Mega-Events, Community Stakeholders and Legacy : London 2012Debbie Sadd, Centre for Events and Sports Research, Bournemouth University

Follow on from Masters workLondon to be host city in 2012

Lack of comparative research approachesRich plethora of data easily available yet

confusion over terminology

‘the impact of an Olympic games on a host city is immense and profound and requires huge commitment by Governments, business and the community. The sporting programme of games lasts only 16 days, yet their successful staging is the result of years of dedication and hard work by literally thousands of people’ (Hall, 1992, p36)

It is the strategic planning before and just as importantly after the Games have ended that will influence the long-term benefits Bramwell (1997).

London has the opportunity to be one of the first Games to benefit the local communities in situ but at a cost that may be impossible as impact of global financial crisis may be used as a smoke screen to renege on legacy….. However money could be put to better use

Legacy planning must be concurrent with physical construction i.e. every stadia has to have a legacy plan but for whom??? Review need for so many stadia - IOC requirements need to be challenged, and now is the time to save the legacy for east London

Findings: What is legacy?

Findings - What is legacyBackground Research

• ‘Imprint they leave’ (before, during and after)

• 5 legacy commitment areas – 2012

• IOC Symposium

• Translation

• Alternative descriptors (benefits and impacts)

Previous Games have not been regeneration for locals? London refer to regeneration but for whom?Who are the local community?Mixed use housing v mixed use of open space?Popular press view of Legacy ‘is ours to loose’ if we

don’t plan properly for long term

London has the opportunity to be one of the first Games to benefit the local communities in situ but at a cost that may be impossible as impact of global financial crisis may be used as a smoke screen to renege on legacy….. However money could be put to better use

Legacy planning must be concurrent with physical construction i.e. every stadia has to have a legacy plan but for whom??? Review need for so many stadia - IOC requirements need to be challenged, and now is the time to save the legacy for east London

BUT…….Security costs – unknown potential expense!

Necessary Contingent

Compatible shareholders

top management

partners

IOC, LOCOG, ODA, Mayor’s office, LDA,

HM Government etc, athletes and officials

the general public

companies connected through common

trade associations/ initiatives

national and International sporting organisations,

emergency services, media, spectators

incompatible trade unions

low-level employees

government and their agencies

customers

lenders

suppliers and other creditors

some NGO’s

workforce, suppliers of goods and services,

media,

some NGO’s

aggrieved members of the public

local communities

Anti-Olympic protestors, political activists, local

community, wider London community paying through their

taxes for the running of the Games.

Freidman and Miles (2002)Freidman and Miles (2002)

Aim; Develop a model for urban regeneration legacies associated with the hosting of mega-events.

Objectives; To conceptualise an explanation of the role

of Olympic legacy with particular reference to long-term positive benefits.

To examine the current literature on Olympic legacies and to formulate commonalities between the selected games.

To evaluate best practice models and offer alternative uses and adaptations.

To design a conceptual model which encapsulates the positive energy of legacy development for future mega events, with particular reference to the Olympics

Interview key informants (24) from previous Games ( Barcelona and Sydney) and then London planning to date

Semi-structured interviews, iterative but purposive sampling

Phenomenological stance on experiences, perceptions, meanings attitudes and feelings.

Data analysed via thematic analysis using Attride-Stirling (2001) framework