East London, Gentrification and the Olympics by Iara Silva-Silva

URBAN POLITICS

EAST LONDON, GENTRIFICATION AND THE OLYMPICS AN ARCHITECTURAL EDITED BOOK

SIMI ABIDAKUN 12014033 GEORGINA HALE 12017000 IARA SILVA 12071790 CELIA DE VILLIERS 12039930 ALIAKSANDR MANKO 12040574

RESEARCH GROUP 21

U30024 DECEMBER 2013

Printed in Oxford

Contents Introduction Bibliography

12 18

Chapter 1 The Leisure and Labour classes

Bibliography

Chapter 2

Has the gentrification of East London as a result of the Olympic park affected the segregation between the different classes found within it?

The Decision Makers To what extent was the local community involved in the gentrification of Stratford through the planning and development of the Olympic Park as a centralised location in London?

Bibliography Chapter 3

Social Impact

What impact did the Games have on its surrouning areas and how were its communities and populations affected?

38 42

Bibliography

Chapter 4 Security What were the security methods employed in

Bibliography

Chapter 5

the Olympic Games and what were the social and economic repercussions?

Legacy

What are the current infrastructural and socioeconomic implications of the London 2012 Olympic Legacy?

Bibliography

Introduction Urban Politics is a topic that can be traced right back to early civilisation. The development of a sense of community between individuals meant that a system had to be developed in order to cater the increasing populations across the world, and generate a suitable environment that suited the aspirations of its inhabitants. Part of this system is the process of gentrification which is defined as aiming to â&#x20AC;&#x153;renovate and improve (a house or district) so that it conforms to middle-class tasteâ&#x20AC;? (Oxford English Dictionary) By exploring the role of the Olympic Park in the gentrification of the East London area, this edited architectural book, aims to unravel the social and political effects of gentrification on the surface of a vulnerable and deprived area. The location of the Olympic Park and its surrounding boroughs, make it an ideal platform for analysing the politics of gentrification, which in contrast with the Oxford English Dictionary, its described elsewhere as being the improvement of property values through the purchase and renovation of shops and houses, on a deteriorated neighbourhood, by upper or middle class individuals, often displacing low-income families. (Dictionary.com, 2013) Over the past few decades East London had proved to be an area that was ripe for regeneration. The statistics portrayed the area as one that fell below national standards in terms of economics, education and general well being. According to the national census conducted by the GLA (Greater London Authority), the rate between the ages of 16 and 24, in Newham, were at a staggering 20%. It was figures like that had an enormous impact on the process of analysing the area for a possible regeneration process which would re-arrange its social layers. Between the 1970s and the 80s, this East London area experienced the closure and de-industrialisation of its traditional manufacturing industries. Its industrial past was however, not erased completely, for example, industrial spaces were transformed into workshops, the impact of years of aggressive industrial exploration left its marks, with 200 hectares of contaminated land, and polluted waters. Regeneration was clearly needed, and it was bound to happen whether London got the Games or not, but the 2012 London bid provided the unique opportunity to regenerate the area has a whole and fast, rather than doing it by blocks over a seriously long period of time. The Games came full of promises, one of them being of a lasting legacy, most effective one in the history of Olympic Games. The first chapter explores how the regeneration policy was planned around the 12

integration of the Olympic Park with its surroundings, avoiding barriers with the neighbouring area; Celia De Villiers argues that through the process of gentrification, boundaries have been built, and analysing the social context of the area, she will identify the origin of the social division, whilst also looking at the social classes of the area and determining the effect that the Games had on their stay. In past centuries, the planning of the infrastructures surrounding a community was what brought people together. Looking specifically into the development of the park in Stratford, Simi Abidakun analyses the complicated regeneration scheme, looking into the 3 master plans and evaluating the level of involvement of Stratford’s population in the planning, determining the impact the gentrification process in community involvement. A mega-event such as the Olympics attracts attention from all over the globe, to a specific area or region which is generally improved or modified to showcase a country’s economic, political and social stability. For that to happen, the community surrounding the event has to be engaged in the changes for there to be no conflicts that would contest the nation’s stability. The 2012 Games, were no different, the 5 surrounding boroughs were all modified and ‘improved’. Iara Silva examines the social impact that came with such modifications, analysing the promises made in the attempt to engage the local community and their effects. On the 7th of July of 2005, the day after the bid was won, the London bombings occurred, interrupting the celebrations and putting into perspective the safety of the event. 700,000 people, from all over the world, were expected to be attending the Games, excluding the participants and there was no margin for error. In order to guarantee the safety of the event, several measures were taken. Minding the comfort of the public and the safety of the athletes, the architectural design of the venues was arranged in order to incorporate several security measures. Aliaksandr Manko studies and evaluates the precautions taken to guarantee the success of security of the games. Following the ending of the Games, the process of the legacy begins. Hyped up to be perceived as one of the most effective legacies in history, it was its regeneration plan to create businesses and improve social standards that won London the 2012 bid. The International Olympic Committee opted for a project that would showcase the benefits of hosting the Olympics, and even though the legacy is still far away from being finalised, its initial phase has begun. Georgina Hale analyses its plans to improve social standards of the area, and to determine the development of Olympic infrastructures, and enhance both the dimension and the timescale of the Thames Gateway redevelopment, amongst other proposals. “We are already laying the groundwork for a lasting legacy following the Games and I can’t wait to see each and every Londoner fully embracing the unique opportunities next summer represents for the capital.” (Boris Johnson, cited on BBC, 2012) 13

“With opportunity firmly clutched in its torchbearing fist, 2012 is going to be all about ‘legacy’ and ‘sustainability’ working together towards ‘legastainability’. (Ian Fletcher, cited on BBC, 2012)

Fig.1. The Park within the Lower Lea Valley

Site Visit Newham, September 2013

Fig.2. Infamous ‘fridge mountain’ within the Park site, 2003.

Site Visit Hackney Wick, September 2013

Bibliography Books Poynter, G., MacRury, I. Eds. 2009. Olympic Cities: 2012 and the Remaking of London. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Hopkins, J., Neal, P., 2013. The Making of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Interviews Gold, J., 2013. Interviewed by Abidakun, S., Hale, G., Silva, I. 26 November 2013, 15:30. Images Fig.1. Anon, 2005?. The Park within the Lower Lea Valley. [Photoshop] London. Available in: The Making of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, [Book, p. 36]. Fig.2. Anon, 2003. Infamous ‘fridge mountain’ within the Park site, [Photoshop] London. Available in: The Making of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, [Book, p. 35]. The images showcased under ‘site visit’ are our own.

The Leisure and Labour Classes Has the gentrification of East London as a result of the Olympic Park affected the segregation between the different classes found within it? Celia De Villiers

Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Olympic legacy is promised to be the most effective yet, hoping to form a brand new hot spot in the city of London generating business and improving social standards. However whether this will be the case, one will not know for another 20 years. However issues concerning the different social classes within the area are beginning to emerge, which may jeopardise the perfect Olympic legacy.

‘For the Games to realise their real promise, Stratford, Hackney Wick and Fish Island, Bromley-by-Bow, Leyton and the areas around Hackney Marshes must grow and improve in parallel with those in the Park. These fringe neighbourhoods cannot feel like they are on the edge, looking across at something new.’ - Boris Johnson (2012) The London 2012 Olympic games brought with it more than just the promise of a global sporting event. It promised a ‘lasting legacy’ in which some of the most ‘deprived’ areas of the East of London would be transformed into an exciting, vibrant new place full of opportunities and benefits for the people who live there. The regeneration policy believed in the value of ‘Stitching the Fringe’: integrating the Olympic park into its surrounding neighbourhoods, rather than building boundaries between them (London Legacy Development Corporation, 2013). However this essay argues that boundaries have been built between the different social classes within the area through the process of gentrification. By looking at the social history of the area we are able to investigate where this division between classes originated from. We are also able to determine whether the same social classes have stayed in the area and whether the Olympic Park has affected this. In 1889, Charles Booth surveyed the East of London’s social makeup and represented it in his ‘Descriptive Map of London Poverty’. Through his own observations, Booth and a team of researchers, mapped the houses throughout London according to their social class; the colour spectrum ranging from black, indicating the working class to yellow, indicating the wealthy class. The streets were classified by a range of factors including religious values, occupation, working conditions, housing conditions, regularity of income etc. Booth’s work was signifiant because it was one of the first documents to graphically represent the social classes and as such was the first to show both the politicians and the public exactly how many people were living in poverty; ignorance was no longer an excuse. It was revealed that 35% of people were living in abject poverty, which was significantly higher than the previous claim of 25%. As such, people felt obliged to act on this, though whether this was out of genuine concern or out of negative attitudes towards the working class is debateable. Certainly, people wanted to get rid of the slums but for whose gain? ‘To be poor, especially to be poor en masse, was at that time to be part of the low life which it was the duty of high-minded and high-collared people to reform.’ (Young, Willmott, 1986, p. 13) Here the notion of a person’s class representing the quality of a person’s character begins to come through; the lower class are degraded, they are seen as sub-par and cannot take care of themselves so need the upper, educated, class to help re-civilise them. The East of london at the end of the 19th century was regarded as the ‘city of the poor’ (Young, Willmott, 1986, p.13). This is apparent in Booth’s maps; fig 1 shows the East of London, where the predominant colour seems to be blue, falling in the ‘Poor’ to ‘Very Poor’ category. There are also some areas that have been coloured black, falling into the ‘Lowest class’ category. If we compare the East to the West, 21

we can see a significant difference in the classes that used to live there. In fig 2 we see a substantial chunk of yellow, the top of the scale, labelled as the ‘Wealthy’ which is set in between a large portion of streets coloured red, the ‘Middle class’. This shows that there is a divide in London as a whole, a divide between the West and the East, a divide between the ‘leisure’ and the ‘labour’ classes (Cohen, 2013, p.48). The West was home to the consumer class, and the East was home to the driving workforce behind London’s manufacturing industry: ‘The citizens of East London were there partly because they waited upon the well-off who lived up-wind to the West.’ (Young, Willmott, 1986, p.13) Young and Willmott also talk about a class barrier: ‘some of them penetrated the class barrier physically...to serve the comfortable classes’. This is interesting because it shows that the higher and lower classes only mixed for work and service purposes, not for social interests. It also means that there had been barriers between the classes and people were aware and conscious of it.

