Advanced Olympic Research Grant Programme 2014-2015
IOC Olympic Studies Centre
Final Report: Governing to maintain legacies: urban governance, policies, and the long-term impacts of the Olympics
Mark Davidson
School of Geography, Clark University
June 2015
1 Abstract
Every Olympic host city now pursues an array of legacy goals, ranging from increased sports participation rates and environmental remediation, through to widespread economic redevelopment. With the array of legacy objectives growing, the task of generating and maintaining legacy pledges is becoming ever greater for Olympic cities. This project investigated how four recent host cities – Atlanta, Sydney, Salt Lake City and Vancouver – have gone about the production of Olympic legacy over the medium and long term. The focus of the research was upon the urban governmental practices and reforms that have been undertaken in each city. The research found that the four cities have different post-Games legacy trajectories. However, a number of trends emerged across the different cases, including: the centrality of community development to post-Games venue management, the relationship between hosting models and legacy outcomes, the emergence of trusts and foundations within the legacy project, the tendency for legacy to become site specific over time, and the importance of localised governmental structures to the project of legacy governance. The report ends with a series of conclusions and recommendations.
Key words: Olympic legacy, governance, urban, case studies, geography
2 Executive Summary
The issue of legacy has moved to the centre of the Olympic agenda (IOC, 2013). This research project examined how four different host cities – Atlanta (1996), Sydney (2000), Salt Lake City (2002) and Vancouver (2010) – have engaged with legacy over the medium and long term. The research project involved the conducting of semi- structured interviews and document collection in all four host cities. Interviewees were engaged in some aspect of post-Games management.
The time period covered in the research captured the growing importance of legacy within the Olympic movement. Earlier case studies (i.e. Atlanta and Sydney) had no explicit mention of “legacy” in their bid books. However, the latest Games covered (i.e. Vancouver) saw legacy at the centre of the bidding and hosting activities. This stated earlier Olympic Games did explicitly set out programs that would create beneficial outcomes for the host city. The period covered in the research should therefore be understood as a time within which legacy discourse and programs became formalized.
The research project generated five key findings: (a) that community development often accompanies successful legacy projects; (b) that forms of legacy management are related and reflective of local governance structures; (c) that trusts and foundations are becoming a critically important vehicle for legacy generation; (d) that legacy tends to coalesce into specific sites over time; and (e) that variation in legacy objectives and outcomes is often connected to the particular hosting and governance models employed in the host city. Whereas legacy goals are consistent within IOC guidelines and bidding city documents (e.g. to improve environment, generate social services, boost sports participation), methods of legacy management vary greatly. This likely makes it more difficult for cities to share knowledge relating to legacy management when compared with knowledge relating to preparation and hosting of the Olympics.
The research project’s conclusions are fourfold. First, the research found that legacy management and governance is evolving over time in all the case study cities. This change over time varies according to the capacity of institutions that are charged with legacy governance. Second, legacy management is deeply intertwined with local governance processes. This emphasises the necessary distinction between (a) bidding and hosting the Games, and (b) managing the long-term impacts of the Olympics. Third, over time certain spaces tend to become associated with Olympic legacy. This creates both opportunities and challenges for managing authorities. Fourth, the key innovations in terms of legacy management are the trust and foundation. The establishment and organisation of trusts and foundations remains in its early stages, yet the vehicle does promise to have much wider application.
3 Acknowledgements
This research was made possible by the following individuals and organisations:
- The International Olympic Committee provided funding to support this research. At the International Olympic Committee, I would like to particularly thank Nuria Puig and Laïla Savary Gintzburger for all their assistance. The entire staff at the Olympic Studies Centre was a pleasure to work with and provided much needed help with the Swiss fieldwork. - All of the interviewees, and the many people that assisted with setting up interviews, were critical to making this project work. I am always so encouraged by how willing people are to take time out of their busy schedules to assist with academic research. I hope this report goes some small way to recognising their labour. - The administration of this grant was assisted throughout by Pamela Dunkle at the Marsh Institute at Clark University. She is truly a master of this art. - A great deal of work in this report was assisted by Renee Tapp. It was a pleasure to have Renee’s assistance with the research; she is one of the smartest and most dedicated graduate students I have worked with at Clark University. A great deal of thanks is also due to the School of Geography at Clark University, who provided the Piper Fellowship in order that Renee could work as my research assistant on this project.
4 Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Acknowledgements
1 Introduction
2 Research Project 2.1 Introduction to Olympic Legacy 2.2 Critical Considerations of Legacy 2.3 Project’s Contribution to Academic Knowledge 2.4 Previous Academic Literature 2.5 Relevance of the study proposal to IOC priority fields of research 2.6 Methodology
3 Results, Conclusions and Recommendations 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Legacy Governance in Atlanta 3.3 Legacy Governance in Sydney 3.4 Legacy Governance in Salt Lake City 3.5 Legacy Governance in Vancouver
4 Analysis 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Key Findings 4.3 Conclusions 4.4 Recommendations
5 Bibliography
5 1 Introduction
The success of any Olympic Games is increasingly defined by legacy outcomes. The legacy of the Olympics has various dimensions, including a necessity to generate local economic benefits from the Games (i.e. provide a return on investment for host cities/regions), the necessity to provide tangible infrastructure and amenity gains for host cities (i.e. have material improvements for citizens to enjoy, often beyond the scope of sporting facilities), and the necessity of the Games to provide environmental improvements in the form of transformed urban environments and reformed institutional and policy arrangements (i.e. the achievement of broader urban policy-related outcomes). This study examined the institutional and policy reforms and innovations that have been required within four host cities to ensure legacy pledges are fulfilled.
This study proceeded with the hypothesis that host cities require continual efforts to implement Olympic legacy goals. In short, city and regional governments must respond to changing economic, political and environmental conditions as a matter of course and, consequently, Olympic legacy goals have to be maintained in varying and often unpredictable contexts. Furthermore, city and regional governments must work with their constituent populations to ensure legacy goals are clearly articulated whilst also being coherently situated within a broader set of evolving governmental and policy concerns (Burbank et al. 2001). The realisation of games-related legacy outcomes is constantly a work in progress.
This study examined four recent host cities (Atlanta [1996], Sydney [2000], Salt Lake City [2002], Vancouver [2010]) to identify and compare the institutional and policy changes that have been generated in order that the city pursue and realise legacy objectives. The study identified (a) what legacy-related goals have required innovation in policies and/or institutions, (b) the types of reforms that have proven particularly effective in maintaining the bid pledges of the host city and (c) the process of policy formation related to legacy evolution. The research therefore serves as a resource for recent and future host cities in understanding how other cities have generated positive legacy outcomes and illustrates the institutional and policy mechanisms they have used to achieve these gains. In addition, the research informs academic knowledge on Olympic legacies, the broader impacts of mega-events on city and regional governance, and the circulation and transferability of certain urban governance and policy approaches.
6 2 Research Project
2.1 Introduction to Olympic Legacy
Over the past 30 years, the issue of legacy has become pronounced within the Olympic movement. Olympic legacy has multiple dimensions (MacAloon, 2008) and must therefore be disaggregated. In 2013, the IOC outlined its own interpretation of legacy. The report begins with the quotation from former IOC President Jacques Rogge:
“Creating sustainable legacies is a fundamental commitment of the Olympic Movement. Every city that hosts the Olympic Games becomes a temporary steward of the Olympic Movement. It is a great responsibility. It is also a great opportunity. Host cities capture worldwide attention. Each has a once-in-a- lifetime chance to showcase the celebration of the human spirit. And each creates a unique set of environmental, social and economic legacies that can change a community, a region, and a nation forever.” (2)
The passage is insightful not only because it includes a basic taxonomy of “legacy” (i.e. environmental, social and economic) but also because it situates the idea of legacy within broader trends in urban development. In particular, it is worth considering how the issues of sustainability and globalization are entangled with Olympic legacy (also see IOC, 1999).
Sustainability has become a staple term within urban development across much of the globe (Alberti, 1999; Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005; Satherthwaite, 1999). The term sustainability is often connected to climate change and environmental degradation. However its applications now extend far beyond this. At a basic level, the term sustainability refers to the idea that development should have long term objectives that avoid temporary and/or finite benefits. The seminal 1987 Brundtland Commission Report, Our Common Future, made the following connection:
“But the “environment” is where we all live; and “development” is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode. The two are inseparable. Further, development issues must be seen as crucial by the political leaders who feel that their countries have reached a plateau towards which other nations must strive. Many of the development paths of the industrialized nations are clearly unsustainable. And the development decisions of these countries, because of their great economic and political power, will have a profound effect upon the ability of all peoples to sustain human progress for generations to come.” (United Nations, 1987: 7)
Sustainability can therefore be interpreted as a particular approach to development. Given development can take many forms (i.e. environmentally destructive, socially damaging, culturally degrading, economically divisive), the goal of sustainable
7 development centres on the production of a development path that has a productive and ethical future.
The pursuit and commitment to such a future has become more necessary in the context of climate change. Put simply, the stakes of not choosing a sustainable development pathway are dramatic: they range from disruptive weather events, through to declining development and the extinction of multiple species (Solomon et al. 2007). At a global and local level, it has therefore become critical that sustainability has been placed at the centre of economic and urban development policy. Cities must become more sustainable if they are to serve their constituent populations, carry out (democratic) ethical commitments and remain economically competitive (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005).
The idea of legacy, as the quotation from Jacques Rogge above indicates, must be understood within this context. The outcome of the Games must, it is now argued, conform to the objectives of sustainability. That is, Olympic legacies should work towards to production of spaces and societies that have an ethically guided multi- generational future. This, of course, leaves much more to be said: What kinds of ethics are appropriate? How do we define multi-generational? How do we assess what multi- generational impacts are? The list of questions certainly goes on. At this point, it is sufficient to simply state that Olympic legacy is not divorced from broader transformations within global governance.
This point brings us to the other contextual component of Jacque Rogge’s statement: globalization. The statement characterises the Olympics as a temporary event that captures worldwide attention and presents the host city with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. As a description of the Olympics in the contemporary era, this serves as a concise definition. The Summer and Winter Olympics are held every four years, they now gather worldwide attention via global media and those cities that host the Games are unlikely to see the event return. This form of Olympiad has emerged along with broader transformations in the global economy and society (Appadurai, 1996; Castells, 1999; Sassen, 1996). With cities now competing to attract investment – in its various forms – the Olympics, and the mega-event more generally, has become an important tool in urban and national development (Law, 1994): “Mega-events have assumed a key role in urban and regional tourism marketing and promotion as well as wider urban and regional development strategies.” (Hall, 2006: 59; also see Davis and Thornley, 2010; Zhang and Zhao, 2009).
There are many consequences of this incorporation of the Olympics into global urban development processes (Cashman and Hughes, 1999; Cochrane et al. 1996; Preuss, 2004; Roche, 2000). Two consequences are worth noting in the context of this report. First, the bidding and hosting of the Olympics is an intensely competitive process that demands cities push the limits of event-related development. As cities try to generate a competitive advantage over other bidding cities, they often promise a more spectacular event, greater developmental benefits and grander legacy outcomes (Clark, 2008; Toohey and Veal, 2007). Second, the transformation of the Olympics into a global
8 media event has meant the presentational opportunity of the Games has become more significant. For example, the opportunity afforded by the opening ceremony of the Games is akin to a film-length advertisement for the host city and nation. This fleeting opportunity is short-lived and therefore taking advantage of the moment demands significant effort and expenditure.
This example signals to the ways in which the goals of sustainability and globalization can often come into conflict. Indeed, the role of legacy in the Olympic movement can be seen as an attempt to resolve the central contradiction of the mega-event: that a context of globalization demands significant investment in the short-term attention grabbing moment and sustainability demands this moment becomes transformed into long-term, even multi-generational, development benefits.
In order to facilitate this resolution process, the IOC’s Olympic Legacy (IOC, 2013) is separated into five components:
Sporting Legacy: “By playing host to one of the world’s biggest sporting events, Olympic host cities have the opportunity to provide lasting sporting legacies that help promote and develop sport not only in the host city itself, but also in the host region and host country” (9) Social Legacies: “Culture and education have always been an integral part of the Olympic Games. Indeed, the fundamental principles of Olympism embrace education, respect for ethical principles, human dignity, mutual understanding, the spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play, while rejecting all forms of racial, religious, political and gender discrimination” (14) Environmental Legacies: “Over the last 20 years, sustainability has become an increasingly important consideration when staging the Olympic Games… The Olympic Movement’s Agenda 21 aims to encourage members of the Olympic Family to play an active part in the sustainable development of the planet. It sets out the basic concepts and general actions needed to ensure that this objective is met” (19) Urban Legacies: “The Olympic Games is the biggest event that a city is ever likely to stage and host cities therefore require significant infrastructure in order to successfully manage the large influx of visitors that the Games attract, with transport, accommodation and the overall look of the city among the priorities for organisers and public authorities” (25) Economic Legacies: “With a potential global audience of billions, the Olympic Games are one of the biggest events in the world and, as they have grown in popularity and expanded in reach, the Games’ economic importance has increased too” (56)
From this disaggregation of Olympic legacy, it is clear that the production of a positive long-term outcome is a complex and multi-faceted task for any host city (Gratton and Preuss, 2008; Hiller, 2002). Indeed, the disaggregation also points to the fact that not all legacy objectives might be congruous (Hiller, 2006). For example, the production of
9 positive economic outcomes for the Games can be detrimental to environmental and social outcomes (Chappelet, 2010).
