match funding and organisations including community groups will be able to bid for funding to deliver projects across the UK. Following from previous Olympics and other megaevents (including Manchester Commonwealth Games), volunteering is thought
22
to be a mechanism to raise aspirations and enhance peoples employability and a volunteering programme Personal Best has been created for 2012. Previous Olympics suggest that securing a sporting legacy of increased sports participation is difficult to achieve. In Barcelona and Sydney there is some evidence of short term impacts but researchers note that most evidence on sports participation is anecdotal (LERI 2007). A report produced for the London Development Agency (LDA) and London Health Commission (ERM 2004) found little evidence of 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 difficult to reach (Smith and Fox 2007: 1141). This highlights that 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 benefits from the Games.
2.4
Summary
The above sections outline some of the major lessons in securing successful legacies from previous Olympics and other mega-events and projects. The key points for London 2012 and those that are of particular relevance to Communities and Local Government in terms of meeting departmental objectives and sub-objective 3.1.5 are summarised below: soft legacy outcomes (such as employment for local communities, skills improvements, sports participation, healthier lifestyles and overall quality of life) will require a range of programmes and initiatives to support ambitions. This is particularly relevant for the LLV and East London where programmes should seek to capture the opportunities conferred by the Olympics and address local needs legacy uses for sporting venues and facilities should be identified as early as possible and be incorporated in planning and the LMF process engagement with local places and people to foster a sense of ownership with the Olympics is important
Chapter 3 Planning for legacy in East London
23
Chapter 3
Planning for legacy in East London
The section examines the planning for Olympics legacy in the LLV and East London. Firstly the various legacy plans and strategies produced by a range of stakeholders are reviewed. This reveals a degree of coherence across legacy priorities, but also a variable geography of legacy, whereby some priorities are deemed more important by some areas than others. The following sub-sections examine the multiple perspectives that stakeholders have on legacy. These perspectives can contribute to defining what successful legacies for East London might entail and the challenges of achieving them. The section concludes by highlighting that stakeholders thought an agreed strategic vision for this area or quarter of East London was important for achieving successful Olympics legacies
3.1
Review of legacy plans

Numerous legacy plans, strategies and statements have been produced by a range of stakeholders involved in the Olympics. These include plans and strategies by HM Government (DCMS, forthcoming), government departments, the Nations and Regions, Regional Development Agencies (SEEDA 2007 for example), the Local Government Association, (LGA 2007), local authorities across the UK, business organisations (London First 2007 for example) and British Waterways. This section will focus 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 of London, the LDA and the five 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 of publishing a national Legacy Action Plan, which seeks to elaborate on the five legacy promises made previously. The nationwide ambitions, such as increased sports participation, and celebration of cultural diversity are relevant to East London but in particular it is the promise to transform the heart of East London that is most striking. The Mayor has produced a compelling legacy strategy in his five legacy commitments (GLA 2008), setting out an aspirational vision for the legacies of the Games for London. It is concise, outlines milestones and targets for a range of outcomes, and provides details on how outcomes will be achieved through specific programmes
24
and initiatives. Figure 5 outlines some of the key programmes detailed in the strategy which are designed to accrue legacy benefits for London. As Figure 4 highlights, there are a number of legacy themes that reoccur in the different legacy strategies and plans. This demonstrates that there are some shared priorities and a degree of agreement over what a successful Olympics legacy for East London might look like. Reflecting governments legacy promises, these shared priorities centre on sports participation for all, young peoples activity, job creation, skills training and environmental improvement. These are primarily the softer 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 for Olympic legacy. It is hoped that hosting the Olympics can really make an impact on addressing this issue through tangible actions such as job brokerage schemes, training initiatives and volunteering programmes and the anticipated (if somewhat ambitious) intangible impacts on peoples aspirations, self esteem and willingness to participate in the labour market. All the host boroughs have job brokerage programmes that work to secure employment for local people in construction within the Olympic Park and Stratford City. Employment figures from the ODA for February 2008 indicate that out of 2,478 construction workers currently employed at the Olympic site, 430 (17.35 per cent) are from the five host boroughs (ODA 2008a). The five 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 form of a legacy plan while for the others, it is a statement of objectives and work in progress towards securing benefits from the Olympics. There is a significant degree of coherence within the boroughs strategies and objectives in terms of headline commitments to legacy. However, the strategies do reveal clear variation in the perceived geography of legacy and highlight that the individual boroughs place more importance on some legacy ambitions than others. The strategies suggest there is a hierarchy of legacies within the individual boroughs, ie for some boroughs the employment legacy is top priority but for others this has less importance. For example, Greenwichs legacy objectives place more emphasis on sport, culture and capturing the visitor economy of the Olympics. These objectives reflect Greenwichs spatial distance from the Olympic Park, its existing tourism market and also that the borough has existing venues that can be used for the Olympics (for example the O2, the Royal Artillery Barracks and Greenwich Park).
25
Figure 4 Planning Olympics legacy for East London