Fig. 1 Section of Booth’s ‘Descriptive map of London Poverty’ showing the East end of London

Fig. 2 Map key of Booth’s ‘Descriptive map of London Poverty’

Fig. 3 Section of Booth’s ‘Descriptive map of London Poverty’ showing the West end of London

Attitudes towards the working classes have affected how areas are regenerated. Booth’s key is interesting in the way that it depicts the different classes. The working class is described as ‘Vicious, semi-criminal’ which portrays them as if they are uncivilised and even sub-human; the word ‘vicious’ in particular conjurs up images of savage, dangerous creatures which is even further emphasied in his expanded notes about his key stating ‘their life is the life of savages’. Even the black colour given to represent the working class holds negative conntations of immorality and darkness. On the other hand the middle classes are described as ‘Well to do’ and are ‘men of good character and much intelligence’ which is very complementary and depicts them as good, civilised, respectful people. This would make people want to be around the middle and upper classes, rather than the lower classes, and therefore people would find it more desirable to be in an area that is predominantly middle and upper class dominated. A common theme in literature in the later half of the 19th century was the notion of the gothic. The gothic represented the decaying buildings and non-modernist past of an old London that was not staying on top of the global western world. Hence the people in these buildings were also seen in the same way. This inevitably had an affect on people’s attitudes towards the working class. It made the areas and the people within them seem more sinister, and more frightening: ‘A people of the dead roams...from end to end’ (Ballard, p.67) William Blake even decribes standing in the slum areas as standing in ‘Satan’s bosom’ and refers to London as ‘Jerusalem, born in chains’ (Blake, 1811, ll.12, 27) The ‘labyrinth’ of the slums (Cohen, 2013, 23

p.47) and the ‘ruinous’ state of the buildings themselves (Thomson, 1874, ll. 67, 70) could be seen as physical manifestations of the class that lived in them; they were assumed to be as nasty as the places in wich they lived. However as Peter Hall describes: ‘the great majority of the slum dwellers were decent and desperate people who had to live where they did because they depended on casual labor.’ They were not as they were imagined, they were people who had little opportunity to change their circumstances. Perhaps if these people were given the opportunity, there financial circumstances and hence their living conditions may have been improved. The idea of providing people with opportunities was one of the goals set out in the Olympic Legacy regeneration scheme. ‘Of the 1,000,000 Londoners estimated by Mr. Booth to be in poverty ... practically none are housed as well as a provident man provides for his horse’ (Fabian Society, 1889) Streets marked in blue or black in Booth’s maps are regarded as the slums. The conditions within the slums are made very sobering by Andrew Mearns (1883); ‘accumulations of sewage and refuse scattered in all directions and often flowing beneath your feet...courts...which rarely know the virtues of a drop of cleansing water.’ Here, it is clear that there were no sewage or water systems and as such no system of infrastructure. The state of disrepair is also described ‘You have to ascend rotten staircases, which threaten to give way beneath every step, and which, in some places, have already broken down’ which here proves that work was needed to make the building struture safer to its residents. Finally, the biggest problem was overcrowding: ‘Every room in these rotten and reeking tenements houses a family, often two. In one cellar a sanitary inspector reports finding a father, mother, three children, and four pigs!’ Such conditions prove that it was necessary to rebuild and regenerate the poorer areas of London. However the problem is the process of gentrification. Better housing merits higher rents, and therefore once an area is regenerated the original working class residents are excluded as they cannot afford the higher living costs and are forced to move out. In addition, because they are forced to leave the area, they are now forced further away from their work, which makes it even harder to earn enough to feed themselves and their families. ‘Once this process of ‘gentrification’ starts in a district, it goes on rapidly until all or more of the originall working class occupiers are displaced and the whole social character of the district is changed.’ (Glass, 1964, pp.22-23) This then begs the rather pressing question; where do these people move to? If these people can barely afford food, then how will they be able to get the next train to the more rural towns with fewer job prospects? She explains that the ‘remaining pockets of blight become denser’ (Glass, 1964, p. 24) which here shows that the original problems of overcrowding is exacerbated. Though from an economic standpoint gentrification may be desirable, in effect, gentrification works to worsen the problem rather than resolve it. Therefore the focus of city planning should not be on gentrification, it should be on regeneration; giving everyone the right to sanitation and housing that is not crumbling at the walls. 24

As writers began to document the horrendous conditions of the slums, the need for improvement was recognised. This was the spark to the string of regeneration programs and acts that would follow through the years. Among these was the ‘County of London Plan’ in 1943 created by the London County Council and led mainly by Sir Patrick Abercrombie and John Foreshore. Abercrombie and Foreshaw were influenced by the European modernist theories, in particular the theory of the city as a machine. Through this, the idea was for london to be destroyed and reengineered with each neighbourhood being given a single defined purpose, increasing efficiency and reflecting the idea of the machcine. In fact such ideas were also carried on into later decades and the sense of keeping modern became a theme that seeped into people’s lives. This meant that what was old was destroyed ‘there was an overwhelming desire...to sweep everything away...instead of grotty old buildings what you must have is stainless steel kitchens and formica tops’ (Nicholas Taylor, 2012) The erratic nature of the city was undesirable, and people believed that through axial planning they could create order through chaos: ‘the trouble is that London grew up without any plan or order. That’s why there are all those bad and ugly things that we hope to do away with’ (London County Council Propaganda Film, 1943) Once again the slum areas are seen as negative, disposable areas, rather than people’s homes that need to be improved for their wellbeing. The site of the Olympic park was chosen because of its regeneration potential. Stratford and its surrounding areas are ‘some of the poorest and socially excluded neighbourhoods in London’ and as such ‘lag behind the rest of London’ (London Legacy Development Corporation, 2012) Fig. 3 maps the social deprivation of London in a more recent context, and shows that the area in which the Olympic Park is located is mostly mapped as the ‘most deprived quintile’. If we zoom in to the area of the olympic park on Booth’s maps shown previously (Fig. 4), we see that the social classes have not changed since the 19th century. Because of its social history, the Olympics gave the opportunity to regenerate the area by trying to reduce the poverty and improve the housing, facilities and prospects for its residents. Throughout the publications and websites of the London Legacy Development Corporation, Stratford pre-Olympics tends to be glossed over and regarded as not much more than a poverty-stricken area, (though it’s cultural diversity is identified) which some people found midly insulting: ‘I also found the bid campaign very patronising...People in the East End are proud, proud of the are, proud of what struggles it has achieved.’ (Newham resident, 2006) This reflects that even today people’s attitudes towards the working class are still close-minded and negative.

Fig. 4 Social Deprivation map showing the Olympic neighbourhoods

Fig. 5 Section of Booth’s ‘Descriptive map of London Poverty’ showing as far as possible the area the Olympic park is now located

The legacy also placed value on the idea of ‘Equality and Inclusion’ so that there were no barriers between the Olympic Park and the surrounding neighbourhoods. The physical barriers were thought of in the design process, and access to the park for the neighbourhoods was included in the design. The social barriers were touched upon in the theory of the design; ‘These fringe neighbourhoods cannot feel like they are on the edge, looking across at something new’ (Johnson, 2012) though this does not seem to have been implemented in the planning of the park. Although such a high value was supposedly placed on the idea of inclusion, it seems strange that the working class residents have felt segregated: ‘I used to go here a lot...but now you just get moved on. One of the police told me ‘we don’t want your sort round here during the Olympics, you give the place a bad name’. So now I just don’t go near it.’ (17 year old college student)’ The policeman in this statement reflects this continuing idea that the lower a person’s social class, the more immoral and criminal they are. Already the signs of gentrification are emerging: ‘I used to go a lot to Stratford to shop...But it’s all changed. The shopping city is too expensive.’ On top of this, the residential strategy does not seem to support an inclusive design. The houses claim to have a ‘mix of private housing, affordable rental and shared ownership’ which ‘makes the East Village apartments and houses accessible to all’ (London Legacy Development Corporation, 2012) Due to the social context of the site then, you would expect the affordable rental and shared ownership housing to be the majority type of housing so that it would accommodate the original residents and not force them to leave. However this is not the case: ‘The legacy plan promises a 70/30 split between privately owned housing for affluent professionals and ‘affordable housing’ that in principle is available to lower-income groups’ (Cohen, 2013, p.348) How then, would the original residents of Stratford be able to afford to live in the area? Though the legacy did believe in the idea of bringing communities together, it has not come into fruition. This means that there must have been faults in the planning process of the Olympic park, that allowed the original working classes found in the area previously to become excluded. Perhaps the regeneration scheme was more concerned on increasing the desirability and economic potential of the area, rather than creating a better environment and range of opportunities for the working class residents that have been in the area for over a century: ‘gentrification is very much the name of the Olympic park game’ (Cohen, 2013, p.348) The gentrification of the area has already begun to segregate the working class from the new classes that can afford to live in the new Stratford. This is apparent in people’s negative attitudes towards people of lower social classes as well as the original resident’s avoidance of the area. As such, the social barriers the legacy supposedly wanted to break have in fact been strengthened.