The IOC (2013) also distinguishes between tangible and intangible legacies. Tangible legacies relate primarily to the transformations of the built environment required when hosting the Games. Intangible legacies include “an increased sense of national pride, new and enhanced workforce skills, a “feel good” spirit among the host country’s population or the rediscovery of national culture and heritage and an increased environmental awareness and consciousness” (IOC, 2013: 9). This distinction signals to the problem of measuring and assessing legacy. Even in the context of tangible legacies, it can be difficult to generate an assessment. For example, the economic return on any Olympic infrastructure is very difficult to calculate given the fact that any city’s economy is always in a process of transformation. Just how much a specific Olympic-related investment impacts the local economy is therefore hard to identify. Things become even more difficult to measure when intangibles are considered. Although few question whether the Olympics generate a festive atmosphere in the host city, just how much the intangible impacts of the Games continue after the closing ceremony is hard to gauge.
Olympic legacy is therefore far from simple to understand. As the IOC itself argues, Olympic legacy is a multi-faceted thing and requires a great deal of intervention:
“However positive legacy does not simply happen by itself. It needs to be carefully planned and embedded in the host city’s vision from the earliest possible stage and integrated within the project at every step. Delivering legacy also requires strong partnerships between city leaders, the Games organisers, regional and national authorities, local communities, commercial partners and, of course, all members of the Olympic Family: the IOC, National Olympic Committees and International Sports Federations” (IOC, 2013: 66)
Furthermore legacy takes radically different forms; all of which makes it difficult to precisely track and measure legacy as a singular phenomenon. However, the imperative that Olympic legacy be taken seriously has never been greater. Economic and urban development processes face unprecedented challenges, particularly in respect to climate change. These challenges have been embedded within the Olympic Movement as the IOC attempts to utilise the Games for an extending list of humanitarian reasons (IOC, 2007).
2.2 Critical Considerations of Olympic Legacy
Within the academic literature, there has been a great deal of debate over the long-term legacies of mega-events, including the Olympics. It is widely acknowledged that the hosting of a mega-event represents a substantial speculative investment, usually, but not always, on behalf of the state (Harvey, 1989; Vigor, 2004). This situation has given
10 rise to an extensive set of debates that is united by a concern over whether public investments in large-scale events represent an acceptable use of taxpayer monies (Lenskyj, 2002; Newman, 2007). These questions have only become more pronounced over the past three decades since many governments across the globe have rolled back state-based welfare programs (Peck and Tickell, 2002).
Matheson (2004; 2009) has claimed that the measures used to assess the economic benefit of hosting mega-events often cause the over-statement of benefit. Two methods of calculating multiplier effects are used by economists and, Matheson claims, the economic outcome of hosting the mega-event will look different depending on which method you employ. A critical distinction Matheson (2004) makes is that some methods of analysis will inevitably overstate how much economic benefit has been received by the host population:
“Mega-events are characterized by high utilization rates and increased prices for tourism related industries. While labor may benefit to some extent through increases in hours worked or higher tips, the main recipient of this windfall is likely to be business owners. Expenditures in industries dominated by nationally- owned chains such as large hotels, rental car agencies, and airlines, and to a lesser extent motels, restaurants, and general retailers may rise significantly due to a mega-event, but local incomes will not increase substantially. Since the benefits accrue to non-local capital owners leading to higher than normal leakages of income, the money generated from these events is unlikely to recirculate through the economy, and any multipliers applied are therefore probably inflated.” (8)
This critique is connected to the funding models used for the Games. If the city and regional government (i.e. taxpayers who reside in the host region) are the major funding agencies for the Games, then an economic impact that distributes most of the economic benefits of the mega-event beyond the city and/or regional might therefore be criticised for being economically extractive. However the same criticism might not apply to an Olympics such as Atlanta (1996), where the major funding agencies were private corporations. Assessing the economic outcome of any mega-event must therefore not only consider the method of economic impact measurement, but also the way in which the event was funded from a geographical perspective.
Other criticism has been directed at the disparity that often exists between the planned and actual expenditures associated with the mega-event (Flyvbjerg and Stewart, 2012). Mega-events, such as the Olympics, are huge undertakings for the host city. Not only do they often involve the construction of many new sporting facilities – some of which are constructed in innovative ways – but also major infrastructure projects are folded into the event preparation. The latter might involve the construction of roads, railways or utility infrastructure. As multiple large projects are undertaken at the same time, the stresses placed upon the governmental structure of any city are therefore large. It is perhaps unsurprising that most mega-events overrun their expenditure budgets. In their recent study of Olympic budgets, Flyvbjerg and Stewart (2012) found the following:
11 “With an average cost overrun in real terms of 179 per cent – and 324 per cent in nominal terms – overruns in the Games have historically been significantly larger than for other types of megaprojects, including infrastructure, construction, ICT, and dams. The data thus show that for a city and nation to decide to host the Olympic Games is to take on one of the most financially risky type of megaproject that exists, something that many cities and nations have learned to their peril.” (3)
There is no consensus on what, in particular, causes mega-events to run over their budgeted costs with such frequency.
Beyond economics and financial sustainability, critical considerations of Olympic legacy have been more tempered. Attention has often been paid towards how hosting the Olympics impacts sports participation. The Olympics leave behind a rich legacy of elite sporting venues, often providing facilities that simply would never have been constructed without the hosting of the Games. However, many have pointed towards the challenge of converting interest in the Olympics during the event to ongoing participation in sports after the event. In their study of sports participation development prior to the London Olympics, Girginov and Hills (2008; 2009) claimed that multiple difficulties were experienced in terms of coordinating a connection between elite sports and popular sports. Difficulties were particularly faced with respect to coordinating activities between the responsible institutions:
“Achieving sustainable sports participation remains attainable, but the IOC and the UK government are the two powerful organizations that can exercise considerable influence over the framing of sustainable Olympic sports development legacy by placing it on the agenda and by channeling collective efforts and resources effectively. This has not been the case to date.” (Girginov and Hills, 2008: 229).
The problem of sporting legacy generation is here made one of inter-governmental and inter-institutional coordination.
The two areas of Olympic legacy that have also seen criticism are environmental and urban legacy (Li and McCabe, 2013; Minnaert, 2012). Particularly since Sydney’s 2000 Games was dubbed “the First Green Games” (see Chalkley and Essex, 1999) the hosting of the Olympics has become a mechanism through which to drive better environmental practices into the urban process (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005). Sydney’s Olympic Park was regenerated from a highly polluted brownfield site and turned into an urban parklands that now attracts over three million visitors a year. Some of the remediation techniques developed at the park to deal with contaminated soils and leachate have now become common practice at the global scale. In Vancouver, the organising committee wanted to demonstrate cutting-edge sustainable practices in residential construction. In the athlete village on False Creek a host of new construction and energy and water management techniques were practiced. Although the
12 development ran into significant financial problems, the residential developments have left a substantial environmental legacy in Vancouver.
With respect to urban legacy, the most recent Games have become a practice ground for new construction and adaptation techniques. At the London’s 2012 Games, a number of facilities were designed to be down-sized or deconstructed after the Games. Such innovations require new financing and construction techniques to be developed and the hosting of the mega-event appears to be an appropriate venue in which to attempt such innovations.
Although the multi-faceted character of Olympic legacy has developed and responded to social and political change, it is therefore consistently subjected to critical scrutiny. The most severe criticism is targeted to the financial costs associated with the Olympics. For many, the large costs of hosting the event do not generate sufficient benefits (Andranovich and Burbank, 2011; Harvey, 1989). In some respect, the ongoing commitment to legacy management in many cities can be viewed as an attempt to respond to this criticism. Hosting an event like the Olympics is not only a massive expenditure it is also a huge intervention into the urban process. It is therefore unsurprising that such interventions demand persistent and ongoing efforts to sustain and develop legacy pledges. This research project attempts to better understand this process and generate insights into how other cities might generate greater benefits from hosting Olympic competitions.
2.3 Project’s contribution to academic knowledge
This research project aimed to investigate how host cities manage Olympic legacy over the medium and long-term. The project separated this investigation into three sections. These are:
1. Inform debate on the legacy outcomes of Olympic Games: the issue of legacy continues to grow in significance. It is now common to assume that the Olympics will generate significant economic, social, cultural and environmental benefits. Much of the literature on games-related legacies focuses on those objectives generated in bids and immediate post-games legacy tasks (e.g. facility conversions). This research provided the first cross-city comparative assessment of how recent host cities have innovated within pre-existing governance systems to maintain and enhance legacy pledges. It therefore generates an account of legacy production as a dynamic and evolving process from within city and regional governments.
The research conducted in the project investigated the post-Games management of legacy in four different Olympic cities. As such, a varied set of post-Games periods were examined:
13 Atlanta: 1996-2015 (nineteen years since the Games): The 1996 Summer Olympics took place in Atlanta, Georgia (USA). The Games occurred from July 19th through to August 4th. 197 nations were represented at the Games and 10,318 athletes competed. Atlanta had been selected at the 1996 Olympic host at the 96th IOC Session held in Tokyo, Japan. It is estimated that it cost $US1.8bn to stage the games. The funding model for the Atlanta Games was derived from the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games (Dyreson and Llewellyn, 2008). The majority of the Games funding came from commercial sponsorship and ticket sales. Public funds were used to improve public infrastructure, create Centennial Olympic Park, expand the airport and redevelop housing. The majority of the Games’ venues and events were held within a three mile “Olympic Ring in the centre of Atlanta. However, a number of events were distributed across the Southeast United States.
Sydney: 2000-2015 (fifteen years since the Games): The 2000 Summer Olympics took place in Sydney, New South Wales (Australia). They occurred between the 15th September and 1st October 2000. It was the second time Australia had hosted the Olympics, with Melbourne, Victoria, hosting the 1956 Games. Sydney had been selected as the millennial host in 1993 (101st IOC Session, Monte Carlo, Monaco). 199 nations were represented at the Games with 10,651 athletes competing. The estimated cost of the Games was $AU6.6bn. The net cost to the public taxpayer was stated at between $AU1.7bn and $AU2.4bn. The majority of Olympic venues were located in Homebush Bay in Western Sydney. This is situated 16 kilometres to the west of Sydney’s Central Business District. The site had previously been used for a range of industrial purposes, including brick manufacture, abattoir and armaments depot. The site was therefore in need of significant remediation before the 2000 Olympics.
Salt Lake City: 2002-2015 (thirteen years since the Games): The 2002 Winter Olympics were held in Salt Lake City, Utah (United States). The 2002 Winter Olympics took place between the 8th February and 24th February 2002. Salt Lake City had been selected as the 2002 Olympic host city at the 104th IOC Session in Budapest, Hungary. Salt Lake City had previously come second behind Nagano, Japan, in the competition to host the 1998 Winter Olympics. 78 nations were represented at the 2002 Games and 2,399 athletes competed. The total costs of the Games was estimated at $US2bn, with the taxpayer contributing $US600m. The initial cost of the Games had been estimated at $US1.2bn. The venues for the Salt Lake City Olympics were largely divided between Salt Lake City and the neighbouring mountain region of Park City. The Games therefore had a regional presence as opposed to being concentrated in Salt Lake City.
Vancouver: 2010-2015 (five years since the Games): The 2010 Winter Olympics were held in Vancouver, British Columbia (Canada). The Games took place between February 12th and February 28th 2010. Vancouver had been selected as the 2010 host at the 115th IOC Session held in Prague, Czech Republic. The other two competing cities were Pyeongchang (South Korea) and Salzburg (Austria). A total of 82 nations were represented at the Games and 2,566 athletes competed in 86 events. The final audited cost of the Games was $CDN1.84bn. The majority of funding ($CDN1.76bn) came from non-governmental sources. However, $CDN580m of taxpayer monies was
14 used to renovate a number of Olympic venues. The Olympic venues were distributed across metropolitan Vancouver and in the neighbouring mountain resort of Whistler. A number of Vancouver’s existing sporting and entertainment venues were renovated as part of the Games preparation.
Each case was examined individually in terms of its legacy objectives, post-Games planning and institutional innovations. In this analysis a categorisation of each case was undertaken, providing a basis of comparative analysis. This analysis has served to provide the empirical basis for a number of academic publications (currently in early stages of preparation). The outline of these publications – and therefore specific academic contributions – is presented below:
Contribution One - Cross-case comparison of mega-event legacy: The research revealed that Olympic legacy across the four case study cities varies on two principle axis: (a) the relation between event organisation and legacy and; (b) the relation between state management and legacy. Although consistency exists across legacy objectives (including IOC guidance and indigenous commitments to fiscal viability) the extent and ongoing management of legacy varied substantially across the cases. The four cases revealed that the organising of the Games (formation of the organising agency) and the funding model trace forward into legacy commitments. As such, certain forms of legacy become more pronounced than others, and some legacy commitments recede into other organisational remits.