Olympic legacy priorities Increase affordable housing Legacy plan/strategy Addressing worklessnes through skills and training Disabled peoples sporting activity Parkland/new open space Lead partner Sport s participation Housing for London
Place image and perception
Legacy Action Plan (2008) Five Legacy Commitments (2008) Legacy Now: Shaping the Olympic Park legacy (2008) Legacy priorities A host for 2012: The London Olympic and Paralympic Games (2007) Our Objectives for 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Legacy: Strategy and Programme Its happening here and you are in the front row LB Hackney LB Greenwich X X LDA Mayor of London X
GOE/ DCMS
X X
X X X X X X X
X X
X X X X X X
X X X
X X X
X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X
LB Newham LB Tower Hamlets LB Waltham Forest
X X
X X
X X
X X X X
X X
X X
X X
Enhanced visitor economy Transport improvements Young peoples activity Sustainable lifestyles Job creation
Community cohesion
Culture and diversity celebration
Business/investment opportunities
Reduction in carbon emissions
Healthy living
Elite sport
26
Figure 5 Programmes to encourage participation in London Programme/Initiative Lead organisations London Employment and Skills Taskforce (LEST) for 2012 LSC and LDA Aims Use the Olympics to make permanent reductions in worklessness across London. Includes initiatives such as Employers Accord and job brokerage schemes Encourage disadvantaged people to learn new skills and to volunteer with the aim of improving employability Annual event to encourage participation in sport Increase young peoples participation in sport through after school clubs and coaching Provide people with construction skills and improve employability Training for health professions to encourage patients to get more physically active.
Personal Best
LSC and LDA
Summer of Sport
LDA, Sport England, London Councils Mayor and DCSF
Winter of Sport
National Skills Academy for Construction at the Olympic Park (proposed) Lets get moving (pilot)
ODA, LDA and LSC
DH, NHA London, Sport England, Natural England and London boroughs
The geography of legacy is also apparent in Hackneys Olympics priorities. The International Broadcast Centre and Media and Press Centre (IBC/MPC) is located within the area of the park that falls within Hackney. As a result, one of their main priorities is the legacy of this venue in terms of creating employment for local communities, inward investment and the development of a new creative hub for East London. The differentiation between the boroughs legacy priorities the geography of legacy is a message that emerged from interviews with stakeholders and is explored further in section 3.2.1. The recognition that there is a variable geography of legacy is important for the planning of legacy in East London. Different places in and around the Olympic park have different legacy priorities and programmes designed to achieve
27
a successful legacy will need to reflect this diversity and recognise that they will have varying impacts in different places. As the department of place (Communities and Local Government 2007), Communities and Local Government should be aware of this geography and ensure that this context is considered in the development of legacy agendas, and the development of the LMF.
3.2
Perspectives on legacy
The previous section outlined the key strategies and plans for legacy in East London and highlighted a degree of coherence in legacy priorities across stakeholders. Drawing on interviews with a number of these stakeholders this section will now examine some of the different perspectives on legacy.8 These multiple perspectives can contribute to defining what successful legacies for East London might entail and the challenges of achieving these.
3.2.1
The geography of legacy