Bibliography Books Cohen, P. (2013) On the Wrong Side of the Track? East London and the Post Olympics. London: Lawrence and Wishart Limited. Hall, P. (2002). The City of Dreadful Night. Cities of Tomorrow: An intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century, Third Edition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 13â&#x20AC;&#x201C;4 Thomsson, J (1874) The City of Dreadful Night Brown-Saracino, J. (ed.) (2010). The Gentrification Debates. London: Routledge. Swenarton, M., Troiani, I., and Webster, H. (eds) (2007). The Politics of Making. London: Routledge. Poynter, G., MacRury, I., (eds) (2009) Olympic Cities: 2012 and the Remaking of London. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing. Mearns. A. (1883) The Bitter Cry of Outcast London. London: James Clarke & Co. Young, M., Willmott, P., (1986) Family and Kinship in East London. London: Penguin books. Documentaries The Secret History of our Streets. (2012) Directed by Joseph Bullman [Series]. London: BBC Worldwide Ltd. Images Fig. 1, 2, 5. Booth, C. (1889) Descriptive Map Of London Poverty. [Map] Available at: <http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/crace/c/026map0000182c1u0000000c. html> Fig. 3. Booth, C. (1889) Descriptive Map Of London Poverty. [Map] Available at: <http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/crace/c/026map0000182c1u00000000. html> Fig. 4. REDA (2007) 2007 Index of Multiple Deprivation Map of London [Map] Available at: <http://www.uel.ac.uk/londoneast/documents/20101008-CLG-OECD-2012. pdf>Accessed 1 December 2013].

The Decision Makers To what extent was the local community involved in the gentrification of Stratford through the planning and development of the Olympic Park as a centralised location in London? Simisola Abidakun

The development of the Olympic Park in Stratford was a complex regeneration scheme that vowed to change the lives of the residents of East London. The scheme involved three master plans and the intention behind this essay is to identify how much of a say local residents had on the master plan and whether community involvement in the planning of the Olympic Park was a success.

For centuries idea of community involvement in planning the built environment is one that brought people together and generated a hybrid system that incorporates the life and interests of everyone; people had to come together to plan and then physically build an environment in which they could proudly live, work and play in. In modern western society, it is difficult to align communty involvement with the process of gentrification. The previous chapter discusses the issues raised between different classes in the process of gentrification, it also highlights regeneration as an alternative to gentrification as it doesn’t lead to forcing out a ‘lower’ social class. Similarly, if a closer link can be drawn between community involvement in planning and gentrification it gives local residents an opportunity to take on responsibility for their area and creates unity between the different social classes. The Big Decision Makers To begin looking into whether or not the people of Stratford were immersed in the Olympic Park planning process and generating a new identity for their area, it seems only right to start by analysing the big decision makers – the Olympic Planning committees. The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) alongside the Olympic Delivery Authority were the two main bodies which dealt with the planning, organisation and delivery of the 2012 London Games. Overseeing such a global event as the Olympics in boroughs which accounted for the “most deprived five per cent of the country”(Hopkins and Neal, 2013, p. 33) it was vital that the right decisions were made by the right people who had an in depth understanding of the lives of the people in the community. It was necessary that LOCOG and the ODA did not adopt the role of social reformers and philanthropists associated with gentrification; all too often these ‘reformers’ fail to grasp the realities and deeply- rooted social problems attached to living in a deprived area such as Stratford they often scratch the surface and end up being “blind men feeling the elephant” (Jacobs, 1961). In hindsight, it comes as no surprise that there was some reluctance from local residents to get involved in planning the Olympic Park: “we don’t need the people of SW1 coming in and telling us what to be proud about” East London resident. (Cohen, 2013, p.311) The Olympic bid was backed by the then Mayor of London Ken Livingstone who had experienced a working class upbringing and pushed for the transformation of East London; his support was vital because he provided some insight into the lives of the residents of East London which was instrumental in the Olympic bid and the subsequent planning of the Park.

In addition, the appointment of Lorraine Martins MBE as the Head of Equality and Inclusion, the organisers showed their commitment to involving the people of Stratford in the development of the Olympic Park and the re branding of East London. They were successful in carrying out and publishing Equalities Impact Assessments on each project involving the Olympic Park. It assessed a project’s impact on race, faith/religion, disability, sexual orientation, age and gender. Its purpose was to “eliminate or minimise any negative consequences and to maximise opportunities that promoted equality”(Hopkins and Neal, 2013). Although this was not primarily aimed at getting the local community involved in planning, the organisers were bringing aspects of the community into various stages of planning as the park is situated in the most culturally diverse region in Britain. Burbank comments on Olympic culture in regards to past bids made by American cities that “citizen participation … is minimal” (Gold and Gold, 2007, p.145). In order to avoid this being mirrored onto the London Games, LOCOG and the ODA had to re-examine the organisational structure of various interdependent bodies that communicated ideas from those designing master plans, to the local authorities right through to the business owner on Stratford High Street. In an ideal model of community architecture, Nick Wates (1987) proposes a decentralization of power which would make planning services accessible and involve minimal involvement from central government. By creating subdivisions such as the Environment Agency and Natural England, they were beginning to generate some sort of “democratic accountability”(Toohey and Veal, 2007, p.73). Community architects, Fluid, were employed to carry out consultations on legacy plans and the Olympic Park Engagement Network (OPEN) was established as a democratic approach to the gentrification of Stratford through the development of the Olympic Park. They proved that the government would not be rendered useless on localised issues involving the Olympics. However, they missed an opportunity to reform the Olympic Games planning model in a way that would have the percentage of the decisions made by the community outweigh the percentage of autonomous decisions made by various bodies. The decision to relocate the marathon route from Newham to central London without consultation stirred up distrust amongst local people and “soured what should have been a joyful ending to the games”(Cohen, 2013, p.324) if their views on a temporary event were being overlooked, how could they trust that the same would not apply to issues raised concerning the development of the Olympic Park?

Virtuous Intentions It was clear from the start that being connected to the local community was a priority for the planning committees. The idea of regeneration, legacy and “grass-roots participation”(Ray, 2012, p.2) is said to have won the games for 32

London. The games proposed an event which would abandon an elitist agenda by reconnecting the people of Stratford and shifting the “city’s centre of gravity forever eastward”(Hopkins and Neal, 2013, p.19). Despite speaking of community based regeneration, the ODA and LOCOG chose to base their headquarters in Canary Wharf. This is geographically close to the Olympic Park site but couldn’t be further in terms of the difference in lifestyles between the residents. The ODA were setting out to gentrify an area without confronting first-hand the day to day obstacles the people of Stratford would have to face. “The activity of community architecture is based on the simple principle that the environment works better if people who live, work and play in it are actively involved in its creation and management instead of being treated as passive consumers” (Wates and Knevitt, 1987, p.13) Planning Consultations In practical terms, the organisers had to learn to listen and trust the local community and stray away from the pattern of ‘experts .vs. the people’. It was necessary that from the very beginning they were handling strangers so that they “were an asset rather than a menace”(Jacobs,1961). Afterall the Olympics was going to be part of the lives of those who lived in the area in the years leading up to the Games and the decades post-2012. Early engagement with the launch of a public consultation programme that brought about: 220 consultation events (one consultation every fortnight for seven years) 44 public drop in sessions 38 community sessions 44 public information stands (Hopkins and Neal, 2013)

Figure 1- An Olympic Planning meeting By embarking on this scheme they had achieved the most important phase on the

principles of community architecture which is “user participation”(Towers, 1995, p.184). Public consultations are essentially urban politics at work, Jacobs regards this platform as “fulcrum points where they [citizens] … can make their wills and their knowledge known and respected”. (Jacobs, 1961, p.435) With the scale of the Olympics, it would be difficult to get across the details of a project if public consultations were the only means of communication between organisers and locals. To overcome this issue, the ODA published key construction milestones which kept the local, national and international community in touch with the various stages in the development of the Olympic Park. Despite this being a one way system of communication in which the public were being fed information, the publications worked well in conjunction with the public consultations because the questions raised in the publications could be fed back to the authorities at the meetings.

Figure 2 - Publications highlighting different construction stages

In order for community involvement in a project to be successful, there needs to be an opportunity for the locals to ‘get their hands dirty’. Simone (2011) highlights the growth of ordinary citizens producing the built environment in which they will eventually inhabit as a pattern typical of the global south and applying this principle to the global scale of the Olympic Park would have redefined the way people view the built environment around them. However, it would have meant training up local residents in a short period of time and closing off job opportunities to the rest of the country. Those who were skilled did get a chance to get involved in the building of the Olympic Park; it is estimated that ten per cent of the workforce were locals from the host boroughs who had been previously employed (Hopkins and Neal, 2013). Despite this, engaging the public with the physical aspects of developing the park was unsuccessful due to the lack in initiatives which promoted smaller projects that would have been crucial in giving the local community ownership of the Park. According to Tessa Jowell, the minister responsible for the 2012 Olympics, the aim was to “inspire a generation of young people to … volunteer in their communities”(Toohey and Veal, 2007, p.261) a fitting alternative to that would have been ‘to inspire a generation of young people to build their communities’. In 34

the planning that led up to the development of the Olympic Park LOCOG had failed to secure a “creative partnership”(Wates and Knevitt, 1987, p.21) with the people of Stratford. Education As well as public consultations and employment an effort was made to reach out to to the people of Stratford through education. Assisting people in understanding their problems and generating solutions to solve them is critical when involving the local community in a project as transformative as the Olympic Park. The efforts of LOCOG manifested in the form of: 300 visits from local schools 7000 young people attending workshops 24 hour construction hotline (Hopkins and Neal, 2013)

