Developing London’s Olympic Park involved a significant transformation of an area of East London known as the Lower Lea Valley. Having once been an industrial heartland, by the 1990s the site was in post-industrial decay and the wider area was characterised by crime, poverty and deprivation (Marriott 2012). This led to the site’s regeneration for the 2012 London Olympics.
Despite the existing area’s problems, many community members were resistant to the Olympic redevelopment plans. Many viable businesses were based on the site, as well as a successful low-rent estate of 450 residents. Furthermore, the site supported various minority groups including a Gahnaian church and a Traveller community. The existing community was forced to move from the site under Compulsory Purchase Orders for a complete demolition of the site.
The aim of this report is to assess the social and community ‘legacy’ of the Olympic Park redevelopment. Whilst the development’s environmental sustainability credentials have been widely praised, there has been less critique of the site’s social sustainability, especially from the view of the local community who were forced to move due to the development.
The idea of a positive ‘legacy’ from the London 2012 Olympics was central to the planning of the Games. Whilst this focussed on improving sport engagement, the ambitions for a positive legacy went further, aiming to improve the lives of Londoners through the Olympic Park redevelopment:
“The true legacy of 2012 is that within 20 years the communities who host the 2012 Games will have the same social and economic chances as their neighbours across London.” (Wales et al. 2009, p. 2)
A challenge facing this legacy was the balancing of very local, small-scale issues with the objectives of an international sporting event; bringing countries together and raising sport participation nationally. Therefore, this report will consider whether the legacy of the existing community was really fulfilled, given these competing objectives.
Key events timeline
What is social sustainability? According to the World Bank (2021), social sustainability “promotes social inclusion of the poor and vulnerable by empowering people, building cohesive and resilient societies, and making institutions accessible and accountable to citizens”. Thus, institutional transparency and community empowerment are underlying principles.
In the context of cities, social sustainability involves longevity; cities being “built with long time scales in mind and the lifestyle of their inhabitants should not be defined by reckless transience” (Girardet 1999, p. 13). Furthermore, social sustainability should serve to enable diverse social processes (Porta & John 2005).
The concept is important as “there is general agreement that the different dimensions of sustainable development” including social sustainability “have not been equally prioritised by policy makers within the sustainability discourse” with an over-emphasis on environmental sustainability (Colantonio & Dixon 2010, p. 20). Aspects of social sustainability include “quality education, a vibrant culture, good health care, satisfying employment or occupations and the sharing of wealth” (Girardet 1999, p. 13).
This report will use Adam Caruso’s concept ‘The Emotional City’ as a lens through to interrogate the social sustainability of the Olympic Park’s design. Caruso (2001, p. 8) argues that “the urban environment is a precise emotional condition”. Therefore, design “should be sensitive to those emotional qualities that define the city” (p. 9) which include organic growth and its resultant heterogeneity; rather than pursuing a priori ideas motivated by economics and politics, rather than social benefit. The report will question whether the Olympic Park responded to these ‘emotional qualities’, or is the development and its legacy ‘unemotional’?
An additional theoretical framing will be Tonkiss’ (2013) discussion of urban informality. She identifies the ‘contradiction’ in informality’s ability to bring together both highly positive and negative aspects of social life, which relates closely to the Olympic Park redevelopment.
This report will use a ‘triangulation’ approach between case study evidence, theory and policy, to interrogate the development’s social sustainability across different aspects:
(1) Social deprivation, (2) Sense of community, (3) Housing, (4) Urban form, and (5) Public realm.
Key policies which will be considered include the 2009 ‘Strategic Regeneration Framework’ produced by the London Boroughs involved in the Olympic Park; and the 2011 London Plan which embedded the ambitions for London’s Olympics in a strategic planning document.
The report will conclude by again considering the key theoretical framing of this essay, questioning the legacy of the Olympic Park redevelopment: An ‘unemotional’ legacy?
Prior to the redevelopment, the Lower Lea Valley was classified as the most deprived community in England (Davis 2012). It was an area which had seemingly been left behind by the rest of London, “with industry viewed as in terminal decline and related issues of deprivation” (Davies et al. 2017, p. 3). This well reflects what Tonkiss (2013, p. 20) describes as “acute ‘unequalization’, producing stark geographies of inequality and polarization within cities”.