Discussions with stakeholders highlighted that there is spatial variation in (or a geography of) their plans and expectations for Olympics legacy. This geography was perceived in terms of inside and outside the Olympic Park and also the different geographies of the host boroughs in relation to the Olympic Park. A key point made by all stakeholders was that the integration of the Olympic Park with surrounding areas was crucial to achieving success. There should be no red line boundary around the Olympic Park after 2012 and it was suggested that a sign of long term success would be that if you go to East London after the Games you should not be able to tell where the boundary was. Integration of the Olympic Park with surrounding areas in terms of how the place looks, feels and is managed was thought to be an important part of legacy success. LVRP Authority for instance would like to see the quality of 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 the north of 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 future of the Olympic Park, but focus on the wider LLV area, incorporating the LLV Opportunity Area Planning Framework (GLA 2007). The fringe masterplans are a clear priority for the four boroughs surrounding the Olympic Park and these are referred to in the proposed LMF. However there is some concern that the fringes 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 of design quality will be
See Annex 1 for list of stakeholder organisations interviewed
28
given priority. The renewal of 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 for the Olympics to be used strategically to accelerate these regeneration aims over this wider geography. As noted in previous sections, there is a geography of legacy in terms of the host boroughs pursuing slightly different legacy ambitions. The host boroughs do have similar characteristics but it is important to recognise that their starting points for regeneration and socio-economic contexts do differ. It was suggested that some boroughs have greater place aspirations (Newham, Tower Hamlets) whilst others prioritise people aspirations (Greenwich). Greenwich for example prioritises sports and cultural legacies from the Olympics and has developed initiatives such as a Sport-a-thon, a Paralympic Forum, and a proposal for a Centre of Excellence for Arts. This reflects Greenwichs distance from 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 of legacy. Newhams starting point for regeneration is (arguably) more advanced that some of the other host boroughs. Stratford City is a major mixed-use development that includes significant transport improvements, the potential to change the character of the Stratford area and create thousands of jobs (5,000 jobs by 2016 projected in the Thames Gateway Delivery Plan, 30,000 proposed by LB Newham by completion of the development). In light of this development context, an Olympics legacy priority for Newham is to use the Olympics to inspire, encourage and support the boroughs residents to benefit from new employment opportunities. In contrast, Waltham Forest has limited physical development within the borough and has jurisdiction over a comparatively small section of land in the Olympic Park (see Map 2). In light of this regeneration context and geography, the boroughs legacy priorities are focused on ensuring communities can access the opportunities on offer beyond their boundary, at Stratford City for example. A successful legacy for Waltham Forest would entail improving connections with the Olympic Park and wider LLV area in terms of public transport provision and infrastructure such as bridges, pathways and cycle routes. Figure 6 suggests the host boroughs top legacy priorities as indicated in interview by borough officers. These priorities may provide the focus for an Olympics related Multi Area Agreement (MAA). There appears to be support from the boroughs in principle for an MAA, an initiative which is unlikely to have emerged without the impetus of the Olympics in East London. Cross borough working is often difficult to achieve in practice and it is thought that an MAA might help coordinate the boroughs plans for the areas around the Olympic Park. The fact that
29
the boroughs have different legacy priorities does not detract from the feasibility of an MAA it perhaps provides more reason to have this agreement and a forum for communication, with the potential to coordinate the different priorities. Joined-up working offers the potential to gain added value from regeneration plans and investments. Co-ordination can allow the boroughs to make the most of developments outside their boundaries. Figure 6 Five host boroughs legacy priorities based on discussions with borough officers Borough LB Greenwich LB Hackney Top legacy priority Increasing participation in sport and culture, and promoting the visitor economy Securing the legacy use of the IBC/MPC to benefit local communities and develop a cultural/creative centre in the borough. Use the Olympics to raise aspirations and improve peoples capacity to benefit from major developments in East London Addressing the wider regeneration needs and structural socio-economic issues in the borough Good connectivity to the Olympic Park and other development projects in East London to enable local communities to access services and employment opportunities
LB Newham
LB Tower Hamlets LB Waltham Forest
3.2.2
Olympic Opportunities
Stakeholders expressed mixed views on the opportunities that the Olympics could provide for the LLV and East London. This section will briefly highlight some of these perceptions TheOlympicscanbeusedasahooktoraiseaspirations The GLA and host boroughs noted that the Olympics can be used to raise host communities self-esteem, confidence and sense of self. This in turn is thought to improve peoples quality of life and employment opportunities. In Newham, for example, the local authority showed confidence in the bid process alone. The Local Strategic Partnership allocated 1m of Neighbourhood Renewal Funding to the Olympics bid, and a further 12m for kick starting legacy processes.9 Research suggests that in London a key impact of hosting the Games could be achieved by capitalising on the inspirational potential to create a fundamental shift in peoples aspirations, through the desire to be part
The nature of Neighbourhood Renewal Funding meant that the latter funds (12 million) were not expended until after the securing of the Games.
30
of such a successful and exciting event (Experian 2006: 55). Evaluation of the Manchester Commonwealth Games supports this view and highlights that the event provided a good hook for participation from needy beneficiaries, as well as from project workers and key players (Smith and Fox 2007: 1141). Experiences of previous Olympics host cities do not however provide strong support for this hypothesis (LERI 2007, IPPR and DEMOS 2004), but it is highlighted that the Olympics can potentially be used as a mechanism for raising aspirations and mobilising communities, Enthusiasm, perhaps inspired by the powerful affective charge associated with the Olympic brand, can encourage an overestimation and presumption, in terms of specific socio-cultural outcomes ushered in by the magic of the Olympics. Nevertheless it is also the case that the presence for a period of the the Olympic spirit in the host city, and in the national imaginary, does offer a real and rare opportunity to develop and mobilise cultural, communal and social action opportunities to catalyse large scale transformation. (LERI 2007: 16). Some stakeholders reflected this view and thought that a careful balance was required between maximising the opportunities of the Olympics and raising expectations too high. Awarenessthatlegacyoutcomeswillnotjusthappen Reflecting research on mega-events such as the Olympics, European Capital of Culture, World Cup and festivals, there was recognition amongst all stakeholders interviewed that a successful legacy would not happen by accident. There was awareness that programmes and initiatives are required to deliver legacy outcomes. As a representative for Newham commented, the opportunities for a successful Olympics legacy are there to have but we need to go out and get them. This reflects Smith and Foxs (2007: 1130) argument that securing regeneration from events requires careful planning and event managers who are sensitive to the importance of legacy. Securing uses and owners for Olympics venues at the earliest stage possible was thought to be important in achieving a successful legacy for East London. There is potentially a role for Communities and Local Government here, as lead department for regeneration, in terms of monitoring and supporting this process. RoleoftheprivatesectorinmaximisingOlympicopportunities Some stakeholders, particularly those that represent and work with businesses stressed the importance of engaging the private sector in planning for 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 of the LMF process, and not just be involved at the delivery stage once the majority of
31
planning decisions have been made. It was argued that the worst scenario for the private sector would be that the public sector alone decides the vision for the Olympic Park. Stakeholders suggested quite strongly that the private sector are enthusiastic about opportunities associated with the Olympics and are keen to play an active role in the planning of the Olympic Park and LLV. TheuniquenessoftheOlympics Overall there was a genuine passion from the host boroughs and other stakeholders to embrace the unique opportunities of the Olympics. The sense that this is a one off event and an opportunity to diverge from the norm in terms of scope of policies and ways of working was expressed. It was noted that the Olympics could contribute to a transformational change in East London, with the potential to revitalise the environment, improve place perception and the areas relationship with West London and the rest of the capital. The opportunity presented by the Olympics was compared to the transformational change that has been witnessed in Canary Wharf. Canary Wharf is not necessarily viewed by everyone as a model for regeneration, but it does demonstrate the scale of change that regeneration can create. There has undoubtedly been a transformation in Canary Wharf. Whether this is a positive transformation continues to be fiercely debated but the scale of regeneration here cannot be disputed. Some stakeholders also compared the opportunity presented by the Olympic Park to that of the Southbank area in London. Over a longer time period this area has undergone a major transformation and has been redefined 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 transforming this place successfully. It is difficult to conjure up a model for successful regeneration one approach might be to draw on a range of 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 the acceleration of regeneration in this area of East London It is thought that the Olympics has encouraged an anything is possible mentality for the LLV which was previously perceived by developers and many stakeholders as an area of limited development value. It is difficult to measure this acceleration effect and assess whether developments and changes in perception of the LLV might have happened without the arrival of the Olympics. The important point however is that developments are planned and taking place in the LLV and there is a sense that regeneration is happening, whether this is as a result of the Olympics, wider market effects, or other projects in East London such as Stratford City, Cross Rail and Canary Wharf.
32
It was noted that projects such as improvements to the North London Line, increased DLR capacity, and the housing phases of Stratford City have been accelerated by the Olympics. The LVRP Authority noted that the Olympics have accelerated and funded their ambitions to create a Velopark and canoe course. However, the acceleration of regeneration is spatially selective some areas and projects are prioritised over others. For example, Waltham Forest commented that Leyton underground station is scheduled for upgrade post-2012 and suggested that this development could have been brought forward to coincide with the Olympics. Some stakeholders raised concerns about possible implications and unintended outcomes of a speeded up process of regeneration. Burdens might be placed on host boroughs social-rented housing supply in order to accommodate an influx of migrant workers associated with the construction sites. Some stakeholders expressed concern about the need for host boroughs to increase their capacities in terms of staffing and resources to capture the benefits of the Olympics for local communities. Accelerated regeneration may have implications for community cohesion in terms of creating divided urban spaces (inside/outside the Olympic Park), tensions over who development is for and the risks of overlooking existing communities attachment to place and future aspirations. Who is development for? is an important question for Communities and Local Government when thinking about Olympics legacies. Sustaining a momentum for regeneration after the Games was thought to be key to securing successful Olympics legacies for East London. The risk of a lengthy time-lag between the Games and subsequent public use of 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 after the Games as possible. In terms of the transformation of the park, some stakeholders thought that careful planning and management will be required to ensure that post 2012 there is not a revert back to what the area was like before. Another potential risk to legacy ambitions was that after a period of time, the Olympic Park might just be regarded as another development project and that this would be a missed opportunity. There was a sense that if the Olympic Park became just another development project it would lose its Olympics leverage, perhaps in terms of delivering better regeneration, higher standards of environmental sustainability and quality of design.
3.2.4
The soft legacies