Figure 3 - School children on a visit to te Olympic Park site

These are all commendable methods and results on educating local residents on the on-going development of the Park but not the planning. Local residents were not being educated on the possibilities that come with getting involved with planning and decision making; they were getting educated about a project of which the decisions had already been made. This echoes Jacobs’ assessment of public meetings in which “in many cases … hundreds of people … are being hoaxed: it has all been decided before they are heard”(Jacobs, 1961, p.419). This didn’t go 36

unnoticed by the residents of Stratford who felt that their role in planning was diminishing and becoming insignificant:; “When it’s a question of the big decisions we don’t get a look in” Local Youth Worker (Cohen, 2013, p. 328) Jon Coaffee puts it that inevitably, “the average citizen becomes marginalized in the Olympic decision-making processes” (Gold and Gold, 2007, p.145) Innovative Planning Traditional approaches (i.e. public consultations) to community involvement in planning are effective in familiarising the public with a project but innovation and experimenting with new methods is more effective in keeping the public interested in a long term gentrification project. Ultimately the ODA and LOCOG succeeded in generating innovative ideas that attempted to keep the public engaged over the span of the seven years leading up to the Games. These included the View Tube which brought the public in direct contact with the different phases of the construction of the Park. Daily site bus tours enabled the community to come face to face with the realities of construction. Most importantly there was an attempt to mirror the multi-cultural nature of the host boroughs onto the entire nation with the launch of the Cultural Olympiad in 2008 and with 16 million participants by the end of January 2012, it had taken the Olympics to the national community and was successful in generating an “intersection of social identities, functions and domains” (Simone, 2011, p.358). Failed Community Planning It cannot be doubted that the ODA and LOCOG had set out with the intention of getting the residents of East London involved in the planning of the Olympic Park and they made several commendable attempts to develop a connection with local residents but as John Gold rightly points out in a recent interview “they genuinely tried hard but failed” (Gold, 2013). An external factor that prevented a true connection between the planners and the residents of East London was the economy. When London won the bid in 2005, it was impossible to foresee the economic crash of 2008; the diminishing economy affected made people critical of public spending on large events such as the Olympics. In the London ‘Austerity Games’ of 1948, a lack of funding spurred the local community on to get involved in as much planning as possible but this was not the case in the years leading up to the Games. A reluctance to get involved in 36

planning developed from the notion that the country could not afford to put on the Olympics and funds needed to be directed to other areas of the economy such as healthcare and education. The greatest obstacle which the organisers failed to overcome was the lack of stability in the population of East London. Perhaps if the ODA and LOCOD had applied more consideration to the fact that the Olympic Park was being developed in an area with an increasing migrant community a high churn of people at “30% a year” (Gold, 2013) they would have been in a position to adapt the planning system to discern the voice of the permanent residents whilst still taking to account the fluid nature of the Stratford population. In conclusion, the Olympic planning communities had the immense task of taking a global event with three master plans and scaling it down to a scheme that developed a personal connection with the people of Stratford. It is clear that the ODA and LOCOG had taken into account the role that the local community would have in planning the development of the Olympic Park. They had set up several conventional platforms as a tool for discerning the voice of the local people, there were also several innovative mediums which brought in elements of the priniples of community architecture. Despite this, their efforts proved ineffective. External factors such as the economy and the fluidity of the population were issues that were perhaps out of the hands of the planning committees but ultimately, there wasn’t a sense of an urgent need to streghten the identity of the residents of Stratford by giving them more control of the development of the Olympic Park. The local community were a priority but were not adequately drawn into the process of making the ‘big’ decisions; the ones that would leave an imprint on the lives of the residents and their inhabitation of East London.

Bibliography Books Cohen, P. (2013). On The Wrong Side of the Track: East London and the postOlympics. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Gold, M., Gold, J.R. Eds. (2007). Olympic Cities: city agenda, planning and the world’s Games, 1896-2012. London: Routledge Hopkins, J., Neal, P. (2013). The Making of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Chichester: Wiley Jacobs, J. (1961). Governing and Planning Districts: The Death and Life of Great American Cities. London: Pimlico. Mollenkopf, J. (2003). ‘How to Study Urban Political Power’. 3rd Edition. London: Routledge Simone, AM. (2011). The Politics of Urban Intersection: Materials, Affect, Bodies. Chichester:Wiley-Blackwell Smith, N. (1996). The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city. London: Routledge Toohey, K., Veal, A.J. (2007) The Olympic Games: a social science perspective. 2nd ed. Wallingford: CABI Towers, G. (1995). Building Democracy: community architecture in the inner cities. London: UCL Press Wates, N., Knevitt, C. (1987). Community Architecture: how people are creating their own environment. London: Penguin Printed Journals Pallister, J., Slavid, J., Eds. East Side Story: Olympic Park. Architectural Journal,special edition. Electronic Journals Applebaum, M 2004, ‘HIDDEN MEANING? OLYMPIC PITCHES’, Brandweek, 45, 19, p. 62, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 November 2013. Bullivant, L 2005, ‘London, chosen for 2012 Summer Olympics, begins lengthy 38

planning process’, Architectural Record, 193, 8, p. 28, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 27 November 2013. Bullivant, L 2006, ‘London finalizes Olympic planners’,Architectural Record, 194, 3, p. 48, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 27 November 2013. Ray, L 2012, ‘Community Engagement and the Olympics’, Journal of the Society of Archivists, April, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 November 2013. Interviews Gold, J., 2013. Interviewed by Abidakun, S., Hale, G., Silva, I. 26 November 2013, 15:30. Figures Figure 1 - Bates, S. Courtesy of the ODA The Making of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Chichester: Wiley. p.115 Figure 2 - Courtesy of the ODA The Making of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Chichester: Wiley. p.76-77 Figure 3 - Poultney, D. The Making of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Chichester: Wiley. p.200

Social Ramifications What impact did the Games have on its surrouning areas and how were its communities and populations affected? Iara Silva

17 days of feverish celebrations. 8 years of preparations. Months of promises and nearly 2 million displaced people over the past 20 years of Olympic Games. This Chapter is going to analyse the promises that lead up to the event, whether they were kept or not, and look into the impact that the Olympic site had on the surrounding communities.

As exciting and alluring the Olympic Games may be, an event with infrastructure of that magnitude does not happen without its consequences. Considering the proposals and the actions taken, I am going to analyse the social impact that the Games had looking into the economic reports, businesses affected, displaced populations, modified communities and media projection. Focusing specially on Newham, Stratford and Hackney Wick, I am going to provide an overview of the Game’s ramifications. Economic Report ‘’I don’t agree with all the hype – even if it is very skilfully done, it is very dishonest. Now you see it now you don’t. It dodges all the difficulties.’’ (cited in On the Wrong Side Of The Track, p. 312) The Olympics have always been advertised by bidding committees as being beneficial for local communities, employment growth and social capital boost being two of the main reasons why. The 2012 Olympics were especially advertised as being favourable to the entire United Kingdom, not only in terms of a sport-relate legacy but economically speaking as well. Prior to the Games several reports anticipated such statement to be false. A presentation on East London’s regeneration program, published on February 2012, looking specifically into Stratford, stated that there was little evidence that the accelerated regeneration process of London 2012 would make a significant contribution to the reduction of deprivation. In October 2004, 9 months before London wining the bid, Dr. Adam Blake’s report on the economic impact of the Olympics was finalised, even though it had originally been commissioned by the Olympic Committee, it was only released 6 months after London won within another report, entitled ‘Every Corner of The Country To Feel The 2012 Effect’ but said effect was not clarified on. Blake’s report stated that whilst London was to benefit £5.9 billion, the regions where to lose £4 billion. It also predicted that, while there was expected to be a small increase in employability, key sectors would suffer, for example, manufacturing was expected to lose 31,529 jobs; funds, lottery money and jobs were to be displaced to London; and it revealed the real cost of the Games, predicting that the British tax payers would have to pay up to two thirds of the cost. Although it was originally commissioned to gather beneficial data that was to be used in favour of the Olympics, the report revealed the complete opposite.

‘’What had been done, had been done in the interest of the Games and in the interest of the public’’ – Kate Hoey (Sports Minister) The discovered information was addressed to Tessa Jowell on the 30th of November of 2005, 16 months before she went to parliament to announce that budget costs had risen. Media Projection The Olympics are a spectacle put up by the host city to demonstrate the world their political, social and economic stability, although not always the case, apparent in the 1968 Mexico Olympics where violent disputes between the displaced Shantytown residents and the police force made the headlines of every newspaper, and in the 1992 Barcelona Games where the ‘social stability’ was disturbed by the protests of more than 100 sex workers who were forced to be moved. There was an attempt made throughout to keep disruptions to a minimum. As Rutheiser’s Imagineering Atlanta (1996) showcased, it is possible to manufacture how the rest of the world perceives said city, Atlanta averted the attention from its harsh reality of a racist history, through the celebration the city’s multiculturalism. From an exterior viewpoint you’d think people were supportive of the idea of being moved, prior to the London Games. ‘’It was incredible! There was no serious opposition until 2011’’ (J. Gold, 2013). The opposition was there, people were indeed fighting for their rights to remain in their properties, but there was no media coverage. From the SME’s (Small and Medium Enterprises) perspective there was a serious attempt by the media to not expose their opposition; one may say it was in the name of the ‘unity bid’. Even though it was believed that the Olympics were welcomed by all, with a few exceptions, the fact is that on the Interim report conducted by the IOC, London scored second worst, out of nine candidates, in public support, with one eighth of the public actually opposing the Games. Along with a harsh critique, London’s bid was in serious risk, the need of public support was vital and in 2004, the mayor with the co-operation of the government and the GLA (Greater London Authority) launched the ‘I back e bid’ campaign which established the idea of complete consensus over the Games.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

‘’Like turkeys lining up for Christmas’’ (J. Gold, 2013) Despite the CPOs (Compulsory Purchase Orders), some firms wanted to stress that they backed the bid, regardless of the negative impact that the Games were going to have on their businesses. ‘’The media wouldn’t help, because no one wants to be seen to be supporting a group which would seem to be anti the Olympics coming to London, even though we weren’t, but that’s how they portrayed us’’ (MLBG, cited in Visibilities and Invisibilities in Urban Development, 2010, p.2083). SMEs - Small and Medium Enterprices Between 2001 and 2005, there was a uncertainty regarding the future of SMEs, they were conscious that big regeneration initiatives were on the way but the initial plans made public, did not include the displacement of such businesses, and the uncertainty regarding the bid did not help. In 2005, ODA (Olympics Delivery Authority) was created with the responsibility of supervising the clearance of the SMEs, and the LDA (London Development Agency) became legally responsible for the CPOs and the firms relocations, excluding the local authority business officers which had been in contact with the businesses over several years. SMEs constantly struggle to see their economic impact recognised, and when compared with high-profile investors are perceived as symbols of earlier epochs of economic activity which are thought to block economic development and regeneration. Their location is not helpful as they have a tendency to occupy ‘marginal’ spaces which are cheaper and allow the owners to adapt the space over time; this uniqueness is also their weakness. Many firms become dependent on their sites, requiring a certainty over location as they tend to have set clients which are relatively near, and as they rely on the surrounding network of businesses to support their firms. Any direct or indirect threat to their location will damage the business’s future. There were a total of 201 businesses relocated, and due to the short period of time in which the process of eviction had to be finalised, a simultaneous relocation was carried out. It resulted in vulnerable firms that could not afford to be out of business for a long period of time, being taken advantage of by landowners. ‘’As soon as we mention that we are from this area, quoted prices double, as we are from the desperate list’’ (cited in Visibilities and Invisibilities of Urban Developments, 2010, p.2078)