Due to this ‘unequalization’, “regeneration was… portrayed as the process of realising the area’s potential for physical and socio-economic development” (Davies et al. 2017, p. 3). However, was this the right approach when considering social sustainability?
Caruso (2001, p. 8) argues against “the growing pressures to concentrate use, to assemble even larger sites, to erode the public realm” - frequent approaches taken under ‘regeneration’ projects. Yet, such approaches which “are driven by economic development” do not respond to an area’s social development, a city that is “an embodiment of culture, of people’s ambitions and desires”. This was demonstrated through the ‘clean slate’, regeneration approach taken towards the deprived Lea Valley; the process not attempting to grapple with the human aspects of the location. For example, there may have been elements of the site that were widely appreciated by the existing community, or elements of the urban area that while outsiders considered ‘decaying’, local community members may have valued.
Throughout the planning and policy process, there is no evidence of any engagement with the local community, taken in order to understand the true level of deprivation, or what the local community did or did not value about their area. Rather than empowering people – key to social sustainability (World Bank 2021) – the approach to deprivation was based solely on quantitative understandings and normative values of place.
A concept overlooked here is that of urban informality – a concept which relates strongly to the disorderly and ‘unplanned’ nature of the Lower Lea Valley prior to its redevelopment. Whilst informality broadly suggests economic disadvantage and lack of government intervention, it can be a positive thing for local communities according to Tonkiss, as summarised below:
“The informal sector can provide access to housing and economic opportunities at low or no entry costs; allow small-scale entrepreneurs to develop businesses while avoiding red-tape and prohibitive start-up costs; afford space and materials for shelter for low-income households; mobilize credit; and offer forms of mutual support and self-help among low-income urban populations”
(Tonkiss 2013, p. 21)
Whilst these benefits are wide-ranging, they should be considered in the context of potential “abandonment, insecurity, racketeering and immiseration” (ibid.). It appears that the site was not immune from these issues; in fact, there were “deficiencies in the provision of amenities, and limited opportunities for the local population” (Davies et al. 2017, p. 7). Therefore, while the process of redevelopment could be seen as not wellintegrating social sustainability; the area was in stark need of attention and the principle to improve the location was well justified. However, the means of going about such a process were clearly motivated by economic, rather than social, factors.
Davies et al.’s historic photographs of the site (figure 3) highlights the diversity of industries and livelihoods supported by the site prior to its redevelopment. These were as diverse as food production, chemical storage, a Royal Opera House workshop, and textiles manufacturing. Each of these industries reflected community livelihoods which have now disappeared; a ‘sense of community’ which has since been lost. The new ‘sense of community’ brought in by the Olympic Park is one of international sportsmanship, relating in no way to the existing community.
Therefore, it is unsurprising that “the compulsory purchase of many sites created resentment among some who had long worked for viable firms along the Lea” (Marriott 2012, p.12). This was a large-scale displacement of businesses: 266 were actively operating within the Olympic Park boundary and required relocation as of December 2005 (GLA 2005).
It can be argued that compulsory purchase is a wholly undemocratic means of regenerating a local area. Residents and businesses do not have the power to veto such decisions, and this leads to “wider disempowerment of local people at the hands of government agencies and quangos in the context of regeneration” (Davies et al. 2017, p. 4). However, in the case of the Olympic redevelopment, there is evidence of the London Development Agency working with local businesses and trying to support them in finding a suitable place to relocate.
By October 2006, around 50% of these businesses had arranged to be relocated within the London Development Authority area (nearby in East London): a generally positive outcome. However, 17% were relocating elsewhere with a further 30-35% without relocation plans (GLA 2006).
Analysis of the final displacement of communities was completed by Davis (2012) (figure 4). This shows the wide area from which people were displaced. It is unclear whether this refers to residents and/or businesses but in any case demonstrates the widespread dispersal caused through the site’s redevelopment. Many of the locations are outside of the London boundary, causing a marked difference in social activity for many of these residents.
In addition to businesses, the site previously supported a high level of social diversity, due to “the depressed land value of the site” (Davis 2012, p. 110). This social diversity included a Ghanaian church, a Gypsy and Traveller community, and the Clays Lane social housing estate, which housed many socially vulnerable residents.