Some stakeholders said that the soft legacy outcomes were just as important, if not more so than the hard legacy of the Olympics. Some reached this conclusion because they thought that the hard legacy, such as improved public realm, new transport connections and sports venues, were given, clearly on-track to be
33
achieved and were being monitored through the Olympics PSA and programme objectives. Others thought that the hard legacy might fail to deliver on all its claims and that effort should be invested in soft legacies, as real benefits for East London could be achieved here. Representatives from the GLA, Government Office London (GOL) and the boroughs commented that the softer legacies were their domain of 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 focused mainly on the hard legacy of 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 itself, are perceived as ways of improving peoples quality of life in East London. Reflecting government legacy promises, increasing young peoples activity is perceived as an important part of a successful 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 of 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 of worklessness in East London. Some stakeholders said that employment is the key to so many other quality of life issues income, housing, health, activity, living environment that it warrants significant attention and investment. It was suggested that a successful Olympics legacy for East London has to achieve a marked reduction in worklessness. Skills and training for local communities are highlighted as key to securing an employment legacy from the Olympics. The London Employment and Skills Taskforce (LEST) and the City Strategy Pathfinder Pilot initiatives are very much welcomed by stakeholders but there is a sense that more needs to be done to address the underlying problem of worklessness in East London. It was suggested that education, in terms of quality and not just numbers of schools, was an issue that the Olympics could potentially be used to address. Jobs will be created in the Olympic Park, Stratford City and wider LLV, but stakeholders raised questions about a) the types, skill levels and duration of the jobs that will be created b) the capacity for local communities to obtain the higher paid and graduate level jobs and c) the risks of the Olympic Park becoming a place to work for people living elsewhere rather than providing jobs for those who live there.
3.2.5
Economic constraints on legacy

A recurrent theme that stakeholders highlighted was the economic constraints on achieving a successful Olympics legacy. As previous Games have suggested,
34
there is tension between the dual aspects of the Olympics the running of a spectacular sporting event and the longer term impacts of that event on the host city and country. Stakeholders were confident that the Olympic Park would be delivered on time, but there were concerns that as we get closer to 2012 cost might become more of an issue with the risk that funds could be diverted from legacy priorities to the event itself. Stakeholders thought that funding for legacy was not a priority for all organisations involved in the Olympics. Some felt that the legacy aspirations in the bid were about appeasing the IOC and winning the bid, and that because of spending cycles, financial planning for legacy is a challenge. The Aquatics Centre was noted as an example of the tensions that can arise between cost, Games time priorities and legacy. The plans for the Aquatics Centre proposed the construction of two 50 metre swimming pools. The five host boroughs collectively raised concerns that this facility would not be of use to local communities after 2012 and that they would like to see leisure water provision in the centre. Newham and Tower Hamlets have now agreed to fund this provision and are contributing 6.5m to secure the legacy of the Aquatics Centre. These are the types of tensions which might increase if the Olympics budget becomes more of an issue closer to 2012. This example highlights that it is the use value of the Olympics venues and infrastructure that is key to a successful legacy. A range of stakeholders noted that there are questions about legacy funding. Whereas some boroughs very much embraced the Olympics opportunity, others expressed more concern about financial burdens associated with hosting the Olympics and thought that a lot was being asked of under resourced (in terms of finances and expertise) local authorities. There were real concerns raised about the implications of the LDAs first call on receipts to repay their 650m investment in the Olympics. The implications of this might be that developments with the highest return value are built first at the expense of 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 for legacy (the LMF for example) but in financial terms their rationale is distinctly short term. It was thought that the role of the public sector should not be to go in and set the ground for development and then sell out, but rather to invest in the long-term.
3.2.6
Timescales of legacy
The different time scales for Olympics legacy were considered to be important in defining legacy success for East London. Stakeholders shared a number of views on timescales of legacy which are outlined below,
35
Legacyishappeningnowandnotjustafter2012 There is widespread acknowledgment that Olympics legacies can start now. However, some aspects of legacy such as increasing young peoples sports participation are easier to deliver now than others, such as raising aspirations and promoting healthy living. These legacy ambitions are anticipated to be easier to achieve closer to Games time. Legacyshouldbeviewedoveralongtimescale Most stakeholders recognised that regeneration takes a long time. 2020 was a milestone used by several stakeholders, who thought that by this time most of the physical development within the Olympic Park will be complete (for example ELBAs tagline, London Legacy 2020). A longer timescale was suggested for the regeneration of the wider LLV area and town centres in the areas surrounding the Olympic Park. One stakeholder suggested the timescale of 2050 for a generational change in East London, whereby life chances, quality of life, and the geography of the area are transformed. Legacyisanon-goingandevolvingprocess It was highlighted that Olympics legacy is an on-going process, and it will be difficult to create an arbitrary cut off for when legacy has been achieved. Successful 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 of right chaps lets go and get some legacy legacy is an evolving process. The recently revived O2 arena was referred to as an example of how legacy can evolve. Previous host cities have witnessed this trend also, whereby sports venues may for a period of time be regarded as having a negative legacy with limited use value, only for new ideas or funding to change their fortunes. The notion that Olympics legacies are an on-going process presents a challenge for evaluating legacy and measuring legacy success. As time-scales lengthen, the boundaries between impacts of the Olympics and other nonOlympic developments or initiatives, become increasingly blurred (LERI 2007).
3.2.7
Governance of legacy
The governance of legacy now and after 2012 was a theme that all stakeholders raised. The host boroughs took similar views of how legacy should be managed within the borough. Their approaches focus on the creation of 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 found challenging. At officer level, cross borough working has often been a success but at a political level there has been more of a challenge. It was suggested that one legacy outcome of the Olympics might be a new way of governing and delivering local services. The proposal for an MAA might be a way to formalise cross borough
36
working around the Olympic Park and provide coherence to regeneration ambitions and plans for this area of East London. There were also concerns raised about the role of the LDA as lead partner in legacy planning for the Olympic Park, given that the LDA has a property-led approach that might compromise the achievement of softer legacy ambitions. The issue of legacy management after the Games was discussed by stakeholders and there was general confidence that the LMF process would generate appropriate governance options. The following options were highlighted by stakeholders: Extension of LTGDC after 2014 to manage legacy of Olympic Park and LLV An innovative special purpose vehicle that differed from 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 for the new Homes and Communities Agency
3.3
Creating a new quarter for East London