Displaced population – Clays Lane Unlike the SMEs, the Clays Lane residents were informed of the displacement before the Olympic bid was won, during the winter of 2003. A total of 450 social housing units were demolished and according to John Gold three thousand people moved. A high percentage of social houses is not ideal for a post-regenerated area as the levels of minimum income are set to be raised, but the Indices of Multiple Deprivation are developed with the analysis of the income, employment, health deprivation and disability, education skills and training, barriers to housing and services, crime and living environment of the communities under study, it fails to include how the families use the money. ‘’ Clays Lane had a higher level of employment than most estates. The costs were so low that people were able to have low-paid jobs and still live perfectly happily. But now that they are in more expensive accommodation some have had to leave their jobs. About 50 people living in the estate were vulnerable people – now their network of support has gone.’’ (Julian Cheyne, cited on The Guardian, 2008) A Halifax study supported Cheyne’s statement; it demonstrated that 8 of the 14 districts near to the Olympic site were 25% below the London house prices.

Fig. 5. Demolition of two unused blocks of the University of East London

Docklands – Social housing Since the Roman occupation, London has been the most multiracial city in the United Kingdom, with successive waves of legal and illegal, low-class immigration from the 1950s onwards. This mixture of cultural and social differences made London one of the most unique, diverse capitals, and resulted in extreme levels of poverty and overcrowding. In 1981, the London Dockland Development Corporation (LDDC) was made 47

responsible of the regeneration of the three parts of the Docklands boroughs: Newham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets which due to their location should be developed minding the national interest. The LDDC’s goal which was achieved was to bring land and buildings into effective use, and it did with owner occupation increasing 39% from 1981 to 1989. Despite the government’s attempt to promote a free market approach, alluring financial initiatives were given to private investors. LDDC claimed that 40% of new properties had been purchased by local residents but with prices doubling between 1845 and 1987, said number dropped. This resulted in the polarisation of the population, based both in incomes and lifestyles, and on the creation of more social housing units. Diversity, Deprivation and how communities are perceived In recent surveys, three of the five surrounding boroughs scored 11 or less in the Index of Multiple Deprivation, 1 being the most deprived and 354 the least, there is no doubt that the area itself needed to be regenerated, but with said regeneration comes a shift in residential experience imposed by the rising real estate prices. In one of the poorest areas in London, with 55,7% children living in poverty (Newham, 2007), this sudden increase will created a doughnut effect, pushing the lower class people into the boundaries of London, causing the dislocation of a problem rather than the solution of one. Gold stated that one should be very clear when identifying the population around the Olympic Park as communities, due to the high number of incoming and outgoing movement. Supported by the Newham’s key statistics there is a 30% churn of the Newham ‘community’, the other four boroughs are not far from this statistic, as the East London area as long been known as being the reception centre for incoming population. The numbers are clear; in 2009 Newham had the highest number of residents attending a British citizen ceremony in London (3590) and the highest number of applicants for National Insurance Numbers. It is true that the traditional idea of a family centred community, expressed in Young and Willmott’s 1957 Family and Kinship in East London is no longer in practice but when analysing this area the other 70% should not be forgotten. He expressed that there was an attempt throughout to involve the local communities but how would that be done when the committee itself does not perceive the surrounding population stable enough to be identified as a ‘proper’ community? The surveys that will be conducted after the regeneration process is finalised, are going to show an improvement that is certain, with increases in employment and 48

income numbers. Such information will certainly be used to support the beneficial effect that the Olympics had on the area, but it won’t showcase the reality, it will focus on the surrounding boroughs and the impact that its new population had in contrast to the old, deprived one. Hackney Wick and its stolen dynamic According to Gold, recreating a notional community in the East End has, always been a part of the plan, but how exactly would that be done? Newham alone has the second most diverse population in the UK, the 2008 school census recorded 144 different spoken languages in the pupils homes. Newham’s neighbour, Hackney Wick, is the culmination of London’s multiculturalism, with its vast diversity of people of different cultures and economic status.

Fig. 6.

With about 600 studios and low rents, it attracted several artists over the years which took over the area and turned it into a public expression of culture and identity, with the increase of prices, artists who were attracted by the low values and the high artistic influence, were forced out. ‘’The battle is not against gentrification. It’s how best to preserve Hackney Wick’s uniqueness’’ (James Morgan, cited in Olympic Challenge: Hackney Battles To Preserve Its Edginess, 2012) Along with the Olympics, like in the other boroughs, came the increase of rent prices, the evictions and the cleansing of the area, these changes came in direct conflict with the community’s framework. The attention drawn to site made it more sought out, resulting in the loss of its essence. Hackney went from a known open playground for graffiti artists, to an area where street art was controlled, due to its close approximation to the Olympic Stadium. The graffiti near to the Lee River, which would be visible by passers-by on their way to the stadium, was cleaned up or covered with commissioned art pieces. ‘’It’s not offensive, it’s not mindless, it’s actually pieces of art on the walls that 49

Fig. 7 Then (before the Olympics)

Fig. 8 Now (After clearence)

people are doing for free’’ (Lise Munro, cited in Alternative Olympics: The Wrestler, 2012) It was clear that the essence of the area wanted to be showcased, but instead of allowing its local community to do that by themselves, the spirit of the location was manufactured, demonstrating once more, the forced invisibility of the local communities. ‘’People in this community are unique, and they have something to offer and they are really important, and they are being completely blanket’’ (Lise Munro, cited in Alternative Olympics: The Wrestler, 2012)

Fig. 9. C215’s daughter, Nina

Conclusion Although it was a celebration of culture, the Olympics actually lead to less diversity of its surrounding boroughs due to falsely made promises, miscalculated budget funds, the cleanses of boroughs and the disruption of its communities. The mega event that celebrates excellence and success, always advertised as being beneficial for the local and national community of the host country, and with the intention of doing so, ironically failed due to the limited amount of time and space to fabricate the show. ‘’Once an Olympic project is underway, there is a political imperative for it to be delivered, whatever the objections of locals and extra-local interests’’ (Visibilities and invisibilities in Urban Developments, p.2074)

Bibliography Books Buckley, J., 2012. Sex and the Olympics: The Unauthorised Guide. [e-book]s.l.: Collaborsative Publications. Available at: Google Books<http://booksgoogle.com> [Accessed 28 November 2013]. Hopkins, J., Neal, P., 2013. The Making of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Cohen, P., 2013. On the Wrong Side of the Track? East London and the Post Olympics. London: Lawrence and Wishart Limited. Poynter, G., MacRury, I. Eds. 2009. Olympic Cities: 2012 and the Remaking of London. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Documentaries Alternative: Olympics and the punk band, 2012. [Tv programme recording] Channel 4, 29 July 2012. Available at: <http://www.channel4.com/news/alternativeolympics-the-punk-band> [Accessed 27 November 2013]. Alternative Olympics: the artist, 2012. [Tv programme recording] Channel 4, 28 July 2012. Available at: <http://www.channel4.com/news/alternative-olympics-theartist-> [Accessed 27 November 2013]. Alternative Olympics: the wrestler, 2012. [Tv programme recording] Channel 4, 28 July 2012. Available at: <http://www.channel4.com/news/alternative-olympicsthe-wrestler> [Accessed 27 November 2013]. The Olympic Cash Machine. 2007 [DVD] London: Channel 4. Olympic Architecture: After the Circus Leaves Town. 2006 [DVD] London: BBC 4. Olympic Stories: Hackney Wick. 2009. [Documentary] The Guardian, 23 November 2009. Available at: <http://www.theguardian.com/uk/davehillblog/video/2009/ nov/19/2012-olympics-hackney-wick> [Accessed 30 November 2013]. Websites The Guardian, 2011. 2012 Olympics Challenge: Hackney Battles to Preserve Its Edginess. [online] Available at: <http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/ jul/25/2012-olympics-hackney> [Accessed 29 November 2013].

The Guardian, 2008. Displaced by Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Olympics. [online] Available at: <http:// www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jun/02/olympics2012> [Accessed 29 November 2013]. Reports Aston Mansfield, 2011. Newham- Key Statistics. [pdf] London: Aston Mansfield. Available at: <http://www.aston-mansfield.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ newham-key-statistics-summary.pdf> [Accessed 27 November 2013]. Bernstock, P., Poynter, G. 2012. Researching the Games Conference â&#x20AC;&#x201C; East London Regeneration Presentation: The emerging Stratford High Street and Value Creation. 2012 [pdf] London: Podium. Available at: <http://www.podium.ac.uk/resources/ academic-research?page=5> [Accessed 27 November 2013]. Journals Malfas, M., Theodoraki, E., Houlihan, B. 2004. Municipal Engineer: Impacts of the Olympic Games as mega-events. [pdf] 157(ME3) Available at: <http://epress.lib. uts.edu.au/research/bitstream/handle/10453/19761/muen.157.3.209.49461. pdf?sequence=1> [Accessed 29 November 2013]. Raco, M., Tunney, E. 2010. Visibilities and Invisibilities in Urban Development: Small Business Communities and the London Olympics 2012. [e-journal] 47(10). Abstract Only. Available at: <http://usj.sagepub.com/content/47/10/2069.full.pdf+html> [Accessed 27 November 2013]. Interview Gold, J., 2013. Interviewed by Abidakun, S., Hale, G., Silva, I. 26 November 2013, 15:30. Images Fig.1;2;3;4. Anon, 2006. Back the Bid Posters. [jpg] Available at: <http://museum. hackney.gov.uk/object3062> [Accessed 1 December 2013]. Fig.5. Anon, 2012?. Demolition of two unused blocks of the University of East London. [Photography] London. Available in: The Making of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, [Book, p. 64]. Fig.6. Jones, H. 2006. Hackney Peace Carnival Mural. [jpg] Available at: <http:// www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/living-multiculture/> [Accessed 3 December 2013]. Fig.7,8. Street Art London, 2006?. RUN & Nemo. [jpg] Available at: <thttp:// streetartlondon.co.uk/blog/2011/08/23/street-art-hackney-wick-2012-londonolympics/> [Accessed 1 December 2013] 53

Fig.9. Street Art London, 2006?. CF15: Nina. [jpg] Available at: <http:// streetartlondon.co.uk/blog/2011/08/23/street-art-hackney-wick-2012-londonolympics/> [Accessed 1 December 2013]

Security What methods were employed and what were the social and economic repercussions? Aliaksandr Manko

This chapter takes a closer look at the biggest mobilization of military and security forces since the second World War, and also the architectural design of the Olympic Stadium and security surrounding the entire event of the Olympics. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Look at 7/7, they might protect the athletes and the Olympic Park, but they canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t make a whole city secureâ&#x20AC;? (long-term resident).