The second axis focuses on the role of the state in managing a commitment to legacy. This often involved a potential contradiction between legacy pledges. Where fiscal sustainability was a central priority in the immediate post-Games period, an ongoing commitment to legacy is more difficult to identity. The achievement of the various parts of legacy therefore often requires a balancing of objectives that are connected with general types of policy-making. For example, in Atlanta a policy of property transfer was employed after the Games. This saw many facilities quickly transition into private ownership and therefore any coordination of legacy – which was not particularly significant in the Atlanta bid – was made very difficult. This contrasts to the experience in Sydney, where post-Games management of the Olympic Park has received an ongoing funding commitment from the New South Wales State Government. Although the governance model has involved reductions in state support, the persistent presence of the Sydney Olympic Park Authority has meant various legacy pledges have been managed over time; with environmental and social sustainability goals operating alongside economic sustainability objectives. The paper therefore finds that legacy is tied to institutional and political structures, with some cities more able to maintain an ongoing concern with legacy outcomes than others.
Contribution Two - Legacy as an evolving category: The cross-city comparison of long-term legacy management revealed that legacy, and specific legacy commitments, are often subject to change over time. This evolution is due to a number of factors. First, bid-related legacy commitments are often expressions of the political and economic climate. Over time, commitments made during the bidding phase must be realigned with
15 other commitments that are given more social and political significance. Second, the management of legacy – something which can remain linked to state funding commitments – often depends on the economic and fiscal context. Where Olympic related urban developments are passed into post-Games usage, the legacy management of these developments becomes more fragmented. Third, developmental pressures mean that Olympic developments that made significant legacy pledges (e.g. Sydney) are now becoming subject to new demands. This signals to a longer-term management problem associated with Olympic legacy, where the achievement of Olympic-related objectives precipitates an integration of Olympic precincts into the everyday urban fabric.
As the size of the Olympics increases, a more substantial incorporation of temporality into legacy planning might be required. A staging of legacy maturation is occurring in cities such as Sydney and Vancouver. Whereas Atlanta’s engagement with legacy was a largely one-stage process of transference and incorporation, more recent Games seem to be seeing an initial intermediary management phase (i.e. the five to ten year period after the Games) and then a long-term incorporative phase (i.e. ten years after the Games and beyond) where the exceptionalism of Olympic development and facilities necessitates some governmental action, even in the context of Olympic facilities/spaces finding an appropriate post-Games use. This paper therefore seeks to develop the conceptual frameworks related to legacy in such a way that incorporates an understanding of how legacies are maturing.
2. Identification of the particular policies that are generated related to mega-events: As cities have to compete to attract the investments necessary to produce vibrant economies, there has been a parallel demand on the part of cities to gain the knowledge required to produce successful development strategies. As such, there has been much recent academic debate on policy mobilities. This research examined how host cities developed policies after the completion of the Games in order to deliver legacy outcomes. Particular attention was paid towards how the international bidding process related to the more embedded production of legacy. The research also identified how cities engaged with policy formation/implementation in other cities and regions to inform their own work.
Contribution Three - Legacy management as embedded: While the bidding and hosting of the Olympics is an international process, the long-term management of legacy remains an embedded urban governance process. Pre-Games planning is responsible for setting up much of the initial governance structure relating to Olympic urban legacies (e.g. governing authorities, trusts, oversight committees, foundations). In each case study site, it was revealed that these initial structures – and related policies – are subject to countless developments and innovations. These processes remain deeply embedded within local governance structures, and usually confined to certain groups of professionals. This reflects the existing literature on policy mobilities, where it is recognised that certain governance models move between places, but also that they are transformed in their local application. By examining these applications, this research reflects on what models have, and have not, been applicable in various circumstances.
16 Three of the most significant models of legacy management innovation are examined: (a) governmental authority; (b) foundations/trust and (c) privatisation. In terms of governmental organization, the only case study with an ongoing development authority overseeing the Olympic development is Sydney. However, within this structure the other forms of legacy management – foundations and privatisation – have been attempted with varying degrees of success. In Atlanta much of the Olympic facilities have been privatised or managed by privately-operated entities. In Salt Lake City and Vancouver, the use of foundations and trusts has been a significant feature of legacy management. The paper reflects on the relationship that each of these arrangements has to the funding structure of the Games and the ability of policymakers to maintain legacy pledges.
3. Enhance knowledge of how event-led urban development impacts modes and mechanisms of urban governance: the enactment of a mega-event, such as the Olympics, has significant impacts upon the host city. This is most evident during the Games, when the scale of the event demands the city interrupts its normal operation. However, it is also clear that the hosting of the Olympics changes the institutions, aspirations and policies of cities. This paper examines the long-term governmental impacts of hosting the Games. The research sought to demonstrate how the continued need to manage and maintain legacies impacts the ongoing, and often more mundane, issues of urban governance. As such, the paper demonstrates and evaluates the ways in which legacy governance is integrated with non-event governance. A central objective of the research in this respect was to identify particularly successful models of policy and institutional change in order that the project enables cross-city learning.
Contribution Four - The interaction between spectacular and everyday governance: Hosting the Olympics represents a dramatic interruption to the everyday governance of the city. Various factors contribute to this exceptionalism: number of visitors, media presence, security concerns, event logistics, and so on (Toohey and Taylor, 2012). In the post-Games period, the spectacular is folded back into the everyday. As such, the idea of transition has become critical to post-Games planning. This study revealed a number of different approaches to post-Games transition. Three models are suggested: (a) immediate divestment; (b) managed divestment and (b) state management. The first model involves the transfer of most Olympics-related urban developments into new ownership and management, usually with a reliance on private market actors. The second model, one that has emerged more recently, involves Games-related revenues being funnelled into trusts and foundations that operate under the remit of Games- related policies. In the third model state and/or city government remains central in the incorporation of the spectacular into the everyday. This process usually involves a much more staged transition of Games-related developments into the everyday working of the city.
The paper to be developed out of this framework examines how different approaches to managing spectacular spaces create certain governmental demands. In places where immediate divestment takes place, governmental challenges do not cease, they simply become transformed into different challenges. Where managed divestment takes place,
17 attempts to transfer sites into everyday usage have required a set of institutional partnerships that are often regionally specific. Finally, state management involves an attempt to maintain the spectacular functions of Olympic spaces. This linking of the spectacular with the everyday has generated new urban planning approaches that are significantly under examined. This paper therefore seeks to schematically set out the various pathways available for cities to incorporate their mega-event spaces into the everyday urban fabric.
2.4 Previous Academic Literature
The study of Olympic legacy is now well established within the urban studies literature. This literature can be divided into four inter-related elements: theories, productions, assessments and governance of legacy. Collectively, the study of Olympic legacy from the urban perspective has involved an ongoing attempt to assess the numerous ways in which the Olympic Games are intended to and actually impact their host cities and regions.
Theories of legacy: The idea of Olympic legacy, or the legacies of mega-events more generally, has evolved over time. Shoval (2002) claims that Olympic legacy has changed as the nature of the Games has evolved. The first stage of legacy is located in the 1851-1936 period, when the Olympics developed from being an associate of the World’s Fair into an independent event used to project national achievement and power. The legacy of such events resided in the ability of the sporting event to elevate national identity. In the subsequent period, 1948-1984, the IOC encouraged cities to bid. The Games represented a significant investment, particularly before the advent of global television broadcasting (ibid.). Essex and Chalkley (1998) claim the production of symbolic sporting venues was a central mechanism for hosting nations to project an image of themselves across the globe during this period.
As many studies have suggested, the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games were a significant transition point for the Olympic movement. The third stage of Shoval’s (2002) periodisation therefore runs from 1984 to 2000: “This period is characterized by more frenzied bidding as cities of all sizes sought to upgrade their national and international structure” (Andranovich and Burbank, 2011: 825). The success of the 1984 Olympics therefore made the Games into a large prize for potential host cities. The Games had become a vehicle of urban and regional growth strategies. The fourth and current stage of the Games begins in 2000 with the Sydney Olympics. Now the Olympics represent a tourist and cultural event, in addition to an urban development strategy (Dansero and Puttilli, 2010). With the growth of tourism into one of the world’s largest economic sectors, the Games can be used to attract visitors and circulate attractive images of your city/region (also see Essex and Chalkley, 2007).
18 Olympic legacy is therefore now much more substantive than in its initial iterations. Cities such as Barcelona, Sydney and Beijing have used the Olympics as a device to change their metropolitan landscapes and economies (Kirkup and Major, 2006):
“[In these cities,] the Olympics facilitated highway and mass transit development, airport expansion, urban redevelopment and regeneration, expansion of tourist and cultural facilities, and parks and beautification programs. The urban impacts are so extensive that Essex and Chalkley (1998, p. 202) conclude that “the scale of investment required for the Games has become so great that it might be argued that the concept of sport as a means of spiritual renewal has given way to sport as a means of urban renewal”” (Andranovich and Burbank, 2011: 825)
This evolution of Olympic legacy has meant that the purpose of hosting the Olympics has changed dramatically over time, and that the Olympics function as part of a broader set of economic and urban restructuring processes: “Bidding for and hosting the Olympics can help metropolitan regions respond to and reposition in a changing global political economy, but a city’s response does not guarantee broad-based material benefits” (ibid. 839). As a response to this transformation, the IOC now requires cities to prepare long-term planning strategies that deal with the wide ranging impacts of hosting the Games.
Although those involved in the bidding for an Olympic Games support the core goals of the Olympic movement, the status of the Games as a policy mechanism puts a significant amount of emphasis on non-sporting outcomes. Olympic legacy can therefore be said to have two basic components: (a) the production of social and cultural legacy through national sporting competition (Glynn, 2008) and (b) the production of economic benefit through the use of a global sporting competition to generate urban and regional economic growth (Clark, 2008).
This theorisation of Olympic legacy as evolving and multi-faceted has generated a set of debates over how legacy should be classified (Agha et al., 2012; Cashman, 1998). The difficulty of agreeing upon a conceptualisation of legacy is related to a variety of issues. For some, it is difficult to connect the legacy goals outlined in bid books to the various and complex projects that get implemented in order to host the Games (Andranovich and Burbank, 2011). For others, the legacies of the Games are hard to trace since they range from the spectacular (i.e. grand Olympic stadia) to the mundane (i.e. community cohesion and school programs) (Brown, 2004). At present there is no standard for understanding about what the extent and limits of Olympic legacy are.
Production of Legacy: The production of legacy is also a concern within urban studies. Here attention is focused on efforts to make legacy tangible (Ritchie, 2000). This literature examines how the goals set out in bid documents are actually produced by Olympics-related development. At the intersection of urban studies and tourism studies, some scholars have examined the ways in which city marketing has been important in generating economic and social legacies (Waitt, 1999). For example, Boukas et al. (2013) recently illustrated how the strategic planning and management of cultural
19 tourism activities in Athens has been pivotal in realising the reputational gains associated with hosting a successful Olympics. In Athens’ case, the Games enabled the city to build new facilities, transportation infrastructure, establish a global image of the city and develop local stocks of human capital. Yet a lack of strategic planning and management meant many of the assets generated through the Games have never realised their potential (also see Gospodini, 2009; Kasimati and Dawson, 2009; Kissoudi, 2008). Others have documented how the hosting of the Olympics and generation of legacies is closely bound up with city branding and marketing activities (Gold and Gold, 2008). Here, the failure to incorporate effective branding efforts alongside investments in the Games has been seen as critical in the realisation of both short-term and long-term legacy outcomes (see Levine, 2003).
The production of legacy, that is the realisation of legacy planning, is therefore a concern of its own. Predominantly in the academic literature, concern has centred on how marketing and tourism activities are used (or not) to take advantage of the promotional opportunity:
“Tourism enhancement is a key Olympic legacy. Leveraging the Games for tourism benefits requires new or enhanced organizational linkages and alliances – public and private, sport and tourism, tourism and event organisers, tourism and sponsors. Leveraging requires attention to flow-on tourism at the time of the Games, the effective use of media to position the country and its destinations, and to the strategic use of business-to-business relations” (Chalip, 2000: 11)
Here legacy must be activity produced and managed. This involves the transformation of the momentary spectacle of the Olympics into a much more sustained interest/engagement with the host city. In more recent Games, and particularly the London 2012 Olympics, the production of legacy has been a key concern of transitional authorities, where the job of administrators has been to capture the immediate benefits of the Games (e.g. global media attention) and push that into long-term strategies of economic growth and development.
Assessment of Legacy: In addition to these themes, a great deal of research has focused on the assessment of legacy outcomes. Given the complex ways in which large-scale investments impact cities, the measurement and assessment of Olympic legacy remains a difficult and much contested task (Leopkey and Parent, 2012). The hosting of an Olympics Games is one of the most sought after events to be pursued by governments. However, after a series of significant public debt crisis following the hosting of the Olympics, particularly in Montreal (Andranovich et al. 2001; Levine, 2003), the issue of legacy has moved to the centre of the Olympic bidding process and wider debates over the benefits of the Games (Gold and Gold, 2008, Newman, 2007).