Government legacy promises and the Olympic bid ambitions envisage the development of 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 for this study. Discussions with stakeholders considered the question What type of place do we want to create in this area of East London? In discussing the agenda for this new quarter of London, questions were raised about current planning requirements in London and the notion of a sustainable community. One concern that Newham and Tower Hamlets raised related to the provision of affordable housing in the development of the Olympic Park and LLV area. It was suggested that these boroughs already have significant amounts of social-rented housing and that more private housing is required to address this imbalance. The Olympics may provide the opportunity to deviate from normal planning requirements and it was thought that the types of housing needed and desired for this area of East London is an issue that should be debated. Other stakeholders reflected the view that housing, in terms of tenure, density, type, mix and design was a key issue in creating a successful legacy for the LLV and East London. Several stakeholders supported the view that a high-level strategic vision is required for the regeneration of this area, and that the LMF process has the
37
potential to create this vision. In a similar way to the vision for the Southbank a cultural quarter, and Canary Wharf an international business centre, a strategic vision could engender an identity for this area of East London. The need to think big was noted by ELBA and London First and the argument that the vision has to override the reality was made. Stakeholders ideas on the vision for the Olympic Park and surrounding areas are summarised below: watercity waterways of the LLV provide the focus for development, encouraging water based recreation, and waterfront caf culture sporting quarter world class centre for grassroots and elite sport. Possibilities for innovative sports development such as extreme sports and snow dome for example urban park parkland and green space as focus of development with high densities increasing the amount of green and wildlife spaces. Suggestion that this park should be on a par with Londons Royal Parks cultural centre centred on development of the IBC/MPC as a creative industries hub. Potential for innovative developments Tate East was one idea suggested iconic landmark/feature to provide centre for 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 of European business headquarters to the Olympic Park
3.4
Summary
This section has highlighted a range of perspectives on Olympics legacy that key stakeholders in East London have expressed. The key points, of 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 differently in different places. The same programmes will have very different implications and impacts in different places. A positive legacy for some places might not be viewed the same in others seamless integration of Olympic Park and surrounding areas is thought to be key to a successful legacy the role of the private sector in legacy planning requires clarification regeneration momentum post-2012 needs to be sustained
38
the Olympics should be used to address problems of worklessness in East London and make a marked improvement in host communities life chances concerns about lack of funding for legacy development Olympics legacy is an ongoing process the Olympics can potentially provide the impetus for new ways of working and the timely opportunity to address regeneration ambitions for East London
Chapter 4 Communities and Local Government and London 2012 Olympic Legacies
39
Chapter 4
Communities and Local Government and London 2012 Olympic Legacies
This section outlines why Olympics legacy is important to the Department in terms of meeting departmental strategic objectives and wider regeneration aims to develop sustainable communities. Drawing on these objectives a definition of legacy success for East London is set out that focuses on legacy within the Olympic Park and beyond the Olympic Park boundaries. Stakeholder views on Communities and Local Governments role in Olympics legacy are then highlighted and the development of a wider legacy agenda, driven by the Department, which addresses regeneration needs in East London, is suggested.
4.1
Departmental objectives, sustainable communities and the Thames Gateway

Olympics legacy in a broad sense is important to Communities and Local Government because it relates to the Departments strategic objectives (see Figure 7) and national agendas to create sustainable communities. Securing a successful legacy in East London will contribute to the Departments aims to deliver sustainable regeneration and to the delivery of the Thames Gateway agenda. The Department has pledged to establish a role as the department of place (CLG 2007) and the Olympics is a key opportunity to affirm this role and really make a difference to the places in East London. In addition to contributing to the Olympics PSA, the Department leads on two PSAs which, if managed effectively, Olympics legacies could contribute to delivering: PSA 20, increase long term housing supply and affordability; and PSA 21, build more cohesive, empowered and active communities. As highlighted in Figure 7 (overleaf), the Olympics and the legacy of the Olympics have the potential to contribute to five of the six Communities and Local Government departmental strategic objectives. This is why Olympics legacy is such an important concept for the Department and requires input from a range of Communities and Local Government policy areas including community cohesion, planning, local government, and decent homes. Joined up working has been evident in the proposals for an MAA linked to the Olympics this is a good example of how the Department is embedding the Olympics in other policy areas and work streams to the benefit of East London.
40
4.2
From objectives to outcomes: defining legacy success