London Olympic Games were scheduled to last for nine days sparked many preparations from various people. More than 700,000 people were expected to attend the event in London; all these people had to be secure and free from any terror attacks. It was thus the responsibility of the government to ensure that the security was up to date. Security was a major issue being that there was an alarm raised by a terrorist attack immediately after the announcement of the Olympic winning Bid by London. There was a terror bombing, which left hundreds of people injured and others dead.

Fig. 3.

To help in curbing this, the architectural designs of the Olympic Stadium had to accommodate various security measures. The perimeter walls of the stadium were raised high enough to prevent any illegal and malicious entry into the stadium. In addition to the length of the walls, there was installation of electric wires, fence that riveted the security level of the stadium. Further to this, there was maximum surveillance, CCTVS were installed all over the perimeter wall and in the buildings, to ensure that vigilance was kept to the maximum (Findling 2012). The architectural designs were made to ensure that there was safety of the participants and comfort to the fans. This chapter investigates various issues in line with the architectural design of the Olympic Stadium and security surrounding the entire event of the Olympics. In this part of the book, there is a close view at the capacity of the G4S the largest security firm in the world to handle security issues during the event. The paper also presents security measures that were taken by the military and the reaction of people due to the great number of military personnel in the city and in the Olympic venue (Great Britain 2008). The urgency and the immediate need sparked various rapid responses from various stakeholders; and despite the challenges that face by the Olympic security circles, the event ended successfully without security threats or terror attacks. 59

Social effect Security is a major issue that can cause an important event like the Olympics to be recommended in a country or not. The architectural designs in England were fixed to ensure that the security of everybody was taken care of well and that no one could stand as a victim of terrorism. The architectural designs were made and air defense systems that were installed around the Olympic grounds. This was done to ensure that the possibility of suicide attackers could not penetrate their way through the stadium. Six missile sites were established of which four of them were purposefully designed to use rapier missiles two were categorically designed to employ the use of starstreak missiles. The rapier missiles are weapons made to shoot airplanes, which come at the surface as threat to the security of the people. The rapier missiles have attacking rador, which offers short-range defense.

Fig. 2.

The weapons have eight missiles, which are sufficient to take care of attack that could come at a time. The starstreak were also erected on one of the tall building near the Olympic stadium. Binocular systems were also installed at the strategic points for the operation of the security officers, to be able to allocate any feeling of danger that could come during the Olympic period. The security infrastructure that was used in London influenced peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; lives differently. Business environment were heightened and peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; confidence of operation was greatly boosted. The Olympics will also influence people in London to venture in sporting activities. 60

This is because the infrastructure is already in place with many venues of sports. The security infrastructures installed during the Olympic games gave confidence to the public and so accelerated a number of activities to be taking place in London. This has promoted business in London since international diplomats and dignitaries visited London frequently. The sustainable legacy has left London as a tourist center. The installation of cameras in various infrastructures has boosted security surveillance in London thus reducing the rate of criminal activities in the city. This action has significantly promoted peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s confidence of living and even their investments in London because of the well structured and reliable security system. Also, the creation of a large shopping mall at the East End would create the influx of the upper class in that area. This would mean that the economy of the East End would significantly increase. Additionally, the types of housing would have to change to accommodate the upper classes. Such as the installation of the electric fence around the Olympic stadium. The presence of airborne drones also assured the attendants of their absolute safety in the stadium thus eliminating all the possibilities of worries from the attendants. The confidence of the participants was also boosted, allowing the participants to perform to their best without worry since their security and well-being was well guaranteed. The enomous demand for the security guards, led many security firms to employ a number of personnel, which largely created employment in England. Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reaction People were worried about the security arrangements and measures that were put in place. First, London looked like a city where everybody was projected as a potential criminals. The city reformed its security operations so that a strong defence would scare off these potential criminals, however there is a strong alarm of the looming danger. The deployment of the army would also create anxiety and fear in people. This is because people only see the army in action in very extreme situations. Deployment of the army officers was not an object of comfort to the citizens. There was also a looming fear that tourists would be scared off and that they would not feel comfortable coming to England because of the security presence and especially army officers. These are facts, which Lord Coe addressed to people. People understood that security plans were to deploy a large number of police and soldiers on the streets therefore making the public satisfied. Psychologically, whenever people are exposed to armed police and worse of it the presence of the military raises people to fear. This was a potential cause of worry in people as though the city was expecting a major attack from the terrorist. However, a good number of people felt comfortable and in their opinion, this would raise the level of confidence in people.

Indeed the security details that were launched a head and during the London Olympic was not a wise move even though security was a thing that could not be gambled with. This move was not very prudent. The memories of the bombing on 7 July 2005 were still fresh in the memory of people. The upsurge of the military and the deployment of the security details that were put everywhere in the city sparked the memory of people and as a result evoked fear in people. This raised people to the level of imagining that there was an upcoming danger that people ought to respond. In fact, it is a common feeling that the military was acting out of fear. Just before the Olympic exercise, there was practice security operation involving jets and helicopters which was a part of preparing for the Games.

Fig. 3.

This did not warrant all the military preparation as though the nation was preparing for a planned major attack. Throughout the Olympic Games, the military were armed with crowd dispersing gadgets, which could generate noise that could potentially cause physical and psychological harm to people. There was another issue associated with Muslims, as they are often identified with terrorism, and unfortunately could face some level of discrimination. This caused fear among the Muslims as well. The antiterrorism watchdog gave an inadequate direction to the police to launch reasonable suspicion before arresting suspected people associated with terrorism. During the Olympic Game or any of such a remarkable event in a country or a city; it is expected that the host should display to guests what they are proud of; contrary to this expectation, London displayed to nations the power of its military above all things. The allocation and stationing of military missiles next to the residential areas was also a thing that rouses great controversy. It was impractical to place such powerful weapons next to residential properties.

The G4S Company was fit to deliver security services; this could have replaced the big number of the British army that was deployed to give the services. Nevertheless, a common opinion of people who were uncomfortable with the presence of the military would had prefered that the government should had contracted multiple security firms. It was also very apparent that most of the security guards who were recruited by the G4S could not speak good English thereby posing challenge in running the security affairs. The number of military officers that were deployed and the military strength that was displayed during the Olympic Games in London was a general showcase of fear rather than protection of human life. Different space designs Due to the historical threats that had been posed during such events as the Olympics, especially the case of Germany terror attacks led to the increase of security vigilance during the London Olympics. The security details were strengthened up to ensure that all the attendants were safe from any danger. Nothing was left to chance. However, public privacy was terminated by the presence of the military even in places that were meant to be public became strictly manned by the police and the military forces. People were allowed to enter the two-kilometer square site to walk freely without any disturbance to attend the events without tickets. This was not the case since the entrance of over two hundred thousand people was not left entirely open due to various security reasons. The park was further sealed with high fences nearly sixteen feet high surrounded by the electric fences all backed up with CCTV cameras sending signals to the control room (Leach 2009). The entrance to the Olympic Stadium was manned similarly to an airport where security operations included cloths and bag detectives, which ensured that everything that was gaining entrance to the stadium was properly scrutinized and well checked.

Fig. 4.