Retaining and enhancing such a rich social mix would seem to be the most socially sustainable approach; reflecting the organic processes of cities described by Caruso (2001). Rather, the redevelopment caused the loss of all these groups from the site. Subsequent London Plan policy stated that “existing stable communities” would be ‘sustained’ (GLA 2011, p. 43), but this was too late. In fact, it appears that there was very little policy written ahead of commencing this project, with the development being fast-tracked due to its international significance. This was reflected in an interview with a previous resident of the site, who said, “We didn't have much media attention on our relocation. I don't know why. My feeling is that people were so wrapped up in the Olympics…” (Naughton 2008).
The Clays Lane Estate was the largest form of housing on the Olympic site, with 450 residents; involving two student accommodation blocks as well as many low-rent flats. Additionally, 20 Irish Travellers families lived on the site. All this accommodation was demolished to make way for the Chobham Manor Olympic village development.
The redevelopment approach was firstly very unsustainable as the estate had only been built in the late 1970s. Caruso (2001) describes such actions as a consequence of requiring annual investment returns, “that even profitable properties need to earn more” (pp. 8-9). This leads to a ‘vicious circle’ of demolishing buildings and “erecting even larger, more efficient ones”. This process consolidates land ownership into increasingly powerful hands; working against “the condition of heterogeneity” underpinning social sustainability (ibid.).
The loss of existing social ties and relationships on this estate was another factor of the development’s unsustainability. Reflecting on the estate’s success in supporting a diverse community, a resident commented, “much is made of the need to build diverse and sustainable communities yet this was such a community which has been torn up” (Cheyne 2006, para. 14). Ironically, even the Mayor of Newham seemed to agree, suggesting disapproval at post-war buildings being pulled down for regeneration. He stated, “we need to develop communities. Our job in the boroughs is to fight to develop those communities so that they are sustainable in the long term” (Slavin 2008, para. 15). Yet, the retention of communities directly on the Olympic site did not occur. This was likely due to the scale of and excitement for the Olympics; thus Clays Lane was completely redeveloped rather than an approach which incorporated the site into the proposed masterplan.
Community engagement processes were also socially unsustainable, with superficial, tokenistic approaches to engaging the community: contrary to ‘community empowerment’ involved in social sustainability. One local resident commented on a planning meeting, “we were told Clays Lane was to be demolished anyway and were shown a plan for a 'non-Olympic' scenario” (Cheyne 2006, para. 15).
Whilst many community benefits were promised from redeveloping the Olympic site, the housing issues post-2012 to the present day have only deteriorated for the existing community. Average rents have increased since redevelopment, exacerbated by an increased proportion of renters across the housing market (figure 6). This is a typical situation in gentrified neighbourhoods.
As Minton (2017, p. 111) states, “there is more wealth coming into London than ever before, but these riches are not shared, with unaffordable property prices and rents making life worse for the majority”. This process was warned of by the New Economic Foundation, who explained that with gentrification, “assets of the local communities get transferred out of the local area, because local people who don’t own local homes or business are priced out of the area” (NEF 2007, p. 8). The process of gentrification at the Olympic Park has only reinforced community displacement. Caused by the financialisation of housing, this approach does not respond to ‘emotional city’ qualities described by Caruso (2001).
Next, the Olympic Park’s urban form will be considered. Caruso (2001, p. 8) describes how many developments follow a priori ideas; “imperfect manifestation[s] of an abstract theory”. Creating building forms out of “abstract political ideas” works against “development that is an embodiment of culture, of people’s ambitions and desires” (ibid.), thus reflects socially unsustainable thinking.
Alternatively, heterogeneity and diversity in urban form are approaches which respond to the complexity of people’s needs and are the outcome of organic city processes. Heterogeneity often reflects a mixture of tenure and land ownership, which are “so characteristic of and necessary to a liberal and democratic society” (Caruso 2001, p. 8). Therefore, “diversity can… be seen to have a privileged relation to more sustainable urban forms” (Tonkiss 2013, p. 51).
Figure 7 show the masterplan drawings produced for the Olympic Park, involving a 2012 design, and a ‘legacy’ proposal. Addressing the different onsite needs during and after the Olympic event reflect a positive approach to longevity and increased sustainability.