As the legacies of the Olympics have become more diverse, the assessment of legacy has subsequently become multi-layered. Legacy must now be assessed, at the very least, in economic, social and environmental dimensions. In the post-2000 era, the issue of environmental legacies has become more and more pronounced within the
20 urban studies literature. However, economic outcomes remain a consistent concern, even if methods of assessment remain contested and no one approach is agreed upon to formulate an account of event-related investment return.
In the economics literature, there still remains debate over how best to measure the economic impacts of events such as the Olympics. Baade and Matheson (2000) outline two main approaches to assessing the economic impact of the Olympics: ex ante (i.e. prospective) and ex post (i.e. after the fact). In ex ante assessments the impact of the Games is estimated: “In the most sophisticated models, interrelationships among sectors of the economy are identified, and the overall impact of an event or project is calculated through “shocking” those sectors of the economy most directly affected by the estimated increase in expenditures associated with the event or project” (ibid.: 6). The major problem Baade and Matheson identify with this approach is that the multipliers entered into the economic models are often susceptible to political manipulation. For example, certain developments incorporated into the Games bid may be over-valued in terms of economic impact in order to ensure a certain type of development is undertaken. The other approach, ex post, “can serve as filters through which the hyperbole that may be present in some prospective economic impact estimates can be captured and eliminated” (ibid: 7). Here after-the-fact audits can be compared against initial forecasts. The problem with the ex post assessment for Baade and Matheson (ibid.) – other than the fact that monies have already been expended – is that oftentimes very few economic resources are directed towards this type of assessment.
In addition to economic legacy assessment, there are some studies of the social and cultural impacts associated with hosting the Olympics. In their study of sports participation after the Sydney 2000 Games, Veal et al. (2012) found that available data sources are usually insufficient for assessing whether the Olympics had a significant impact. This problem is compounded by the ongoing production of sporting competitions in large cities like Sydney. For example, the hosting of large rugby and athletics events can make it difficult to decipher the specific impacts of any particular event. As legacy management has evolved, the social and cultural impacts of the Games have also become more integrated into ongoing policy programs in host countries. In the London 2012 Games, the goals associated with sports participation within the bid were linked to the 2008 Sport England strategy (Charlton, 2010). Here the hosting of the Olympics had the impact of increasing expectations around growth in sports participation rates. How the hosting of the Games generated a sport participation legacy was, again, difficult to assess since the Olympic goals were paired with more sustained governmental efforts.
Governing Legacy: The final strand of legacy literature is related to efforts directed at understanding the ways in which the Olympics must be managed as an urban development event and the long-term implications of hosting on the governance of cities (Cashman, 2004). Literature on managing the Olympics reflects the general difficulties faced by cities in organising themselves to host a massive event for a short period of time. Cities must develop different modes of governance in order to accommodate this significant interruption. The governance of host cities is also impacted in the long-term.
21 With the creation of new infrastructure, the debt-financing of development, the establishment of new environmental management tasks, and the instigation of new social and community building programs, after the Games a broad range of new governance responsibilities are faced by the host city.
With the advent of the fourth stage of the Olympics (Shoval, 2002), the task of governing after the Games became more pronounced. The size and scale of Olympic related developments meant that the post-Olympics urban landscape requires significant management. In Sydney, the creation of Sydney Olympic Park as a 640 hectare redevelopment site caused the New South Wales State Government to create the Sydney Olympic Park Authority. This agency was, and remains, charged with managing the Olympic site after the games. Owen (2002) identifies a number of issues relating to the establishment of an authority to conduct legacy governance. These included the conflict between the need for the authority to be entrepreneurial (i.e. generate an attractive business environment) and democratic. From its inception, Sydney Olympic Park Authority served at the behest of the state planning authority and, as a consequence, there was little engagement between residents in surrounding communities and the authority (ibid.).
Girginov (2012) identified the development and extension of this top-down management in the London Olympics. Girginov claims that Olympic legacy is a “prospective concept” that involves a particular organisation of state, market and society. Four modes of governance/regulation are said to be involved in this: coercive, voluntarism, targeting and framework regulation. Across all of these government led approaches, Olympic governance remained a top-down process of engagement and managed participation. Girginov (ibid.) claims that this came at the expense of community based and informed strategies which might have been better able to generate the impacts that local residents’ desire.
The governance of legacy can therefore be seen to be evolving alongside the changing nature of the Games. As the Olympics have grown, the legacy objectives and outcomes have become more numerous and complex (Cashman, 1999). In response to this, hosting governments have had to devise new mechanisms and institutions in order to facilitate post-Games governance. For example, in Salt Lake City the Olympic organizers used surplus revenue to support managing foundations (Andranovich and Burbank, 2011). This approach created a degree of long-term financial security for facilities that would likely have faced a difficult transition to post-Games usage. In places such as Sydney (Owen, 2002) and London (Girginov, 2012), the task of managing post-Games governance has been impacted by the precinct-form and size of the Games. In both cases, statutory authorities have been formed to govern legacy. Academic commentators have often questioned the extent to which these authorities operate in a democratic manner, or whether they incorporate enough community representation.
This study seeks to make a number of contributions to these literatures. The study recognises that legacy is an emerging concept and governance problem. It also notes
22 that the existing literature indicates that different types of Olympics present different challenges. Within the North American context, the funding model of the Games operates differently than in Europe or Australia. Beyond the case studies in this research, funding models vary again. For example, the Beijing games operated very different budgets and reporting procedures than Sydney 2000 or Salt Lake City 2002 (Ong, 2002; Zhang and Zhao, 2007; 2009). As funding models differ, so do the associated governance mechanisms. The study also recognises that legacy might be understood differently from city to city, particularly since Olympic development often overlaps with pre-existing policy frameworks (Charlton, 2012). In each of study of Olympic legacy, it is therefore necessary to establish how the stated (and absent) legacy pledges of the Games relate to pre-existing policies and methods of policy evaluation.
The major contributions of this research project to the existing academic literature on Olympic legacy therefore involve:
The first cross-city comparative assessment of how legacy has been managed and evolved by city governments over the medium and long term. An attempt to identify how legacy evolves as it becomes incorporated into the general governance of cities and regions. An investigation of how host cities are learning from each other – or other mega- event hosting cities – in order to maximise long-term legacy outcomes.
Collectively these contributions seek to extend and deepen our understanding of the long-term governance challenges associated with different types of legacy. Although the research is sensitive to the differences between host cities, it is also the intent that the project will identify commonalities across the cases. As Andranovich and Burbank (2011) argue, there are many different interpretations of legacy and, therefore, assessment across different Olympic cities can present challenges. This research therefore focuses on contributing to the strand of previous Olympic research that conceptualises the Olympics as a major intervention into the urban development process (Shoval, 2002). With this entry point it is possible to develop an understanding of (a) how different legacy management initiatives trace onto different government arrangements, and (b) where sufficiently common urban management tasks exist that learning might be possible across different urban and national landscapes.
2.5 Relevance of the study proposal to IOC priority fields of research
The research project seeks to address IOC priority fields 1, 2 and 3 in the following ways:
Priority field 1: Bid and host cities – Key factors to ensure that staging the Olympic Games will remain attractive, feasible and sustainable for many cities and countries throughout the world.
23 As legacy outcomes have become an increasingly important factor in justifying the bidding and hosting of the Olympic Games, the successful implementation of legacy pledges is critical if the Games are to remain attractive and feasible. This research will examine what institutional and policy mechanisms cities have developed in order that legacy commitments are maintained and implemented. It is the intent that the comparative research will aid in constructing research reports that will inform current and future host cities on successful methods of legacy-related urban governance.
Findings: This research project has examined four attempts to generate an Olympic legacy for host cities. Across the four cases, there are a number of successes and ongoing challenges. Although it is clear that there is no one size fits all solution in terms of generating positive legacy outcomes, the study has demonstrated how certain governance structures are related to particular legacy outcomes and challenges. The study therefore contributes to Priority Field 1 by generating an account of how legacy can be considered in relation to governance arrangements. That is to say, legacy should not be thought of as something that is generated from pledges divorced from the governance context. Rather legacy should be formulated and managed from within the presiding governance arrangements.
Priority field 2: The Olympic Games as a platform for spreading the Olympic values worldwide – Roles and responsibilities of the Olympic Movement stakeholders and society’s perception.
The spreading of Olympic values requires that the Games are viewed as a contributor to positive social change. The issue of legacy has become increasingly important in this respect. The Games’ legacies are central to the instillation of Olympic values, not only in youth sport programs and in the promotion of friendship, solidarity and fair play, but also in environmental, economic and social improvement. This research identified and examined efforts to ensure legacy outcomes are maintained in host regions. It therefore informs our knowledge of how Olympic values become embedded in host cities through the continued commitment to legacy.
The research in this study focused on the urban development challenges related to legacy management. However this issue is intricately connected to Olympic values. Not only can failed legacy projects detract from Olympic values, the failure of urban development projects can also restrict the sporting and cultural legacies of the Games. This study identified a number of cases whereby innovations in urban governance has been central to the creation and maintenance of sporting legacy and by extension the spreading of Olympic values. Although this landscape of governance innovation is uneven, a survey of the cases can reveal a number of conclusions that can serve future and past host cities.
Priority field 3: Key factors in the engagement of the host city and country governing bodies and population to contribute to the success of the Olympic Games and a sustainable positive legacy.
24 The engagement of the host city and governing bodies in the creation of positive legacy is central to this project. The project is the first to compare how host cities have made institutional and policy innovations in order to ensure legacies remain positive. Based on prior research in Sydney, Australia, it is clear that creation and maintenance of legacy is an ongoing process, which demands the skilful meshing of Olympic values with other governmental demands and changes. Through an examination of how recent host cities have worked with their populations to carry out this task, the research aids in sharing information about successful projects and provides a resource for other cities who are working to incorporate mega-event development with other forms of development.
The generation of a positive legacy for the host city involves a series of initiatives across the host cities. While some of the case studies have stressed legacy more than others, in each case the engagement of governments with populations has been pivotal to post- Games management. This involves dealing with the citizenry in numerous ways: as voters, customers, tax payers etc. In particular, some of the Olympic venues studied have successful stories of post-Games usage. This research draws on the most notable examples to demonstrate how Olympic facilities were transitioned into highly regarded local and regional facilities. In each case, a number of institutional innovations have underlined a positive relationship with the host city’s various publics.
2.6 Methodology
This research project had three principle questions:
1. What legacy goals, in any, have required innovation in policies and/or institutions? 2. How have policy and/or institutional changes been formulated, and have certain ideas circulated inwards/outwards from the host city? 3. Of these policy and/or institutional changes, which are viewed as (un)successful?
In order to investigate these questions, the research project used two methods: documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews. These two methods were used across a series of fieldwork exercises as described below.
Case study selection: The case study cities were selected according to the following criteria:
1. Time has elapsed to ensure legacies are in the process of being governed; 2. The study includes both summer and winter Olympics; 3. Governance regimes are comparable and policy mobility between sites is possible.
The four case study sites that were selected were therefore: Atlanta (1996), Sydney (2000), Salt Lake City (2002) and Vancouver (2010). Although this selection captured a
25 wide variety of urban governance arrangements, there remains scope to explore legacy across other contexts. For example, the management of legacy governance in Sochi or Beijing would likely reveal how the challenges of ensuring positive post-Games legacies are quite distinct; particularly given how this study revealed a relationship with bid/host formation and legacy outcomes. Most notably, it will become necessary to study the London 2012 legacy in addition to the cases selected in this project. It was noted by many informants to this research that London’s organizers had studied post-Games planning in all of the cities, but particularly in Sydney. It is likely that London represents something of an amalgamation of legacy innovations from previous host cities. In terms of generating transferable legacy governance recommendations, a long-term study of London will build on the work presented here.
Archival research: Document collection: The IOC library in Lausanne was used to prepare a classification and categorisation of legacy goals and objectives incorporated into bid documents. During September 2014, research conducted at the IOC library identified all the bid documents of the selected host cities. Most of these documents were available electronically, however a substantial number were scanned and digitized during the visit. Other policy and academic literature relating to the case study Olympics were also surveyed. This generated an extensive background of each case. The focus of this literature review was to identify the types of legacies the bids had intended, if intentions had shifted over time, and how commentators had discussed the legacies of the respective Games. This information was then categorised so that it could be incorporated into a classification of the legacy goals.
The classification of legacy goals and objectives identified the array of legacies intended to be provided to the host city and region (i.e. economic, infrastructural, environmental, educational) and connected these intended outcomes with stated delivery mechanisms (i.e. certain facilities, programs). This method of analysis connected legacy goals to built environment additions, and then to the management mechanisms associated with each of the additions. With these connections made (goal-urban-management) a categorisation of the legacy delivery mechanism was generated. This process was designed to identify the policies and institutions developed by host governments as vehicles for the implication and management of legacy programs. The principle goal of this analysis was to develop a comparison of legacy governance arrangements across the different cities.
The legacy governance arrangement classification scheme served as framework within which to trace out what the urban legacies of the Olympics had been across the case studies. This helped to identify the types of urban policy documents that were relevant for the following research and identified what parts of the host city should be covered within the survey of governance practices (see below).