The security checks were did not end at the entrance neither did it stop with the checks at the gates, even in the venue where people had their comforts enjoying the games, there were constant checks by the military and the police. This rigorous security exercise made the attendants even more uncomfortable. People were not happy with such kinds of scrutiny because the level of suspicion was raised to everybody. Every person was considered as a terrorist and potential danger to the event. After the bombing just immediately when the Olympics were announced to be taking place in London, there was a major bombing that left people killed and some badly injured. This made security to be strengthened in public transport systems. People were categorically advised to use public means of transport as most of the roads were going to be closed and the transport security systems were greatly improved. There were improved security checks on public transport and every passenger was examined to ascertain that they were not a threat to the public. Weapon loops were introduced to reduce the risks of terror attacks and police department took full charge of the public transport. The upsurge of security details and the immense machinery put in River Thames at the city of London were so massive to be true for an Olympic game. All these preparations posed great challenges to the understanding of people. Perhaps, people thought that there was something more to the security preparation than the security to the Olympics (Machman 2013). Even the tourists felt shy to visit the city. This was because during and just before the Olympics, the level of the security details was a threat to their privacy. Tourists and visitors were given maximumsecurity checks, which they were uncomfortable with; the visitors felt as though they were seen as potential threat to the country rather than assets to the city of London. Further, the installation of missiles in public place limited people from assessing such area, partly due to the looming dangers that was associated with those places and partly because the military prohibited people from assessing those places, yet some of the places were residential. This was a major interference with public freedom. Security plans and achievements during the London Olympics 2012 Great Britain has a good history of keeping the safety of major events that have taken place on itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s territory. This virtue led to the winning of the Olympic bid in 2012. There were various measures that were put in place to handle the security issues during the Olympics however; this did not materialize as the G4S Company: the largest security firm in the world could not deliver enough personnel to handle the security needs during the Olympic Games. This led to the adoption of a new security system, which made the government deploy and commission military personnel to take charge of the whole event: an event, which would attract thousands of people in London (Bachman 2009). Such major event was a potential threat to the security since there was a looming threat from the terror groups to attack London during 64

this event. This called for keen security and surveillance during the event. The failure of the G4S to provide the required number of security officers posed a heavy challenge that made the government to deploy a large number of security officers. This ensured that there was safety during the entire event. However, the great number of the security personnel especially the presence of the military evoked different feelings of people. The public was not happy with this move and it affected the rate at which tourists were visiting the country. This was because the level of security details significantly reminded people of the past terror attacks. Such, created great levels of anxiety in people that people stayed in suspicion during the entire period of the Olympic Games. Conclusion Finally, London Olympic Games in 2012 ended successfully. People had different reactions as to the event but the major goals of the security operations were achieved. The greater number of security personnel and the high level of vigilance bore fruits of a peaceful event during the entire period of the Olympic Game in London. Application of technology and advanced architectural designs made this event successful. The high level of security measures did not end with the Olympics after nine days. The investments that were made have made London to make strides towards economic independence and become more advanced in security measures. The CCTVS that were installed in the city were left and they still serve the same purpose of keeping the security of London up to date. This has promoted the publicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s confidence in the city more than any other time in history. This level of the security in London interfered with people psychologically, but all the same, they later came to appreciate the attempts of the government to ascertain peace by all means since the Olympic was established to be one of the major targets of the terror groups who had made more than five visits to the Olympic Stadium. These people had taken keen study of the Olympic system and a strong mechanism to curb them was a necessity. This justifies the architectural designs and the upsurge number of the military deployed.

Bibliography Books Bachman, L. R. (2009). Integrated buildings: The systems basis of architecture. Hoboken, New Jersey: J. Wiley. Findling, J. E. (2012). Encyclopedia of the modern Olympic movement. Westport, Conn. [u.a.: Greenwood Press. Great Britain. (2008). Preparations for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games: Progress report June 2008. London: Stationery Office. Jencks, C., & FAT (Architectural firm). (2011). Radical post-modernism. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. Leach, N. (2009). Digital cities. London: John Wiley. Machman, L. R. (2013): Major event security and lessons for the. (2012). s.l.: Routledge. Images Fig. 1. Eddie Mulholland, 2011. Image from ‘The Telegraph’. [jpg] Available at: <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8498250/77inquest-London-woefully-unprepared-for-terrorist-attack-on-2012-Olympicswarns-coroner.html> [Accessed 4 December 2013] Fig. 2. Carl Court/AFP/Getty Images, 2012 . Image from ‘The Guardian’. [jpg] Available at: <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/10/london-olympicslockdown-2012-games> [Accessed 3 December 2013] Fig. 3. Julian Simmonds, 2012. Image from ‘The telegraph’. [jpg] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9240664/London-2012Olympics-RAF-launch-nine-day-Exercise-Olympic-Guardian-security-test-withTyphoon-jets.html [Accessed 2 December 2013] Fig. 4. Anon, 2012. Image from the website. [jpg] Available at: http://together-com.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/olympic-games-london-2012security.html [Accessed 1 December 2013].

Legacy What are the current infrastructural and socio-economic implications of the London 2012 Olympic Legacy? Georgina Hale

Londonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Olympic legacy is promised to be the most effective yet, hoping to form a brand new hot spot in the city of London generating business and improving social standards. However will this be the case, one will not know for another 20 years. Although one can investigate what current issues at the beginning stages are arising, which may jeopardise the perfect Olympic legacy.

London bid for the 2012 Olympic games in 2004 and later was awarded them in 2005. It took seven years to build the Olympic park in Newham to a standard admired by those across the world. There had been mixed reviews in terms of the social and political effects to Newham. Although the London Games are over, the construction continues on to meet the ambitions of the Olympic legacy. One year later it is still early days in terms of success of the legacy, thought there has been some comment, what definite evidence is there at present on the success of London’s Olympic legacy? The area of East London that includes Newham and the Olympic park has long been recognised as an area of depression in need of social improvements. In a 2007 survey by Newham Borough Council, 17.5% of the population lived in overcrowded housing and 55.7% of children living in poverty (2010, cited Aston-Mansfield, 2011, pp. 3), yet in harsh comparison some of the UK’s richest people work only four miles away in Canary Wharf. If the Olympic bid had not been won, this area of London would still see redevelopment as government has planned this prior to the Olympics. As a result, the Olympics would enhance both the size and timescale of the Thames Gateway redevelopment; which might lead one to believe was a political stunt to cover up local opposition to the redevelopment and to validate the taxpayer’s money use. On the other hand were the Olympics just coincidental catalyst to helping this redevelopment with greater success? The dictionary definition of the term legacy is - a tangible or intangible thing handed down by a predecessor; a long-lasting effect of an event or process; the act of bequeathing (Brown and Trumble, 2002, pp. 1568). London’s Olympic legacy has been revised many times, however the key aims remain; improvements to transport links and local infrastructure, increase sporting activity, and to encourage business and economic investments into the Newham area. Also to improve the River Lea and site environmentally, and finally to improve social standards though continued investment into the redevelopment of the Queen Elizabeth Park and encouragement of sporting lifestyles. Due to such broad topics, an investigation into the social built environments of the legacy will be continued in this chapter. Currently the legacy is the hottest topic of media coverage in the UK when talking of the Olympics. This is probably due to negative economic and social effects it has had in previous Olympic cities. Although early days there has been positive media comments, the legacy may not prove to have a happy ending to everyone affected. Will the legacy live on for the long-term greater good, or will the games have provided a political opportunity to gentrify parts of the East End of London. London won the Olympic bid due to its strong emphasis on the legacy plan for an area in depression. Currently the International Olympic Committee (IOC) favours the cities that bid large-scale legacies, therefore having a benefitting and convincing one is important. Chris Gratton and Holger Preuss (2008, pp.39) speculates three reasons why a strong legacy helps a winning bid. Firstly, a positive legacy avoids 69

public confrontation from the host nation, which therefore helps divert negativity towards the IOC. Secondly, it helps justify the use of public resources given whatever the economic climate. Thirdly, it creates a positive view of hosting future Olympic games, encouraging other nations to bid to host future Olympics, securing confidence in the Olympic games continuation.

The Planned Legacy To create a legacy successful, the London 2012 committee first analysed the previous host cities events and what London could learn or stay clear of, collating information for a promising and confident bid. Firstly London had confirmed that Athens 2004 was not a model to follow in terms of designing for long-term benefits. Although Athens had talked of a legacy in its bid, the actual planning was never sufficient leaving many sites derelict, creating White Elephants. Even today only 1 of the 22 venues is in regular use says Malcolm Moore from the Daily Telegraph, who published an article titled Ruined Athens Facilities –a Warning for London (2008), starting pressure on London’s legacy. In contrast Barcelona 1992 was the perfect model to base their inner city, regeneration plans upon. Barcelona made a very successful legacy in an area that had high unemployment, an increasing population and, like Stratford a severely deprived area within the city (Coaffee, 2011). Paris was the favourite to win the 2012 Games, even those close to the bidding committee them selves believed: “even we didn’t expect to win” (Gold, 2013). One of the main reason London’s bid won was due to how it sold its massive Thames Gateway redevelopment plans that would coordinate with the Olympic construction, and thus making the enormous cost of hosting the games more valid in hope to stimulate further developments in a deprived area. In terms of the legacy, there was very little critism because so few people expected to win. As previously mentioned in Chapter 2, opposition publically from local businesses and residents “only started in 2011” (Gold, 2013), by which time lit was too late to have any major effect. In fact people supported the bid without realising its full consequences, like “turkeys lining up for Christmas’ (Gold, 2013). However many in the area expected some redevelopment’s whether the Games were won or not.

The Olympic venues transformation The design of the park was planned well; any structures, such as the Riverside arena and the Basketball Arena, which had no legacy plan, were made to be temporary. This would allow parkland to double to become the new ‘green lung of London’ (Figure 1).

2020

2012

Figure 1 - Images of the Olympic Park plan in 2012 and then 2020

The structures left all have purposeful endings. The venues such as the Velopark has been taken into ownership by the Lea Valley regional Park Authority that already runs a skate park, riding centre and athletes centre. The iconic Arcelormittal Orbit will be managed by Balfour Beatty Workplace and the Athletes Village has transformed into the East Village of which residents have started moving in. Finally it is predicted the most successful transition will be the Aquatics centre, managed by Greenwich Leisure Ltd an already establish company in London. On the other hand there has been more concerns and speculation for the future of the Olympic Stadium. In the House of Commons third report of the Olympic bid they stated: London might well end up with a stadium at Wembley, specifically built with the capability to host Olympics without legacy issues, and another in East London, actually built to host the Games, with an uncertain future (2003, pp. 5). This foreseen implication lead to a strong will to make the stadium a legacy success. However up until 2013 there was still great uncertainty to who would take authority over the stadium. There was a frenzy of bidding processes among interested parties to the stadiums future use that it went to court. Eventually Newham council and the LLDC (London Legacy Development Corporation) gave lease to West Ham FC. After initially not wanting a football club due to the concerns highlighted by John Gold (2013). Olympic stadiums that fall into football club ownerships tend to not succeed in the long term. Previous Olympic stadiums such as Germanyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stadium

in Munich became home to Bayern Munich FC and TSV 1860 Munich, in 2005 both clubs moved out. Although for 33 years it had been used well it has no future use other than the odd concert or sporting event. The Turner Field Olympic stadium of Atlanta 1996, was let to Atlanta Braves baseball team now hoping to move out in 2017, when their 20-year lease of the stadium comes to an end. The reasoning to why the stadiums don’t become successful long term can be due to the seat orientation and the distant from the game to the people, as the track has to remain in place as part of the leases. Accumulated together spectators and players do not enjoy the atmosphere of the stadium in comparison to purpose built venues; perhaps London should have included a better football stadium transition in the design. In summary Olympic stadium transformations to football clubs “will always be a problem” (Gold, 2013). The London legacy has 20 years to be completed, by then West Ham may have left the stadium, but perhaps this is better than no use after the Games such as Athens 2004 and Beijing 2008, leaving ‘limping white elephants’ in the landscape (Mangan, 2010, pp. xviii).