Figure 8 highlights the change in urban morphology from the site’s pre-Olympic to current-day state. In 2006, the site was characterised by a more-fine grain urban form with smaller building sizes, and an overall higher number of buildings. These had clearly been built up over time to accommodate businesses and respond to the local geography; for example, positioning industrial units alongside the river for transport by boat. The characteristics here reflect the organic forms responding to human needs as described by Caruso (2001).
In contrast, today the site is characterised by larger built forms, and designs based upon architectural dreams rather than social realities. This is illustrated in the magnified areas in figure 8, showing Clays Lane Estate (2006) along with its replacement, Chobham Manor (2022). Clays Lane Estate was smaller in scale than Chobham Manor, with a more haphazard building morphology. Thus, Clays Lane exhibits characteristics of diversity in design, whereas Chobham Manor could be described as a priori development.
The ‘series of courtyards’ in Clays Lane were a successful feature, enabling people to “sit outside and chat to their neighbours as they walked past” (Naughton 2008). In contrast, the new development has not responded to these past social successes, rather has opted for continuity of form, restricting social processes. This represents drawbacks in the design’s social sustainability.
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Lane Estate / Chobham Manor (right) highlight changes in built form (Google Earth 2023) (map produced by author).
2006
2022
There have been major visual improvements to the quality of public space across the site. Previously, the site was considered “as a kind of wasteland” (Davies et al. 2017, p. 7) shown in figure 9; with areas of fly tipping, and poor quality industrial units. Whilst the benefits of diversity have been cited (Tonkiss 2013; Caruso 2001), Davis (2012, p. 125) comments that she could not evidence the “link between diversity of use and urban vibrancy” when visiting the site before its development. In fact, it appeared to be overall a relatively hostile environment.
Leading up to the games, policy required the regeneration to “embed exemplary design and environmental quality” (GLA 2011, p. 43). This was also expressed as a ‘critical action’ of the 2009 Strategic Regeneration Framework: “Delivering a higher quality public realm to broaden the impact of the Olympic Park and bring direct benefit to local communities” (Wales et al. 2009, p. 7).
While there are clear benefits comparing the before/after images, there is the question of how welcome existing communities would feel in the new environment, compared to the one they knew with familiar businesses and local people around them. A further critique of the design is the ‘tabula rasa’ approach, which “has physically overlain much of the history in the area” (Marriott 2012, p.13). None of the new development relates to the design of what was there previously, and no historic buildings remain. This ‘wiping away’ of history seems to be a great loss of social richness that can now never be regained.
This report has considered the Olympic Park redevelopment in the light of social sustainability; specifically considering the existing community which was displaced as a cause of the development proposals. The international status of the Olympic event represented a major contrast and conflict of interest in a development that would have a very local, fine-scale impact. While other sustainability factors may have improved, social sustainability was overall left behind as an entire community were displaced, and the new built form and social structures do not represent that past community. Overall, a superficial and simplistic approach was taken towards social issues, rather policy adopted a tabula rasa approach and the construction of a priori ideas, representing socially unsustainable methods (Caruso 2001, Tonkiss 2013).
Whilst there were high levels of deprivation on the site prior to the Olympics, these issues were not well understood as there were many businesses on the site which underpinned strong social networks. A further failing is through the loss, and new provision of housing. The successes of the Clays Lane Estate were not heeded by planners. Gentrification prevailed, leading to unaffordable rent prices for the existing community.
On the whole, the redevelopment process and final design does not respond well to the characteristics of an ‘emotional city’ which Caruso describes. Does this redevelopment represent ‘unemotional’ qualities; not just in the seemingly callous approach of displacing existing communities, but also in the built form of a priori structures, and lack of response to “culture,… people’s ambitions and desires”? The argument is debatable as it could be argued that the scale of impact was small enough to be justified. This report has largely considered a small number of communities within the development boundary; yet there may be much larger social benefits of the Olympic Park for the many communities surrounding it. The issues of social sustainability are more complex than first appears; yet this report has highlighted many irreparable effects on the existing, now-displaced community of the Lower Lea Valley.
Allies and Morrison. [No date]. London’s Olympic legacy: Playing the long game. Available at: https://www.alliesandmorrison.com/projects/ londons-olympic-legacy [Accessed: 9 May 2023].
Caruso, A. 2001. The emotional city. Quaderns 228, pp. 8-13. Available at: https://carusostjohn.com/media/files/Adam_Caruso_-_The_Emotional_ City.pdf [Accessed: 21 April 2023].