Documentary collection/analysis: for each city, all major urban policy statements issued in the post-Games period were collected and analysed. These documents principally fell into two categories: (a) annual budget reports and (b) strategic urban planning documents (e.g. 5 year planning policies). The analysis of these documents focused
26 upon developing the above classification of legacy objectives. Any evolution or change in the legacy goals and/or the mechanisms of their delivery was incorporated into the classification. This provided a comprehensive account of Olympic legacy for each city since the end of the Games. It therefore provided a basis to initially compare the different ways that cities have (a) implemented legacy plans and (b) evolved their legacy plans. The classification was also able to identify when certain institutional arrangements relating to legacy had changed. This generated a sense of how quickly the different cities had evolved their legacy planning. It also showed how legacy had evolved between host cities and the range of mechanisms various governments have used to deal with this evolution.
Outside of the classification additions, the analysis also enabled a tracking of Olympic and/or legacy discussion throughout each city’s post-Games period. Although this could not be used in a comparative analysis – different institutional arrangements meant that some policy documents remained concerned primarily with Olympics (e.g. the statutory Sydney Olympic Park Authority documents) – it did generate an account of how much the hosting of the Olympics has shaped subsequent debate in each city. In addition, the analysis also enabled the research to identify when “the Olympics” reappeared on the political agenda in each city. That is, the analysis showed that in many cities, the impact of the Olympics recedes over time, but that it is sometimes re-activated by policy choices and/or circumstance. This became important in understanding how Olympic legacy often evolves in a non-linear way, appearing and disappearing depending on the local and extra-local context.
Semi-structured interviews: interviews in the case study sites (between 10 and 15 interviews in each city) were conducted with city officials and administrators who were involved in urban development and urban policy. All interviewees engaged with the research project under conditions of confidentiality, as set out in the project’s IRB approval.
The study used semi-structured interviews. The structured questions (shown below) provided a basic framing of the interview and allowed for a certain degree of flexibility as particular aspects of legacy-related governance were introduced by interviewees. The interview questions produced minimal risks to participants given the subjects were narrating broad governmental agendas and related programs. The open-ended nature of the interview also allowed interviewees to clarify and contextualise their interview answers. An outline of the interview structure questions is below:
1. What were the main legacy objectives for the city/region? 2. What policies and institutions were created to generate these legacies? 3. How have these policies and institutions changed over time? 4. What have been some of the largest challenges in terms of achieving legacy goals? 5. Has the city/region learnt from the experience of other host cities? If so, how? 6. Do you know of any other cities that have learnt from your experiences here? 7. Has the city’s/region’s vision of legacy changed in the post-Games period?
27 8. How do you see the legacy of the Olympics develop in the next 10 years?
Interviews provided a detailed account of the legacy changes identified in documentary analysis. In all the interviews the semi-structured design of the research enabled a host of supplemental issues to be explored. A number of themes emerged from the discussion of issues that were not explicitly tied to Olympic legacy statements in the four cities.
The city/state departments listed below were the primary sources of interviews, however a number of other individuals/organizations were interviewed in each city. The latter individuals/organisations are not named here in order to protect the confidentially of research participants.
Atlanta: Planning and Community Development; Georgia World Congress Center Sydney: New South Wales Department of Planning; Sydney Olympic Park Authority Salt Lake City: Department of Community and Economic Development; Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation Vancouver: Office of the City Manager/Planning and Development Services; Whistler Sport Legacies
All interviews were recorded and transcribed – if the interviewee granted consent – in order that they could be analysed (i.e. coding) in QSR NVivo. Where interviews could not be conducted in person, they were conducted over the telephone. The general procedure for analysis within QSR NVivo followed three strategies across the research questions (following Hay 2010, Rose 2007). First, a content analysis produced a thematic typology by identifying pre-defined themes relating to the research questions, and identified their frequency and correlation. Second, a trend analysis identified the contextual content of the thematic by interpreting the location of the mention within the particular interview. Third, a discourse analysis drew on the preceding content and trend analysis to examine the discursive context of the documents and transcripts. This procedure enabled the analysis to link various aspects of Olympic legacy discussed by interviews across particular sets of concerns, reforms and conditions.
The content, trend and discursive analysis identified how and why policy and institutional structures evolved, or not, in the city’s/region’s effort to maintain legacy commitments. The precise nature of legacy innovation was coded and categorised in order that the interview data supplemented previously constructed profiles based on city policy documents. This method therefore enabled the construction of a comparative account of urban governance changes related to the implementation of legacy pledges across the four case study cities. The reflective narrations of the interviewees enabled a qualitative assessment of the efficacy of the innovations. This assessment provided an opportunity for learning about legacy implementation across host cities and across different types of legacy outcomes.
28 3 Results, Conclusions and Recommendations
3.1 Introduction
The research project investigated the post-Games management of legacy in four recent Olympic host cities. The research showed that legacy management takes very different forms across the four cities. While common legacy objectives can be identified in all the cities – objectives that can now be found within IOC guidelines (IOC, 2013) – the ways in which these are pursued and the ability for them to be developed varies across the four cities. The research therefore signals to the importance of institutional and governmental form to legacy outcomes.
The presentation of the results begins with an overview of how legacy has developed over time as a governmental concern in each of the case study cities: Atlanta, Sydney, Salt Lake City and Vancouver. In each case, legacy is related to a vast array of ongoing governance processes. Although the full details of these processes cannot be presented in this report, the most significant legacy elements in the four cities are outlined. This is intended to give the reader a representative example of legacy governance in each case.
At the end of the report, a series of conclusions and recommendations are developed. These are intended to (a) help develop a contextually sensitive framework for understanding the long-term management of legacy and (b) suggest ways in which an understanding of legacy governance might help host cities develop planning for legacy.
3.2 Legacy Governance in Atlanta (1996 Summer Olympics)
3.2.1 Overview: Atlanta leveraged hosting the 1996 Summer Olympic Games as an urban renewal project (Newman, 1999; Whitelegg, 2000). This urban renewal project was designed to elevate the international profile of the city, spark civic pride, and fuel further downtown development.
3.2.2 Legacy Objectives: The bid book and related documents submitted to the IOC contained no explicit mention of “legacy”. Rather the term “post-games” is used. This term mainly refers to the use of sporting facilities after the Games. The post-games use of facilities varied across Atlanta. Broadly, the post-games strategy developed by the organisers sought to re-use and re-purpose facilities after the Games. The time frame which Atlanta bid for and was awarded the Games reflects a period of implicit, rather than explicit, pre-planning of legacy (French and Disher, 1997). The absence of pre- planning of legacy has likely shaped the current Olympic legacy in Atlanta. With the last two stadiums – the Georgia Dome and Turner Field – facing demolition, Atlanta’s commitment to the continued management of the legacy is questioned by the general
29 public. However, Atlanta’s governance model – premised on corporate sponsorship rather than government subsidy – has given the city an array of legacies that do not carry with them a significant debt burden.
The Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games and members of the local business community saw the Games as an opportunity to redevelop a blighted downtown warehouse district. Today the centre of this district is Centennial Park. Initially established as a gathering place for retailers and attendees of the Games, Centennial Park has now become a corner stone in the redevelopment of Atlanta’s downtown area (see Figure 1). Current corporate and high-rise residential tenants buttress the Park; the new and widely acclaimed aquarium can be found on the western edge of the Park. The second major, but implicit, legacy goal of the Games was to provide student housing for Georgia Tech’s campus. Olympic Village housing has enabled Georgia Tech to transition from a commuter campus towards a traditional residential campus university.
3.2.3. Governance: In February 1988, the Georgia Amateur Athletic Foundation led by Billy Payne and Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young begin initial discussions regarding the bidding for the Olympic Games. By November 1988 Georgia Amateur Athletic Foundation morphed into the Atlanta Organizing Committee. The result of Atlanta Organizing Committee’s work was the formation of the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games (established January 1991). As a private, not-for-profit organization, Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games worked with the United States Olympic Committee to bid and secure the Atlanta Olympic Games. The state of Georgia’s constitution prohibited the City of Atlanta from accepting some IOC obligations. This led to the Georgia State Assembly establishing the Metropolitan Atlanta Olympic Games Authority, allowing the City of Atlanta, rather the State of Georgia, to accept responsibility for the Olympics. The submission of the final report to IOC coincided with the disbanding of the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games and Metropolitan Atlanta Olympic Games Authority. The Georgia World Congress Center Authority – a state authority established by legislation in 1974 – and an organisation instrumental to the day-to-day management of the Games, took over the Georgia Dome, Centennial Park and the Georgia World Congress Center.
Georgia World Congress Center Authority is managed by a CEO who oversees an executive. The executive is divided into three discrete managers for the three facilities (see Figure 2). The structure of Georgia World Congress Center Authority has not changed since the Games. The Georgia World Congress Center Authority prides itself in its fiscal integrity and business model, noting that it has not once needed to ask the state legislature for financing. Georgia World Congress Center Authority receives funding from the City of Atlanta’s Hotel and Motel Tax. The Georgia World Congress Center Authority redistributes these funds to the facilities it manages. Centennial Park receives a portion of its operating costs from Georgia World Congress Center Authority. The Park also generates income from selling tickets to private events such as concerts and corporate rentals.
30 3.2.4. Foundation/Trust/Organization: When Atlanta bid for and hosted the 1996 Olympic Games, no legacy foundation or trust was established to manage the profits and/or facilities from the Games. The major facilities used for the Games were turned over to the Georgia World Congress Center Authority. Georgia Tech and Georgia State University were responsible for managing the Olympic Village post-Games use.
3.2.5. Specific Sites
Centennial Park
The large open plazas created for the 1992 Barcelona Summer Games inspired the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games CEO Billy Payne to create a similar park in Downtown Atlanta. Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games worked to assemble the properties to form the Park while the State of Georgia assisted in the purchase of the land. The funding required to purchase the land for the park (approximately $75 million) came from private-sector donations, the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, and the local philanthropic community. The park replaced a blighted warehouse district in Downtown Atlanta, provided corporate vendors a space to sell merchandise during the Games, and served as a place for people to gather between events. As a legacy of the Olympic Games, the park was envisioned as a permanent fixture in Downtown Atlanta. However, a strategy for managing the Park was not developed prior to the Games.
Georgia World Congress Center Authority took over the ownership of the Park from the City of Atlanta in 1996. It is now home to the Olympic Rings and showcases public art that celebrates the history of the Olympic Games (see Figure 3). Centennial Park opened under Georgia World Congress Center Authority in March 1998. The only changes to the Park’s organisational governance model have been an increased in staff, reported as 29 in the 2014 Annual Georgia World Congress Center Authority report. Although downtown economic growth cannot be directly attributed to the Park, many community leaders identify a correlation between the Park and downtown renewal. The Park’s business plan was forced to undergo revision after the 2008 recession. As funding from the City’s Hotel and Motel tax decreased, the Park’s management had to look for ways to innovate. Increasing the number of private events in the Park helped in the immediate recession. This growth has continued into the present and the park now hosts more concerts, weddings, and corporate gatherings. The Park’s stewardship of the Olympic legacy is widely recognized by the Atlanta community and the State of Georgia. In October 2014, the Atlanta chapter of the Urban Land Institute honoured the Park with a special 20-year award for its “profound catalytic impact on [downtown] development” achieved through “its central location and the management of the Georgia World Congress Center Authority.”
The Georgia World Congress Center Authority has been important in defining the vision for the Park. The Authority commissioned the original architects of the Park, AECOM, to draft a vision for future projects as it approaches its 20th anniversary (“2020 Vision”). The concepts of transparency, safety, and activity form the basis of the five projects being undertaken by the Authority within the Park.
31 Olympic Village, Georgia Tech
Lacking student housing opportunities in Downtown Atlanta, both Georgia Tech and Georgia State University were receptive to hosting the Olympic Village. The majority of the Olympic Village is located on Georgia Tech’s campus. The Board of Regents, a state-wide governance organisation that oversees the university system in Georgia, worked with Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games to facilitate the building of the Olympic Village at Georgia Tech and Georgia State University. These buildings were financed by state bonds, with the hosting academic institution taking possession of the debt after the Games.
Currently, forty-seven buildings on Georgia Tech’s campus were used for housing athletes during the 1996 Games. As of March 2015, 80% of the housing on Georgia Tech’s campus is comprised of previously athlete housing. Where most universities have traditional residential halls, Georgia Tech’s absorption of the Olympic Village left it with a different model of student housing. In 2007, Georgia Tech took over the North Avenue Apartments from Georgia State University, resulting in Georgia Tech owning all of the 1996 Olympic Village. With only 68 days to renovate the buildings which GSU had not adequately maintained, Georgia Tech invested significant amounts into the North Avenue Apartments (see Figure 4). Initially $30 million was used to buy the properties. An additional $25 million was spent on the first round of renovations and another $20 million has been budgeted for further improvements. The absorption of the remaining Olympic Village has led Georgia Tech to increase their housing staff but not alter their organisational structure.
3.2.5 State support: Georgia World Congress Center Authority and Centennial Park continue to receive funding from the City of Atlanta Hotel and Motel tax. However, there is no on-going financial support from the city or state government to Georgia World Congress Center Authority or the Park.