The Olympic budget and economic return London 2012 saw immediate criticism for the political chaos around the cost estimates of the build. Pre- Olympics this was not encouraging, however given the time and budget increases of other large scale projects such as Wembley arena and the Millennium Dome those were valid concerns. With both projects running over time with spiralling costs, the anticipation towards the cost of the games planned and unplanned was a major concern for the nation. As time developed it was clear that the Olympics budgeting was wrong and that a lot more money was needed, especially with the ‘credit crunch’ taking hold of the country: The initial acclaim arising from the UK’s successful bid was quickly replaced by articles critical of the uncertainties surrounding the budget, the continuous revisions of budget costs by government and the elaboration of more specific critisms of the costs associated with the creation of the widely derided Olympic logo, the design and the cost of the Olympic Park sporting arenas, the salary costs of LOCOG senior staff, and by early 2008, the revised estimates of land values emerging from the economic problems posed by the credit crunch. One journalist from the popular press summed up much of the media’s perspective on the Games and ‘money’ in concluding that Olympic funding had gone from ‘joke to scandal’. (Macrury and Poynter, 2010, pp. 197 ) Not only did the public and media cry its negative concerns, later statistics of 2007 showed what was feared:

These tables show the overall cost doubled; in Table 2 the private sector investment retracted enormously and with the national lottery and taxpayer making the extra contribution. Lend Lease, a construction company that was funding the Olympic village collapsed. Due to the economic recession in the country post 2008, the construction companies was first to be ‘hit’ and so lack of funds available to invest left the taxpayer to invest in the Olympic Village. This fact may effect another legacy aim; the building of affordable housing, with a lot of the funding having to be paid by the government. Another distinction between the tables, show £2.747 billion in contingency costs added, and the ‘costs for maintaining the Olympic venues and adapting them for the public use after the Olympics were similarly left out of the budget…’ (Craig, 2008, pp. 248). This perhaps is one implication of the legacy in its beginning stages as this was a clear flaw to the Athens Olympics and one that London was told and acknowledged not to follow (Mangan, 2010, pp. xxvii). However one excuse could be made, relating to early topic of London not expecting to win the Olympic bid. As a result the calculations of cost were not taken care of properly as the bid was more of a stepping stone for London to start showing interest for future Games (Gold, 2013). Therefore estimated costs produced for the bid missed saw many key parts such as the £271 million (The Guardian, 2011) budget towards Olympic security left out. The overrun in estimated costs has had massive implications in that the public 73

sector has born a great debt and the likes of the National Lottery might not be reimmersed. The poorer people of Newham will get much less than expected in terms of affordable facilities and social housing, as private selling and management will always be a more profitable return.

Foreseen legacy implications The provision of affordable housing in the Five Neighbourhoods, the further housing to be built, is an important part of the legacy. Even before the houses are built, one questions what is affordable housing? Surely it depends on what wealth you have to if something is affordable. In Newham statistics show that average gross weekly pay for a full time worker is £521.60, making around £26,080 annually in 2012 (NOMIS, 2012). As a result on average, Newham inhabitants are eligible for affordable housing in the East Village because the maximum annual cap is at £66,000 annually for a one to two bed house (Triathlon Homes, 2013). However there are many terms and conditions to the East Village affordable housing ownership, one has to be employed with good credit ratings, which adversely affects people in poorer areas. By law all new building estates must have a 35% of affordable housing, but due to a later regulation changes by the government since 2010, developers are now allowed to ‘offset’ their affordable housing in other areas of a county or borough. This has a concerning future for the new homes being built on the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park which may not be affordable housing, and as a consequence the rewards maybe speculated by private, and in particular foreign investors rather than locals residents; over 70% of London’s residential investments are coming from abroad (Boyce, 2013). In an ideal world, one would hope for the mix of classes and population type to mixed through out the park integrating the multicultural, local communities of Strafford in an area they all made sacrifices for. However in reality, redevelopment of this scale only has one aim, gentrification. As a result gentrification has a natural process of increasing land value, forcing the poorer people away until it reaches a sustainable limit, with only 3 miles to centre of London, that’s a high limit. So as discussed in Chapter 1, the poor people will have to move out, unless there is a good provision of affordable housing available on the park. There is no doubt a good proportion of homes will be affordable but it depends on the site of which they are built to if it is fair and equal gentrification. So far, in the East Village there is an inbuilt proportion of affordable housing integrated in the park creating 1379 homes. There has been speculation on why Dagenham and Barking joined the Olympic boroughs; one reason critics suggest is for the offsetting of the affordable housing as the two areas also have a comparably low density, allowing increase of infrastructure. This cannot be certain but it looks a reasonable accusation, so as a consequence the poorer people have been moved for the 74

building of the Olympics, will not be able to afford the move back to the improved, cleaner areas and as a consequence will have to move to an area, which in twenty§ years may be as deprived as Newham previously.

The Legacy concluded As one started to question the true political stance on bidding for the Games, one realises that it was no political stunt, or cover up for the issues that “one of Europe’s largest redevelopment sites” (Gold, 2013) may have raised from public opposition. It was no coincidence that the games was placed there as part of the Thames Gateway and East London redevelopment it was just a perfect, transparent plan. There was very little public revolt was heard of the legacy, and this was due because some people knew they were potentially moving anyway, also because Newham is such a fluid place in terms of stable population and finally the public views of the Games were successful so resting peoples anticipation of the second phase. In conclusion Olympic legacy has already improved transportation links to the area, stimulated foreign investment, created good quality sporting facilities and improved parklands ecologically to be sustainable. Still one may state that large implications can be found in the economics of the legacy and the redevelopment of the built environment, specifically the Olympic stadium and the future of the Five Neighbourhoods social housing. There is much more potential for he legacy in future years and there is no doubt that the Olympics has been a catalyst for vast improvements and investment in the Newham area in the last 6 years, and this probably set the ball rolling for future improvements in the deprived areas for the future years.

Books Brown, L and Trumble, W (2002). New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 5th Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1568. Craig, D (2008). Squandered, London: Askews, pp. 248. Coaffee. J (2010). Urban Regeneration and Renewal, In Gold, J and Gold, M (eds). 2011. Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning, and the World’s Games 1896 – 2016, 2nd Edition. Oxford/ Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 180 – 194. Gratton, C and Preuss, H (2008). Maximising Olympic Impacts by building up legacies. In Mangan, J and Dyreson. M (eds). Olympic Legacies: Intended or unintended – Political, Cultural, economic, Educational. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 39 - 55. Macrury, I and Poynter, G (2010). The Regeneration Games: commodities, gifts and the economics of London 2012. In Mangan, J and Dyreson. M (eds). Olympic Legacies: Intended or unintended – Political, Cultural, economic, Educational. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 189 – 207. Mangan, J (2010). Guarantees of Global Goodwill: Post-Olympic legacies – Too Many Limping White Elephants? In Mangan, J and Dyreson. M (eds). Olympic Legacies: Intended or unintended – Political, Cultural, economic, Educational. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. xvii – xxxi. Websites London Legacy Development Corporation (2013). The legacy of the park. Available at: <http://www.londonlegacy.co.uk/news-and-resources/the-legacy-of-theolympic-park/> [Accessed: 20/11/13] NOMIS – Official Labour Market Statistics (2012), Gross Weekly Pay - All Full Time Workers Newham. Available at: <http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/ > (Assessed: 29/11/2013) Triathlon Homes (2013). To Rent. Available at: <http://www.triathlonhomes.com/ the-homes/to-rent/> [Accessed: 21/11/2013] Newham Borough Council (2010), Newham’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, Available at: <http://www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Council%20and%20 Democracy/JSNA2010.pdf> [Accessed 2/12/13] Aston-Manfield (2011). Newham Key Statistics. Available at: <http://www.astonmansfield.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/newham-key-statistics.pdf> [Accessed 2/12/2013] 76

Newspapers and Journals

ANON (2011). London 2012 Olympics security costs almost double to £553m. The Guardian (online). 5 December 2011. Available at: <http://www.theguardian. com/uk/2011/dec/05/olympic-security-costs-rise-553m> [Accessed: 22 November 2013] Boyce, L (2013). Foreign investors snap up 70% of all central London new build homes fuelling a surge in prices. This is Money (online). 16 August 2013. Available at: <http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2394704/ Foreign-investors-snap-70-new-build-homes-central-London.html> [Accessed: 2/12/2013] Duffy, F (2012). Architecture, scenography and the time: How the Games will help east London realise its urbanistic potential. Architectural Journal. Vol. 2, Eastside Story: Olympic Park, pp. 82-88. House of Commons; Culture, media and sport committee (2003). A London Olympic Bid 2012, Third report of session 2002 -2003. London: stationary office limited, pp. 5. Moore, M (2008). Ruined Athens Facilities –a Warning for London. Daily Telegraph (online). 2 June 2008. Available at: <http://www.nysun.com/foreign/ruined-athensolympic-facilities-a-warning/> [Accessed: 28/11/2013] Interviews Gold, J (2013). Interview by Hale, G and Abidakun, S and Silva, I. 26 November 2013, 15.30. Images Figure 1 – Allies and Morrison. Architectural Journal. Vol. 2, Eastside Story: Olympic Park, pp. gatefold Table 1 – Craig, D (2008). Squandered, London: Askews, pp. 247. Table 2 - Craig, D (2008). Squandered, London: Askews, pp. 247.