Cheyne, J. 2006. Clays Lane planning deception. Available at: http://www. gamesmonitor.org.uk/archive/node/174.html [Accessed: 10 May 2023].
Chobham Manor. 2022. Photography at Chobham Manor. Available at: http://www.chobhamlife.co.uk/photography-at-chobham-manor/ [Accessed: 19 April 2023].
Colantonio, A. & Dixon, T. 2010. Urban Regeneration and Social Sustainability: Best Practice from European Cities. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Davies, M. et al. 2017. Dispersal: Picturing urban change in east London. Swindon: Historic England.
Davis, J. 2012. Urbanising the event: how past processes, present politics and future plans shape London’s Olympic legacy. PhD Thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Girardet, H. 1999. Creating sustainable cities. Totnes: Green Books.
Google Earth. 2023. Satellite imagery. Available at: https://earth.google. com/web/ [Accessed: 19 April 2023].
Greater London Authority (GLA). 2005. Question: Relocations. Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/ questions-mayor/find-an-answer/relocations [Accessed: 9 May 2023].
Greater London Authority (GLA). 2006. Question: Relocating businesses. Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-londonassembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/relocating-businesses [Accessed: 9 May 2023].
Greater London Authority (GLA). 2011. The London plan: Spatial development strategy for greater London, July 2011. Available at: https:// www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/pastversions-and-alterations-london-plan/london-plan-2011 [Accessed: 9 May 2023].
GreenBlue Urban. [No date]. Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Available at: https://greenblue.com/gb/case-studies/queen-elizabeth-olympic-park/ [Accessed: 10 May 2023].
Marriott, J. 2012. The changing faces of Lea Valley. In: Pallister, J. & Slavid, R. Eastside story: Olympic Park, pp. 10-13. London: Architect Journal Publications.
Minton, A. 2017. Big capital: who is London for? London: Penguin.
Naughton, C. 2008. Displaced by London's Olympics. Available at: https:// www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jun/02/olympics2012 [Accessed: 9 May 2023].
New Economic Foundation (NEF). 2007. Fools Gold: How the 2012 Olympics is selling East London short, and a 10 point plan for a more positive local legacy. Available at: https://neweconomics.org/uploads/ files/c20cafb222715b6594_glm6b8ert.pdf [Accessed: 10 May 2023].
New London Architecture (NLA). 2022. Chobham Manor: Built. Available at: https://nla.london/projects/chobham-manor [Accessed: 19 April 2023].
Porta, S. & John, L. R. 2005. Linking urban design to sustainability: formal indicators of social urban sustainability field research in Perth, Western Australia. Urban Design International 10(1), pp. 51-64. doi: 10.1057/ palgrave.udi.9000136
Prior + Partners. 2020. Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. Available at: https://www.priorandpartners.com/queen-elizabeth-olympic-park [Accessed: 19 April 2023].
Seabourne, M. 2005. Anti-London 2012 banner on premises in Marshgate Lane Business Centre. Available at: https://collections.museumoflondon. org.uk/online/object/776225.html [Accessed: 9 May 2023].
Seabourne, M. 2006. View from the roof of Templar's House, Clays Lane, looking south over the Olympics site. Available at: https://collections. museumoflondon.org.uk/online/object/776197.html [Accessed: 9 May 2023].
Seabourne, M. 2007. Boarded-up houses, Clays Lane Co-operative Housing Estate. Available at: https://collections.museumoflondon.org.uk/ online/object/776219.html [Accessed: 9 May 2023].
Shelter. 2013. When the golden dust settles: housing in Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets after the Olympic Games. Available at: https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_and_ research/policy_library/when_the_golden_dust_settles_-_housing_in_ hackney_newham_and_tower_hamlets_after_the_olympics [Accessed: 9 May 2023].
Tonkiss, F. 2013. Cities by design: the social life of urban form. Cambridge: Polity
Wales, R. et al. 2009. Strategic regeneration framework: An Olympic legacy for the host boroughs. Available at: http://www.gamesmonitor.org. uk/files/strategic-regeneration-framework-report.pdf [Accessed: 9 May 2023].
World Bank. 2021. Social sustainability and inclusion: Overview. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/socialsustainability/overview [Accessed: 9 May 2023].