3.3 Legacy Governance in Sydney (2000 Summer Olympics)
3.3.1 Overview: Sydney’s 2000 Games is widely acknowledged as the first Olympics to place environmental legacy at the centre of its objectives. The State of New South Wales used the Games as a driver to regenerate a polluted 640 hectare site at the centre of metropolitan Sydney (Lochhead, 2005; Searle, 2002; Toohey, 2008). As a consequence, Sydney’s 2000 Olympics left behind an Olympic precinct that contains remediate marshlands, regional parklands, an events space and, subsequently, a growing town centre.
3.3.2 Legacy: In the bid books submitted to the IOC in 1993 the language of “legacy” is absent. However, many of the aspects now associated with the term “legacy” (see IOC, 2013) are prominent within Sydney’s bidding documents. Most notable are the issues of environment and (environmental) technology. The bid book pledged that “The
32 Sydney Bid has applied the strictest environmental standards to every aspect of planning for the 2000 Olympic Games” (1993: 22). The 2000 Olympics therefore placed environmental impacts at the core of its developmental agenda (Briese, 2001). The issue of environmental protection is also related to the bid book’s second “legacy” goal, technology: “New technologies which will help protect the environment are being applied to developments in Sydney for the Olympics (1993: 25). An outcome of the Sydney Olympics would therefore be an application and establishment of cutting-edge technologies such as water treatment, energy efficiency and information technology. Together these two Olympic impacts were intended to create community awareness of environmental issues in Sydney and beyond (1993: 26).
The Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games was charged with operating the 2000 Olympics. Although Olympic events were distributed across the city – including Sydney Harbour and Western Sydney – the majority of Olympic-related development took place in Sydney Olympic Park. After the Games, the New South Wales State Government established the Sydney Olympic Park Authority to oversee post-Games management and development. The Sydney Olympic Park Authority was established by the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Act 2001 No 57. This act charged Sydney Olympic Park Authority with the following objectives:
1. Ensure that Sydney Olympic Park becomes an active and vibrant centre within metropolitan Sydney, and 2. Ensure that Sydney Olympic Park becomes a premium destination for cultural, entertainment, recreation and sporting events, and 3. Ensure that any new development carried out under or in accordance with this Act accords with best practice accessibility standards and environmental and town planning standards, and 4. Ensure the protection and enhancement of the natural heritage of the Millennium Parklands.
Sydney Olympic Park Authority therefore became responsible for transitioning the main Olympic precinct into a functioning part of the Sydney metropolitan region. The other major legacy site for the 2000 Olympics is located in Newington, a suburb neighbouring Sydney Olympic Park. This was the site of athlete village during the Games. The $AU590m development was constructed by consortium of Mirvac, Lend Lease, Civil & Civic, ANZ and Westpac. The residential suburb features solar panels and waste water recycling throughout. The suburb is now governed by Auburn Council. Newington has become a prosperous suburb in the post-Games period and continues to enjoy a reputation for environmental excellence.
3.3.3 Governance: The Sydney Olympic Park Authority Act 2001 was written by the State of New South Wales to establish a statutory authority to manage the Olympic precinct at Homebush Bay. Sydney Olympic Park Authority is directed by the New South Wales Planning Minister. The governance of Sydney Olympic Park Authority is overseen by a Board of Authority. The current chair of the Board is Michael Knight AO,
33 previously the Minister responsible for the Paralympics and President of Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games. Since 2001, Sydney Olympic Park Authority has been engaged in all facets of managing Sydney Olympic Park. Sydney Olympic Park Authority is headed by a Chief Executive Officer and divided into two management teams: (i) Operations and Sustainability and (ii) Commercial and Corporate. The former includes a host of managerial functions, ranging from water reclamation through to public education programming. The latter focuses on the developmental aspects of the park, including property development, business events and sport venue operation.
Sydney Olympic Park Authority’s mission is organized in its Corporate Plan. This plan is congruous with the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Act (2001) and the New South Wales State Government’s NSW 2021 strategic goals. Since Sydney Olympic Park Authority is a statutory authority that serves at the behest of the New South Wales Planning Minister, it has worked to continually align its strategic mission with state planning (see Table 1).
Table 1: Sydney Olympic Park Authority’s Corporate Planning Framework (Adapted from Sydney Olympic Park Authority Annual Report 2013-14: 16) Sydney Olympic Park goals NSW 2021 goals Sydney Olympic Park is an active and Build liveable cities (20) vibrant town centre within metropolitan Sydney Sydney Olympic Park is a premium Enhance cultural, creative, sporting and destination for cultural, entertainment, recreation opportunities (27) business, recreation and sporting events The natural heritage of the Parklands is Protect our natural environment (22) protected and enhanced Sydney Olympic Park Authority continually Rebuild State finances (2) improves performance Restore trust in State Government as a service provider (30)
Development activities at Sydney Olympic Park have been directed in a series of planning policies. These policies are revised on a rolling five year basis. The current policy document is Sydney Olympic Park Authority’s Master Plan 2030 (2010). Master Plan 2030 was developed as “a 22 year vision for the sustainable development of Sydney Olympic Park” (Sydney Olympic Park Authority, 2010: 2). This plan is a development of the previous Vision 2025 (2002) document. The overarching strategic goal of Master Plan 2030 is the following:
“Sydney Olympic Park provides an opportunity to establish a best practice example of sustainable urban development, as well as remaining available for major sporting and entertainment events. Master Plan 2030 builds on the Park’s
34 internationally recognised initiatives in energy and water management, green building design, and sound economic and ecological management. The Park’s sporting and recreational facilities and 425 ha of parkland ensure its unique place in offering a solution to Sydney’s population growth. It provides opportunities for enhanced quality of life and healthy lifestyle choices for the people of Western Sydney and beyond.” (Sydney Olympic Park Authority, 2010; 2)
The governance of development at Sydney Olympic Park therefore focuses on balancing the continued usage of the space for major events (i.e. the continued utilization of Olympic sporting facilities) with the evolution of the space into a major urban centre within the Sydney metropolitan region.
3.3.4. Foundation/Trust/Organization: Since the governance of most Olympic facilities remained under the jurisdiction of the New South Wales government, no independent legacy or trust was established. In the post-Games period Sydney Olympic Park Authority has organised the leasing and management of facilities built for the Olympics. In 2008, Sydney Olympic Park Authority did establish the short-lived Parklands Foundation (see below).
3.3.5 Specific Sites
Sydney Olympic Park
Sydney Olympic Park is a 640 hectare site that is managed by Sydney Olympic Park Authority. Sydney Olympic Park Authority currently funds approximately 70% of its operations through self-generated revenues. The major sources of self-generated revenue are car parking fees and aquatic and athletic centre income. In 2013-14, Sydney Olympic Park attracted 13.92 million visitors and hosted 5,500 events. In 2003- 4 visitation to Sydney Olympic Park was 6.8 million and 2,200 events were held. Although Sydney Olympic Park is managed by one entity, two distinct governance spaces are operated by Sydney Olympic Park: (i) the parklands and (ii) the town centre.
The Parklands
The environmental legacy of the 2000 Olympics is most evident in Sydney Olympic Park’s Parklands. The 2000 Olympics were used as a stimulus to remediate highly polluted brownfields in Sydney’s Homebush Bay. Sydney Olympic Park Authority now manages the Parklands under a Plan of Management. The majority of the 430 hectare Parklands is remediated ex-industrial land, former Navel property and disturbed natural environments. Three aspects of post-Games governance are particularly notable: (i) environmental management, (ii) financial management and (iii) institutional capacity.
Environmental management: The original concept of the Parklands was couched in terms of ‘places’ and ‘programs’. In Sydney Olympic Park Authority’s 2003-4 Annual Report this place making is described:
35 “Sydney Olympic Park Authority is undertaking one of the largest ‘park creation’ projects ever seen in urban Sydney with the development of a number of new parkland areas adding to the already popular Bicentennial Park. The parklands provide a special place of environmental, social and cultural significance for the estimated 40,000 new residents expected to relocate within walking distance of the Park over the next 15 years.” (4)
Over the next decade, this guiding concept has evolved as various sections of the Parklands have been further defined and developed. The Parklands management has also had to respond to an intensification of urban development in Sydney Olympic Park’s Town Centre.
The governance of the Parklands has involved an ongoing attempt to maintain remediated habitats and deal with emerging environmental management tasks. Sydney Olympic Park Authority has continued to develop environmental management programs to maintain the environmental legacy of the Games. This has involved the construction of a leachate treatment facility. This facility processes the leachate from the contaminated soils so that harmful substances do not disperse from contained sites. Sydney Olympic Park Authority also plans to develop a stormwater management strategy and further on-site leachate treatment facilities to further improve environmental performance. In 2013, Sydney Olympic Park Authority received a Green Globe Award to recognize the 110 environmental sustainability initiatives undertaken at the park since 2003.
Financial management: The ongoing management of the Parklands is a cost incurred by Sydney Olympic Park Authority. In order to reduce the financial cost of operating a regional park, Sydney Olympic Park Authority experimented with the introduction of a foundation to support its operating costs. Set up in 2006, the Parklands Foundation aimed to take advantage of Australian tax structures in order to solicit corporate and philanthropic donations. This would give financial supporters the ability to associate themselves with the environmental and recreational activities undertaken in the Parklands. This model was adopted by Sydney Olympic Park Authority as one commonly used elsewhere to financially support large urban parks. However, the Foundation was closed in 2008 due, in part, to a lack of success in raising substantial financial contributions.
Institutional capacity: The ongoing management of both the Parklands and Town Centre has enabled the organisation to build significant planning and urban design capacities. This was illustrated when Sydney Olympic Park was designated New South Wales State Government funding to build a public playground at Sydney Olympic Park. The in- house designed Blaxland Riverside Park (see Figure 6) has received international acclaim, illustrating how the institutional and design capacities of Sydney Olympic Park Authority have found ongoing areas of deployment.
The Town Centre
36 The majority of Sydney Olympic Park Authority’s governance activities are focused upon the development of the site’s 210 hectare town centre. This area, which includes many of the 2000 Olympic venues, was designated as a site of urban development at the bid stage. The site began as a largely event-focused precinct, but due to the success of development initiatives around the venues, has become a site of extensive commercial and residential urban development. The site’s development has been directed using a series of master planning documents. There are a number of notable governance features relating to post-Games legacy within the town centre development.
Commercial governance: In 2003, Sydney Olympic Park Authority was preparing for $470 million of residential and commercial development within the Town Centre. By 2014, almost $1.4 billion of private-sector real estate development had been undertaken, with more to follow (see Figure 7). The commercial real estate development directed by Sydney Olympic Park Authority has almost completely built out the spaces designated for development within the Town Centre.
Sydney Olympic Park Authority’s management of development has two important features. First, Sydney Olympic Park Authority has continued to demand that commercial development meets high environmental standards. As such, many of the commercial buildings within Sydney Olympic Park have excellent environmental sustainability ratings. The environmental legacies of the Olympics have therefore been extended into the post-Games development via planning guidance and approval systems. Second, Sydney Olympic Park Authority has maintained an active management policy with respect to the park’s commercial facilities. Sydney Olympic Park Authority operates many of the commercial premises on ninety-nine year leases. These require leaseholders to carry out stringent asset management responsibilities, ensuring that commercially-operated facilities are not subject to dis-investment and commercial over-exploitation.
Sydney Olympic Park Authority also acts as an operator of fee-generating facilities: Aquatic Centre, Archery Centre, Athletic Centre, Hockey Centre, Sports Hall and Sports Centre. This management has enabled Sydney Olympic Park Authority to finance the facilities collectively. The benefit has been that costly facilities, such as the Aquatic Centre, can be cross-subsidized by other revenue generators. The result, in this case, Olympic sporting facilities have been well maintained and remain used by all levels of sport.
Residential governance: Commercial development preceded the majority of residential development at Sydney Olympic Park. However, in recent years Sydney Olympic Park has witnessed a rapid acceleration of high-density residential construction (see Figure 8). This has complicated governance arrangements at Sydney Olympic Park, since Sydney Olympic Park Authority is not designed to incorporate usual council functions. As such, the residents within Sydney Olympic Park are served by councillors in neighbouring Auburn. Sydney Olympic Park Authority has responded by instigating regular newsletter communications and announcements to residents.
37 3.3.6 State support: The management of Olympic legacy in Sydney is principally organised by Sydney Olympic Park Authority. Sydney Olympic Park Authority was designed by the New South Wales State Government to be self-sufficient in the long- term. As such, the level of financial support required by Sydney Olympic Park Authority has declined in the post-Games period. At present, approximately 70% of Sydney Olympic Park Authority’s activities are funded through self-generated sources. The remaining funding, $38,565,000, comes mainly from grants and contributions from the New South Wales State Government. Some of this ongoing cost to the New South Wales State Government is recouped through land sales at Sydney Olympic Park.
3.4 Legacy Governance in Salt Lake City (2002 Winter Olympics)
3.4.1 Overview: Prior to the 2002 Winter Olympics, Salt Lake City was a relatively unknown destination for winter sports and urban life. One third of the downtown retail space was boarded up and few large corporations were headquartered there. The opportunity to host the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City led to an ongoing effort to transform the region’s reputation, renew downtown commercial corridors and connect Salt Lake City to the surrounding region. The ongoing attempt to produce a positive legacy for the Salt Lake City Olympic Games has been generated through (a) an innovative governance model that integrates community, county, and state governments and (b) a legacy model that emphasises community programs in Olympic venues.