In light of the Departments strategic objectives, agendas to promote regeneration and develop sustainable communities, this section returns to the pivotal research question what is a successful Olympics legacy for East London? Drawing on lessons from previous Olympics and the perspectives on legacy that stakeholders highlighted, this section attempts to summarise what a successful legacy for East London would entail. It is suggested that a successful legacy has two dimensions 1) inside the Olympic Park, and 2) beyond the Olympic Park. The legacies beyond the Olympic Park include how the Olympics can be used to address wider regeneration ambitions for East London and promote new ways of working. Figure 8 attempts to define a successful Olympics legacy for East London. Figure 7 Communities and Local Government Departmental Strategic Objectives and the Olympics CLG Departmental Strategic Objectives 1. Support local government that empowers individuals and communities, and delivers high quality services Role of Olympics in achieving objectives CLG can support the host boroughs in their ambitions for Olympics legacy the Olympic Park will provide high quality service provision if ambitions are realised the Olympics will cast a spotlight on East London so it is a timely opportunity to improve services in this area. the development of new communities provides the opportunity to build in structures that promote community empowerment. E.g. the creation of community led management companies in new housing areas, or structures which enable communities to decide how local public services are run.
41
Figure 7 Communities and Local Government Departmental Strategic Objectives and the Olympics CLG Departmental Strategic Objectives 2. Improve the supply and quality of housing Role of Olympics in achieving objectives the Olympics Park will deliver around 10,000 homes the Olympics effect on market values is anticipated to increase house building in the LLV and Olympic Park fringes. the Olympic Park aims to provide a blueprint for sustainable living this should deliver high quality housing in the park and meet the Code for Sustainable Homes standards a Task for CLG is to promote Decent Homes in the host boroughs. CLG can work with the boroughs to determine what types of housing they need the Olympic Park and surrounding areas to supply e.g. family housing, non-family housing.
3. Build prosperous the Olympics, combined with CTRL, Cross Rail, communities by Stratford City and regeneration projects in London improving the Thames Gateway, is projected to have a positive economic performance impact on the economic performance of East of cities, sub London. regions and local the Olympics promotes regeneration which has areas, promoting the potential to tackle facets of deprivation. regeneration and tackling deprivation. 4. Develop communities that are cohesive, active and resilient to extremism the construction of new sporting venues and Olympics initiatives designed to increase participation in sport will contribute to developing more active communities in East London. Olympics programmes also encourage people, particularly young people, to become generally more active in terms of culture, education, skills and volunteering. there is scope to shape the Olympics agenda to contribute to the creation of cohesive communities. Major regeneration projects have the potential to divide communities and there is a role for CLG to use its expertise in cohesion to mitigate against this.
42
Figure 7 Communities and Local Government Departmental Strategic Objectives and the Olympics CLG Departmental Strategic Objectives 5. Provide a more efficient, effective and transparent planning system that supports and facilitates sustainable development Role of Olympics in achieving objectives the Olympics is one of the largest developments in the UK and there is opportunity to show how the planning of a mega-project such as this can be planned efficiently, effectively and transparently. CLG has considerable expertise in community engagement in planning and effective consultation which should play a role in the legacy planning for the Olympic Park and fringe areas.
Figure 8 A successful Olympics legacy for East London Olympic Park there is an agreed strategic vision for what this place should be post 2012, which incorporates community, private sector and public sector ambitions. legacy uses that meet local needs and regeneration ambitions are agreed for all Olympics venues, with transformation to start immediately after Games. public access to some areas of Olympic Park should be available as soon as possible after the Games to retain and build local connections. there is seamless integration between the Olympic Park and surrounding areas in terms of regeneration planning, access, design, and public services. by 2020 the Olympics Park is an exemplar of sustainable development. by 2020 there are mixed, cohesive and thriving communities in what was the Olympic Park with access to a range of jobs, high quality services and open space. Beyond the Olympic Park the Olympics has been used to promote new ways of governing that encourage cross boundary working and joined-up public service delivery in East London. momentum for regeneration in East London is accelerated through the delivery of fringe master plans, regeneration in the LLV, and effective engagement with the private sector. sustainable living practices inside the park (such as sustainable construction, energy efficiency, water recycling, and promotion of walking and cycling) are replicated in developments in the LLV and East London. the Olympics has been used to leverage an improvement in the quality of life in East London. Identified socio-economic and environmental needs in East London have been addressed, resulting in a marked improvement of quality of life for existing and new communities in the area.
43
The last point (above) relating to Olympics leverage is perhaps key for defining what successful legacies for East London entail. The priority for measuring success in East London revolves around has the quality of life in East London improved after the Olympics? An overarching vision which endeavours to improve the quality of life in East London is required to provide a framework for the more practical ambitions listed in Figure 8. The Olympics will not be the only factor in the changing fortunes of East London and developments such as Cross Rail will obviously have a significant effect. However, as a unique mega-event, it provides a timely opportunity to lever additional benefits for the people and places in this area. As noted earlier, a similar approach whereby regeneration efforts are concentrated around an event, was taken by city leaders in East Manchester for the 2002 Commonwealth Games (Smith and Fox 2007). Government Office for London (GOL) and the five host borough unit are currently working on an evidence base to help identify the key needs and quality of life issues in the areas surrounding the Olympic Park. The stakeholders interviewed for this study highlighted the need to grasp the opportunity of the Olympics to really make a difference in East London. A wider agenda, which seeks to shape existing programmes, policies and strategies, to address the regeneration needs of the East London area could contribute to achieving this ambition. Some of the needs and quality of life issues in East London which could be addressed by an agenda such as this are highlighted below in Figure 9.
44
Figure 9 Addressing the regeneration needs of East London Identified needs/ regeneration ambitions Health and well being Possible actions Relevant PSAs
Better hospitals in East London, improved access to GPs, improving air quality, new cycles routes and walkways. 4 out of 10 children live in poverty in London; can we use the Olympics to address this issue in East London? Direct Decent Homes initiatives to East London, upgrade existing housing stock and ensure the quality of new housing The creation of a Royal Park, improvements to existing open spaces, the creation of new public spaces. Direct initiatives such as the Mayors 100 Public Spaces programme to areas around the Olympic Park Joined up working to improve education and skills in East London. Building of new schools, improvements to skills training, more resources for schools. Innovative links between young people and businesses through mentoring schemes, work experience and bursaries
18: Promote health and well being for all
Child Poverty
9: Halve the number of children in poverty by 2010-11 on the way to eradicating child poverty by 2020 20: Increase long term housing supply and affordability 18: Promote better health and wellbeing for all 28: Secure a healthy natural environment for today and the future 21: Build more cohesive and active communities 18: Promote better health and well being 8: Maximise employment opportunity for all 10: Raise the educational achievement for all children and young people
Decent Homes
Natural environment, parklands and open spaces
Education and skills to address worklessness
There is perhaps a concern that Olympics legacy might be spread too thinly in East London. There is a careful balance to be struck between grasping the opportunities of the Olympics and raising aspirations too high. Stakeholders
45
interviewed for this study suggested that we should think big about Olympics legacy so that opportunities can be debated, if only to be reined in at a later stage. Securing a successful, sustainable development within the Olympic Park is central to legacy success for East London but there is a definite sense from discussions with the host boroughs, and lessons from previous Olympics, that this is not enough. Wider regeneration ambitions in the surrounding areas also need to be realised. Communities and Local Government as the department championing regeneration and the development of sustainable communities has a key role in this wider Olympics legacy for East London.
4.3
The role of Communities and Local Government in Olympics legacy