3.4.2 Legacy: Salt Lake City outlined an explicit legacy agenda in their bid for the 2002 Winter Games. The bid detailed the transference of key Olympic Venues, such as the bobsleigh and luge runs, speed-skating oval, Winter Sports Park, and the ski jump to a legacy foundation for management after the Games. The goal of the pre-Game legacy-building effort was to create a reputation for Salt Lake City as a winter sports destination. Prior to the Games, Utah conducted a survey in Europe and found that only 10% of respondents had heard of Utah and only 15% had heard of Salt Lake City. After the Games, they repeated the study and found that Utah and Salt Lake City were recognized by 80-85% of respondents.
Building its reputation as a winter sports destination was a regional effort. The Utah Olympic governance model integrated different parts of the state into the Olympic bid. By diversifying the initial financial contributors of the Games and involving local taxpayers and communities in Games planning and development, the organising committee ensured that the economic legacy of the Games would be a state-wide long- term governmental priority.
Four of the 29 counties in the State of Utah continue to support Olympic venues. These venues, located in the most urbanised area of the state – the Wasatch basin (of which Salt Lake City is included in) – continue to thrive over a decade later. Three venues: the Utah Olympic Park, the Utah Olympic Oval, and Soldier Hollow serve as examples of the intersection of community, county, and state governments.
38 3.4.3 Governance: Utah’s bid for a Winter Olympics gathered momentum following the 1988 Calgary Games. An exploratory committee in Utah took up the conclusions and recommendations in George Steinbrenner’s IOC 1989 report and decided to develop Salt Lake City into a winter sports training centre for American Olympic athletes. The exploratory committee represented the interests of the business community, ski resorts, politics, and sports in Utah. Working through the State of Utah legislature, the group oversaw the creation of the Utah Sports Authority in 1989. The authority’s primary role was to build and manage winter sport facilities.
To generate funds to construct Olympic winter sports facilities, the legislature put a referendum to the voters in 1989. The proposal would generate funds for a speed- skating oval, ski jump, and bobsled run by diverting 1/32 of revenues from the state sales tax for 10 years to the construction costs for these facilities. The referendum passed with 57% approval and the Utah Sports Authority promised to pay back the taxpayers the $58 million generated by the referendum if Utah was awarded the Olympic Games. Any profit beyond the initial taxpayer investment would be directed into an endowment fund for the on-going maintenance and use of the Olympic facilities.
Construction of potential Olympic venues began in 1992. In 1995, the state legislature passed Senate Resolution SJR17 which created the Utah Athletic Foundation and appointed them owners and operators of the winter sports facilities after the Games. In the lead up to the Games, the Utah Sports Authority would transition facilities to the Salt Lake Organizing Committee and then after the Games, Salt Lake Organizing Committee would transfer the facilities to the Utah Athletic Foundation.
To manage varied interpretations of legacy across organizing actors, the state legislature distinguished the legacy of sport from the legacy of the venues by evolving the Utah Athletic Foundation into two organizations. Post-games, the Utah Legacy Foundation became the organisation responsible for maintaining the Park and Oval as well as the managers of the endowment. The second organisation created, the Utah Sports Commission manages the “state of sport” in Utah and aims to develop the reputation of Utah as a sporting destination beyond winter sports (see Figure 9).
Legislative support for Olympic legacy has continued, most recently in the March 2015 passing of Senate Resolution SCR9, the “Concurrent Resolution Recognizing the Importance of Utah’s Sport and Olympic Legacy Efforts.” This resolution acknowledges the importance of Olympic legacy, especially the estimated $2bn economic impact (approximately $12 million per annum). It also encourages the state to “remain ‘ready, willing, and able’ as the opportunity arises to host major sporting events of all kinds and be prepared should an opportunity arise to host a future Olympic Games.” Supported by the formation of the Utah Olympic Exploratory Committee in 2012, public and political support for hosting another Olympic Games in Utah is strong.
3.4.4 Foundation/Trust/Organization: Before the start of the Games, the State Officer – an appointed position responsible for approving the budget of the Games – anticipated a $40m profit from the Games. The 2002 Winter Olympic Games yielded a
39 profit of over $100m, of which $76m went direct to the Legacy Foundation. The Utah Legacy Foundation has used the endowment to support the legacy of the Games.
Immediately following the Games, the Legacy Foundation suffered from unsustainable operating expenses. Many Olympic facilities continued to operate as Olympic venues after the Games, driving the operating costs up. The endowment only grew from $76 million to $80 million from 2002 to 2007. Acknowledging the challenges the Foundation faced, the Board of Directors pursued new leadership in 2006. However, before new policies were fully realized, the 2008 recession interrupted reorganisation efforts, reducing the endowment from $80 million to $52 million.
The recession-induced crisis, combined with fresh leadership, introduced a new period for the Legacy Foundation. In particular, new programs were required to continue the operation of Olympic facilities. The foundation focused on increasing participation rates and creating venue memberships for youth winter sports. These programs emphasised the basics of all winter sports, allowing participants to explore a variety of sports before deciding to begin to train exclusively for one. By providing low-cost, quality instruction, participation has increased from 400 to 1,500 per year. Both the Olympic Legacy Park and the Utah Olympic Oval are home to the winter sports programs of the Legacy Foundation. This innovative program also allows the Utah Legacy Foundation to employ former Olympic athletes as sports instructors.
Currently the Utah Legacy Foundation has built on the momentum generated by the innovative youth programs. With the endowment now at $67 million and growing, the Legacy Foundation continues to support the programmatic efforts at the Utah Olympic Park and Utah Olympic Oval. Future challenges for the Legacy Foundation will come with the need to repair aging facilities as well as updating existing facilities to accommodate changing international sport rules and regulations.
3.4.5 Specific Sites
Utah Olympic Park
The Utah Olympic Park hosts a variety of year-round activities at its campus in Park City. These activities draw on the former Olympic sports hosted at the site (bobsleigh, luge, skeleton, and ski jump competitions). The Park has also generated visitor interest by building three ropes courses, two ziplines, and alpine slide. The Utah Olympic Park also offers tours of the Olympic facilities where visitors can look out over the Nordic K90 and K120 jumps and is home to two museums, the George Eccles 2002 Olympic Museum and the Alf Engen Ski Museum. The Park is also completing a new rock climbing course set to open to the public in the summer of 2015. To accommodate the increased demand of high-performance athletes, the Park is also expanding its aerials training facility.
The Utah Olympic Park’s goal of building a campus reflects their commitment to the Olympic legacy through innovative community and high-performance programming,
40 showcasing Utah’s Olympic journey to the public, and adapting the facilities to current Olympic sports and new sporting regulations. One of the most significant challenges for winter Olympic sports like bobsleigh and ski jump is that they are not sports the general public can easily participate in. To overcome this obstacle, the Park serves as training grounds for local freestyle and ski jump youth clubs, as well as high-performance athletes alike (see Figure 10). Additionally, the Park serves as an event space for local, national, and international competitions.
Utah Olympic Oval
The Utah Olympic Oval was initially constructed in 1995 as an outdoor oval. After being awarded the 2002 Olympic Games, the oval was demolished and rebuilt by 1999. Using the enclosed ovals of Calgary, Milwaukee and Nagano as models, the Olympic Oval in Kearns was built on land provided by the city. Boasting the “fastest ice on Earth” the Utah Olympic Oval is an elite training facility by day and a community centre by night (see Figure 11).
The Oval is located next to the Kearns Recreation Center and new plans to unite these two structures with a third building reflect the Utah Olympic governance model: the intersection of community, county, and state government used to maintain the Olympic Legacy. The integration of these three levels of government has proven to be a successful financial model where the Olympic legacy is guaranteed by continued community support.
Gathering community support has been a challenge Salt Lake City and Utah has worked to overcome. Because Olympic facilities are designed for elite athlete competition, former Olympic venues are often inaccessible to the general public. Creating a post-Games demand for an Olympic facility requires pre-Games planning for community adaptation and programming. In the case of the Utah Olympic Oval, support generated from the community before the Games secured necessary funding for the facility. It also fostered excitement in the community about using the facility after the games. The Oval continues to reach out to the Kearns community, having spent over $1.5 million on marketing. The community is invited to free annual parties, as well as encouraged to attend sporting events. The Oval is also available for rent and has a year-round schedule of classes, programs, and clinics.
The post-Games transition of the Oval was extensive. The large Olympic overlay and temporary Olympic infrastructure took over six months to remove. Not only did this transition prove difficult because the facility was operating as an Olympic venue, it was unable to capture the immediate post-Games enthusiasm of people wanting to try new sports. Creating a way to keep the venue operating at world class level but open to the public took the Utah Olympic Oval one and a half years to complete.
Solider Hollow
41 Initially Solider Hollow was not part of the Olympic plan. The original bid instead proposed hosting the Nordic events at nearby Mountain Dell. After the venue was moved to Solider Hollow and initial projections for the endowment were estimated at $40 million it was decided that the Legacy Foundation would not be able to manage Solider Hollow. The relationship between Solider Hollow and the Legacy Foundation has been informal. At various times the organisations have proposed that the Legacy Foundation take on management of the venue. However, that relationship has not been solidified and the financial viability of Solider Hollow has been sustainable.
Following the Games, Solider Hollow focused on elite athlete experiences and limited community engagement. Initially, like the Utah Olympic Park and Utah Olympic Oval, it sought to keep the facilities operating at a world class level. Now the view of legacy has shifted and reflects the model advocated by the Utah Legacy Foundation. Solider Hollow focuses on Olympic legacy through youth and community programs. Solider Hollow’s business model now generates approximately $1 million per year, which covers its operating costs. The expansion of Solider Hollow to host larger events will depend on its ability to generate greater profits and/or the establishment of a formal relationship with the Legacy Foundation.
Olympic Village, University of Utah
Although a large state university, the University of Utah is considered a commuter school: only 2,800 of the 30,000 students live on campus. Resident students live in the former Olympic Village. Prior to the Olympics, the university only had 1,200 beds available for students. After the university acquired Olympic Village housing, this increased 3,600 beds.
Directed by the State Board of Regents, the Olympic Village was financed with bonds. After consulting with Georgia Tech, among other managers of athlete housing developments, the University of Utah decided to include students, faculty, and other university staff in designing the Village. The result was the construction of three types of facilities for the athlete village: residence halls, apartments, and a guesthouse. The residence halls and apartments are currently managed by the University of Utah. The guesthouse is privately managed. The State of Utah served as the property manager during the construction process.
The innovative design of the 2002 Olympic Village continues to resonate with students today. Suites replaced traditional residential halls and the large rooms gave the University of Utah an advantage over competing schools. The majority of the housing is organised around an open, green space with fire pits, picnic tables, and benches (see Figure 12).
3.4.6 State support: In 2015, the Utah Olympic Park received $4.5 million in funds from the state legislature to modernise the aerials facilities. The state legislature saw this much needed infrastructural improvement as consistent with their goals and commitment to hosting future Olympics.
42 3.5 Legacy Governance in Vancouver (2010 Winter Olympics)
3.5.1 Overview: When Vancouver bid to host the 2010 Winter Games it looked to develop its own governance model. With regional infrastructure as a principle objective, Vancouver worked to connect local, provincial, and national governments. The result was (a) an integration of regional venues with a highly-urbanized area, (b) the showcasing of commitments to sustainability and access, and (c) the creation of legacy that went beyond Vancouver to include British Columbia and Canada (Holden et al. 2008). Vancouver relied heavily on local communities in their governance and legacy plans. In doing so, the management of Olympic venues does vary across the region.
3.5.2 Legacy: Vancouver’s Olympic bid was always set within the history of Canadian Olympics. With Calgary a winter sports centre, it was unnecessary to build an abundance of high-performance national winter sports training facilities. Vancouver therefore focused on a small number of key sites. To manage Olympic legacy venues after the Games, the Vancouver Organizing Committee worked with the provincial and national governments to establish the Games Operating Trust. The trust would be responsible for administering legacy funds.
The winter resort of Whistler was approached to host a number of Olympic events at the bidding stage. Before Whistler agreed to host any Winter Olympic sports, the local Council put together a list of guiding principles for development. Whistler’s goal was to create a strategic framework of lasting legacies (see Figure 13). Through a public- engagement process, Whistler used the Olympics as an opportunity to expedite and enhance community goals, support Olympic legacy, and accelerate sustainability initiatives. At Whistler, Olympic legacy therefore extended beyond facilities and into community and economic development.
The City of Richmond took another approach to Olympic legacy and targeted the development of one Olympic facility. By pre-planning the legacy of the Richmond Olympic Oval and retaining ownership of the facility, the City of Richmond leveraged the Olympics into a site specific development plan that would fuse IOC goals with community needs.
3.5.3 Governance: The 2010 Winter Olympic Games was the result of collaboration between three levels of government. The funding of the Games is considered to be a joint venture between the City of Vancouver, provincial government of British Columbia and national government. As such, the planning for the Games became a central part of regional development strategy aimed at linking the cities of Vancouver, Whistler and Richmond within the metropolitan region.