Stakeholders interviewed in the course of this study supported the more active role that the Department is beginning to take in securing successful Olympics legacies for East London. However there was a shared view that the Departments role should be stronger. Some stakeholders thought that the Department had come to the legacy table quite late in proceedings. Others thought that the Department should be working more closely with the Mayor and LDA on legacy planning and agendas. Some thought that the Department should hold the Mayor to account more and work to ensure that central, regional and local levels of governance are all involved and working together effectively in the legacy planning and delivery process. Stakeholders thought that as a central government department, the Departments role should be at the political, strategic level in terms of setting policy objectives and agendas for legacy. The development of an Olympics leverage agenda by the Department would support this strategic role. The Thames Gateway Cross Government Board might provide a forum where the Department could secure this leverage and shape other departments agendas around the Olympics and meeting the regeneration needs of East London. the Department could also play an important role in supporting local government and help ensure that the right mode of local governance emerges from the Olympics. Co-ordinating and helping the five host boroughs to work together was thought to be an important role for the Department, particularly if tensions emerge within the so far successful political alliance around the Olympics. As noted in the previous sections, the governance of the Olympic Park after the Olympics is a subject that will be debated through the LMF process during 2008 09. Stakeholders suggested that the Departments expertise in planning, regeneration and local government should be used to make strategic input into this process. It was also suggested that a senior level champion for legacy is
46
needed in East London. As Minister for the Olympics and London, Tessa Jowell is charged with this role but stakeholders suggested that a special advisor or a senior level individual might be a way to raise the profile of Olympics legacy as distinct from delivering the Games. This is a suggestion that business groups in London have already made (see London First 2007a and Planning Resource 2007) and is perhaps a call that the Department should consider.
Chapter 5 Conclusions
47
Chapter 5
Conclusions
By drawing on lessons from previous Olympics, reviewing the legacy plans for East London and exploring the views of key stakeholders in the area, this study has sought to answer the questions What is a successful Olympics legacy for East London, and what role can Communities and Local Government play in achieving this? The research suggests that there will not be one Olympics legacy for East London but a set of legacies that range from the hard and tangible, to the soft and intangible. Legacy is a rich concept and it is argued that there is a variable geography of legacy. This means that legacies will be played out differently in different places and the same programmes will have very different implications across space. A key aspect of this is the differentiation between inside the Olympic Park and the areas beyond its boundaries. For the Department, successful Olympics legacies for East London centre on two dimensions legacy within the Olympic Park and legacy beyond the Olympic Park (see Figure 8). The Olympic Park should deliver all it sets out to achieve in terms of exemplar sustainable development, community engagement in the planning process, the transformation of sports venues, integration with surrounding areas, the creation of mixed communities, the provision of a range of jobs, high quality parkland and open space. To achieve a successful Olympics legacy, wider regeneration ambitions for East London, which go beyond the Olympic Park, also need to be realised. The key message here is that the Olympics should be used to leverage an improvement in the quality of life in East London. An agenda which seeks to use the Olympics to address identified socio-economic and environmental needs in the area should be considered. As the department for regeneration, Communities and Local Government are well placed to drive this agenda at a strategic level and engage with the range of partners that would need to be involved. The Olympics provides a unique and timely opportunity to promote the regeneration of East London and improve the quality of life for communities that live there now and in the future. A wider agenda such as this, which works to ensure that local places, communities and businesses gain lasting benefits, may help London to succeed where other Olympic host cities have failed.
48
This study concludes by recommending four actions that the Department should take now to maximise the potential for legacy success in East London: 1. Support the five host boroughs in their legacy and regeneration ambitions, possibly through the development of a MAA related to the Olympics. This may provide a vehicle for the co-ordination of the different geographies of legacy. 2. Monitor and support the process to identify legacy uses/ownership of all Olympics venues and facilities in East London. Engage with organisations (such as ELBA and London First) who can involve the private sector in this process. 3. Engage fully in legacy planning of the Olympic Park (LMF) and fringe areas, utilising the Departments expertise in planning, community cohesion, empowerment and housing policy areas. Provide input to the strategic vision of the Olympic Park. 4. Debate and discuss with stakeholders the development of a wider legacy agenda that shapes and brings together existing policy streams to address the regeneration ambitions and needs of the LLV and East London.
Annex 1
49
Annex 1
Stakeholder organisations interviewed Organisation Government Olympic Executive (GOE) GOE Greater London Authority (GLA) London Development Agency (LDA) London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) London Borough of Greenwich London Borough of Hackney London Borough of Newham London Borough of Tower Hamlets London Borough of Waltham Forest Five Host boroughs East London Business Alliance (ELBA) London First Lee Valley Regional Park Authority Date of meeting 07.03.08 05.03.08 27.02.08 03.03.08 19.02.08 25.02.08 11.02.08 04.03.08 25.02.08 20.02.08 04.03.08 13.02.08 03.03.08 27.02.08
50
References
Coalter F (2004) Stuck in the blocks? A sustainable sporting legacy, in IPPR and DEMOS (2004) After the Gold rush: a sustainable Olympics for London, IPPR, London Communities and Local Government (2007) Delivering our priorities, CLG, London Communities and Local Government (2007a) The Thames Gateway Delivery Plan, HMSO, London Commission for Sustainable London 2012 (2007) Assuring a legacy: The assurance framework for the Commission for Sustainable London 2012, February 2007, CSL, London, available online http://www.cslondon.org/documents/ Assuring-a-Legacy-February2007.pdf DCMS (2007) Olympic legacy research: Quantitative report, Prepared for COI and DCMS by BMRB Sport, October 2007, DCMS, London DCMS (2007) Our promise for 2012: How the UK will benefit from the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, DCMS, London DCMS (forthcoming) Before, During and After the Games: Legacy Action Plan ERM (2004) Rapid health impact assessment of the proposed London Olympic Games and their legacy, a report commissioned by The London Health Commission and LDA Greater London Authority (2007) Your 2012, GLA, London Experian (2006) Employment and Skills for the 2012 Games, research and evidence, Learning and Skills Council and LDA, available online at http:// readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/Lsc/2006/research/commissioned/nat-employment-andskills-for-the-2012-games-research-and-evidence-jun-2006-main-report.pdf GLA (2008) Five Legacy commitments, GLA, London GLA (2007) Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework, GLA, London Gold J R and Gold M (2008) Olympic Cities, in Geography Compass, 2, 300-318
References
51
Guardian, The (2008) Mayor Johnson poised to make Olympic debut, The Guardian, 15.05.08, available online http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/ may/15/olympicgames2012.boris?gusrc=rss&feed=sport GVA Grimley and RICS (2006) Gold, silver or Bronze? Development Prospects in East London, GVA Grimley, London HM Treasury (2007) PSA Delivery Agreement 22: Deliver a successful Olympic Games and Paralympic Games with a sustainable legacy and get more children and young people taking part in high quality PE and sport, HMSO, London House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee (2007) London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games: funding and legacy, Volume 1, TSO, London Khan K (2004) Just another ceremony? A sustainable cultural legacy, in IPPR and DEMOS (2004) After the Gold rush: a sustainable Olympics for London, IPPR, London Levett R (2004) Is green the new gold? A Sustainable Games for London in, IPPR and DEMOS (2004) After the Gold rush: a sustainable Olympics for London, IPPR, London Local Government Association (2007) Community champions: the local government offer for the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, Local Government Association, London London East Research Institute at UEL (2007) A lasting legacy for London? Assessing the legacy of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, report for the London Assembly, London. London First (2007) Business opportunity Update: Londons business opportunity prospectus progress report, October 2007, London First, London London First (2007a) Ten for Number 10: New Prime Minister, New Agenda for London, London First, available online, http://www.londonfirst.co.uk/news/ detail.asp?record=5 London First, CBI London and London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (2007) Londons business opportunity prospectus: maximising the benefit of the London 2012 Games, Summary, available online, http://www.londonfirst.co.uk/ documents/034_Prospectus_executive_summary.pdf
52
London Thames Gateway Development Corporation, London Development Agency and Mayor of London (2006) Vision for the Lower Lea Valley, London Thames Gateway Development Corporation, London IPPR and DEMOS, (2004) (Editors Vigor A, Mean M, Tims C) After the Gold rush: a sustainable Olympics for London, IPPR, London Mean M, Vigor A, Tims C (2004) Conclusion: Minding the Gap, in IPPR and DEMOS (2004) After the Gold rush: a sustainable Olympics for London, IPPR, London National Audit Office (2007) Preparations for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games: Risk assessment and management, TSO London Nations and Regions East (2007) Rising challenge, Nations and Regions East: East of England Regional Business Plan for the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, East of England Development Agency Northwest Regional Development Agency (2004) Commonwealth Games Benefits study: Final Report, Faber Maunsell and Roger Tym and Partners, Warrington ODA (2008) Employment and Skills Strategy, ODA, London ODA (2008a) ODA Employment Update 2008, internal communication ODA (2007) Sustainable development strategy: Executive Summary, ODA, London (January 2007) ODA (2007a) London 2012 Sustainability Plan, November 2007: Towards a one planet 2012, ODA, London Planning Resource (2007) Business groups call for Olympic legacy secretary, 13 April 2007, available online, http://www.regen.net/news/650442/Businessgroups-call-Olympic-legacy-secretary/ Preuss H (2004) The economics of staging the Olympics, Edward Elgar, London Poynter G (2006) From Beijing to Bow Creek: Measuring the Olympic Effect, London East Research Institute, UEL, London Raco M (2004) Whose gold rush? The social legacy of a London Olympics, in IPPR and DEMOS (2004) After the Gold rush: a sustainable Olympics for London, IPPR, London
References
53
SEEDA (2007) Compete, create, collaborate for a world class performance: South East Englands offer for the 2012 Games, SEEDA, Guildford Stern N (2006) The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, HM Treasury, London
ISBN 978-1409808299
ISBN: 978 1 4098 08299
9 781409 808299

Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Keogh 2009 Legado Maior Area

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

London 2012 Olympic legacies:

London 2012 Olympic legacies:

Source: Communities and Local Government (2008)

Tessa Jowells statement of 15th March 2007

Direct Indirect Visible / tangible

Figure 3 Legacy aspirations

Legacy aspirations detailed in Bid (Candidate File 2005)

Legacy challenges inside the Olympic Park

Map 2 The Olympic Boroughs and the Olympic Park

Source: Communities and Local Government (2008)

Wider Olympic benefits

Chapter 3 Planning for legacy in East London

Review of legacy plans

Chapter 3 Planning for legacy in East London

Figure 4 Planning Olympics legacy for East London

Place image and perception

LB Newham LB Tower Hamlets LB Waltham Forest

Culture and diversity celebration

Reduction in carbon emissions

LSC and LDA

LDA, Sport England, London Councils Mayor and DCSF

ODA, LDA and LSC

Chapter 3 Planning for legacy in East London

The geography of legacy

See Annex 1 for list of stakeholder organisations interviewed

Chapter 3 Planning for legacy in East London

LB Tower Hamlets LB Waltham Forest

Chapter 3 Planning for legacy in East London

Accelerating regeneration in the Lower Lea Valley and East London

The soft legacies

Chapter 3 Planning for legacy in East London

Economic constraints on legacy

Chapter 3 Planning for legacy in East London

Creating a new quarter for East London

Chapter 3 Planning for legacy in East London

Departmental objectives, sustainable communities and the Thames Gateway

From objectives to outcomes: defining legacy success

18: Promote health and well being for all

Natural environment, parklands and open spaces

Education and skills to address worklessness

The role of Communities and Local Government in Olympics legacy

ISBN: 978 1 4098 08299

You might also like