3.5.4 Foundation/Trust/Organization: In 2007, the provincial and national government, with the guidance of the Vancouver Organizing Committee, established the Games Operating Trust, an organisation tasked with managing an Olympic legacy trust
43 fund. The initial investment to the trust was $110 million; the $55 million investment by the provincial government of British Columbia was matched by a $55 million investment from the national government. The fund is now valued at approximately $132m. The Operating Trust is managed by a Board of Directors representing national, provincial, sport, and finance interests.
The Operating Trust provides funding for the following legacy facilities: the Richmond Oval, Whistler Sliding Center, and the Whistler Olympic Park (see Figure 14). Both the Whistler Sliding Center and the Whistler Olympic Park are managed by Whistler Sport Legacies Society. The Richmond Olympic Oval Corporation is a municipal corporation tasked with managing the business, operations, and maintenance of the Oval. The Corporation’s only shareholder, the City of Richmond, is responsible for appointing a board of directors to govern the Oval.
When allocating yearly funds between the Whistler Sport Legacies Society and the Richmond Olympic Oval, it is mandated the Games Operating Trust distribute 40% of the annual budget to Whistler Sport Legacies Society and 40% to the Richmond Olympic Oval. The remaining 20% of the yearly budget is distributed between Whistler Sport Legacies Society and the Olympic Oval at the discretion of the Board; most frequently, the additional 20% is awarded to Whistler Sport Legacies Society. The Games Operating Trust has not been able to innovate significantly, since cooperation between provincial and national governments has proven difficult. In particular, it has not been possible to allow the percentage and distribution of funds to be amended. The result has been increased pressure on the Whistler Sport Legacies Society and the Richmond Olympic Oval to find innovative ways to generate revenue for infrastructural improvement and operational costs.
3.5.5 Specific Sites
Whistler Sport Legacies, Whistler Olympic Park, Whistler Sliding Center
The Whistler Sport Legacies Society operates and manages the Whistler Olympic Park, Whistler Sliding Center, and the Whistler Athletes Center. Like many Olympic venues, Whistler Sport Legacies Society faced immediate challenges in transition to post- Games operations. For the first few years after the Olympics, these facilities continued to operate exclusively as elite sport facilities. In 2013, Whistler Sport Legacies Society shifted its operational strategies, introducing new business practices and expanding public activities at the Olympic venues. Whistler Sport Legacies Society strategic goals are now: (a) the delivery of sport, (b) the delivery of community activities, and (c) the delivery of revenue generators. These guiding principles have shaped the current activities and future plans at the Sliding Center and the Olympic Park.
The Sliding Center offers a mix of public (tours and rides) and private (training) activities. Public bobsleigh rides generate nearly $1 million of income per year. The Sliding Center works in conjunction with the British Columbia Luge Association and British Columbia Bobsleigh and Skeleton Association by offering high-performance
44 training facilities for elite athletes. It hosts provincial, national, and international competitions.
Twenty-five kilometres away, Whistler Olympic Park incorporates the Olympic legacy by offering a number of year-round activities to the public: biathlon, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, ski jumping, and sightseeing. In the winter, the Olympic Park will host Nordic competitions. Elite athletes continue to use the Nordic K120 and K140 ski jump while beginners to the sport can use the newly constructed 20m and 40m jumps. Building the junior jumping program has been a necessary component to raising the profile of ski jumping in Whistler. During the summer, the Park hosts events like cross- country (running) races, Iron-Man competitions, social events like graduations and weddings, and has also been the stage for commercials and films.
At both the Whistler Sliding Center and the Whistler Olympic Park, Whistler Sport Legacies Society has established ties with the provincial government through the integration of youth programs into the facilities, as well as being designated as National Training Centers. The success of Calgary’s Olympic Legacy and the pre-existing reputation of Whistler as a ski destination has required the Whistler Sport Legacies Society to envision gaps in activities not already covered by those locales. Strategies of asset management continue to shape the financial plan of the Whistler Sliding Center and Whistler Olympic Park.
The Richmond Olympic Oval
The Richmond Olympic Oval became a site for the 2010 Winter Games after Vancouver had been awarded the Games. Its success as an Olympic legacy reflects an innovative governance model that focuses on strong community engagement. The Richmond Olympic Oval is located on a former colonial-era farm estate.
In the 1960s the farm estate was purchased by the City of Richmond. Over time, the City of Richmond sold the land to developers and funded infrastructure with the proceeds. By the 1980s, most of the land had been sold. The remaining thirty acres were held by the City for a strategic project. In 2004, the Vancouver Organizing Committee approached the City with a proposal to develop the land into the site of the Olympic speed skating oval. The City Council finalized a $141 million low risk offer to develop the site. The $141 million deal allowed the City of Richmond to build the Olympic Oval without any debt burden and also retained ownership of the Oval (see Figure 15).
In the post-Games period, the Richmond Olympic Oval has proven very successful. It aggressively marketed membership programs for the facility, generating ongoing secure revenues for the Oval. The facility was designed with the three concepts of flow, flights, and fusion. This design has meant no space in the building has been left un- programmed. The 362,000 square foot facility boasts a variety of recreation and high- performance activities including 8 basketball courts, 2 Olympic ice rinks, a 400 meter track, a 200 meter track, a 22,000 square foot gym, a rock climbing wall, yoga studios,
45 high-performance training rooms, and conference rooms. The building’s wooden roof, designed out of local wood that had been destroyed by the pine beetle, integrates the Olympic commitment to sustainability (see Figure 16).
The ability to fill the venue with so many activities is explained by three factors. First, the management of the Oval has worked within IOC guidelines to keep “Olympic” in the venue’s name. This maintains a strong connection between the facility, elite sports and Olympic values. Second, selling memberships and opening facilities before the Games ensured strong community engagement after the Games. In addition, it created predictable revenue streams to support activities. Third, the Oval was located in a high- density urban area. This meant the facility could be readily accessed by many local residents.
Olympic Village
The Vancouver Organizing Committee identified the neighbourhood of Southeast False Creek for the home of the Olympic Village. The City Council of Vancouver supported the Vancouver Organizing Committee and created a development plan for the site. The plan showcased sustainability and mixed-use as the central components of the Village’s urban design. In bid documents, the village was intended to provide both market and low-income housing. The City Council selected Millennium Properties to construct the Olympic Village. Millennium agreed to pay the city $200 million for the land, however the City agreed to assume the financial risk if the developer defaulted. In the context of economic recession, Millennium Properties’ defaulted on the loans they had taken to fund the development of the Olympic Village. As the guarantor of the loans, the City Council of Vancouver intervened and agreed to continue funding Millennium Properties. By early 2009, the City of Vancouver purchased Millennium’s loan and provided money for the Village’s completion until the property was handed over to the Vancouver Organizing Committee for use during the Games. Following the Games, Millennium Properties defaulted on their loan to the City. The City has worked to recoup its bail out of the development. However, this has meant much of the non-market housing promised in the bid documents has never been realised. Despite this, the housing constructed on the site has been recognised for its sustainable design by the Urban Land Institute.
3.5.6 State support: As the most recent Olympic Games in this study, a significant amount of time has not passed to evaluate significant supplemental on-going funding from the provincial and national governments. However, in the five years post-Games, it is noted that the provincial government has been responsive to the Olympic legacy needs of the venues.
46 4 Analysis
4.1 Introduction
This research identified how legacy goals have evolved via reform and innovation in four Olympic host cities. A comparison of the four cities reveals how certain variables appear important in explaining why certain types of legacy changes occurred in different contexts. It is notable that legacy-related reforms and innovation are also tied to the hosting and local governance models in the four cities. This indicates that although legacy objectives are somewhat uniform across more recent/prospective host cities (see IOC, 2013), what is possible in terms of legacy delivery, and, more specifically, the long- term commitment to manage legacy, varies according to governance structure.
In the following section, some of the key themes of the research are outlined. These themes all speak to the above point; that the management of legacy over the medium- to-long term is impacted by the particular urban governance models operating in the host city.
4.2 Key Findings
Community development, led by local government, is often critical in order to achieve post-Games viability for Olympic venues: The successful operation and maintenance of Olympic venues in the post-Games period has often relied on local government-led community development. Examples include the Utah Olympic Oval in Kearns and the Richmond Olympic Oval in Richmond. Both of these venues reflect a successful integration of IOC legacy goals with community development goals. Post- Games, Olympic facilities that depend primarily on high-performance athletes often struggle to remain financially sustainable. The ongoing integration of community development objectives with Olympic legacies has served to ensure legacy venues become community assets. Where pre-Games planning for community involvement has been paired with ongoing efforts to boost community engagement with Olympic venues (e.g. Richmond Olympic Oval, Sydney Archery Centre), positive legacies are being produced.
The long-term management of legacy is related to the type of governance arrangements in each host city: The four case studies have different Olympic funding models, governance arrangements and legacy objectives. Figures 17 and 18 compare the funding and governing models of the four cases. The figures show how each Games has had a particular set of legacy objectives and associated management tasks. The ability to innovate and adapt legacy goals and programs is related to government/governance arrangements. For example, Sydney’s Sydney Olympic Park Authority has been continually engaged, as a government authority, in legacy
47 management and development. In contrast, Atlanta had no comparable state authority in place to ensure legacy was a governmental objective. Although Atlanta’s legacy goals were very modest, there has been no coordinated effort to ensure legacy objectives were pursued. To a lesser extent, the same is true in Salt Lake City, where the city’s redevelopment agency now no longer concerns its operations with Olympic-related legacies.
The creation of trusts and foundations is an important development in the management of Olympic legacy: A significant trend across the temporal period covered in the research was the generation of trusts and foundations to manage Olympic facilities in the post-Games period. This development represents a significant tool in ensuring positive legacy outcomes. In some cases, these trusts have featured in pre-planning (e.g. Utah and Vancouver) and in others they have been post-Games innovations (e.g. Sydney). Trusts and foundations can ensure that Olympic-related development have the required operating and maintenance funds. Supporting funds can be allocated from Olympic budgets. Alternatively, contributions can be sought out beyond Olympic operating budgets. The failure of the Parklands Foundation in Sydney signals to the fact that trusts/foundations have different histories across governance landscapes. The particular model of trust/foundation established should be sensitive to this geographical variation. Given the heavy utilisation of the IOC’s Olympic Games Knowledge Management (OGKM) program, there may be opportunities to develop case specific guidance on trusts and foundations based on existing models.
Although legacy goals are often articulated at the city or regional level, Olympic legacies tend to become associated with specific sites: Throughout the bidding and hosting of the Olympics, legacy discussion tends to have a city and regional wide focus. Bid books often mention regional development, economic sector growth and tourist visitation. However, over time many of the case study cities demonstrated that Olympic legacy tends to become associated with specific sites. As the diffusive elements of legacy blends with other developmental processes, explicit concern for Olympic legacy becomes attached to particular Olympic venues, development sites and commemoration sites (e.g. Atlanta’s Centennial Park, Sydney’s Olympic Stadium and Olympic Park). Where these specific sites are not actively managed (e.g. Turner Field, Atlanta, Salt Lake City’s Gallivan Center), legacy can diminish.
The long-term management of legacy varies dramatically across the host cities. These differences can be partly explained by the funding and governance models used to host the Olympics: A comparison of four recent Olympic host cities reveals very different approaches to legacy management. To some extent this reflects the recent movement of legacy to the centre of Olympic planning. However, the varied ways in which legacy is actively managed should also be viewed as a function of hosting and governance models. A comparison of Atlanta and Sydney is most illuminating in this respect (note: Salt Lake City and Vancouver fall in between these two cities). In Atlanta, the hosting model (i.e. private financing) and governance model (i.e. minimal state service provision) meant legacy outcomes were rarely actively managed. In Sydney, the centrality of the New South Wales State Government to the hosting and governing of
48 the Olympic site has meant legacy remains a central goal of the relevant public authorities. As such, there are many more governmental changes and innovations associated with the production of legacy in Sydney. The comparison is illustrative of the fact that legacy goals have to be appropriate to the hosting and governance models of the Olympic city.
4.3 Conclusions
Legacy management and governance evolves over time. This evolution often reflects changing governmental priorities and broader economic shifts. However, a number of themes are apparent across contexts and time periods:
Legacy evolution represents a transition of urban space from spectacular to more mundane functions. In some places, attempts to pair the spectacular (i.e. Olympic memorialisation and large events) and everyday (i.e. common commercial and residential functions) are undertaken. As legacy governance evolves, certain elements of the legacy agenda become more central to ongoing planning efforts.
Long-term legacy management is deeply intertwined with embedded governance processes. This creates a distinction between the governance models used to organise and host the Games, and those forms of governance used to manage legacy outcomes.
Whereas Games hosting models often involve transferable knowledge – enabled by the IOC’s OGKM – the governance of legacy involves a blending of localised and embedded governance with the temporary hosting governance. The long-term generation of legacy may require the formulation of legacy goals and delivery mechanisms that are appropriate for indigenous governance arrangements. Models of knowledge transfer relating to legacy may therefore need to be distinguished from those relating to bidding and hosting.
Olympic legacy becomes associated with certain spaces over time. The maintenance of legacy within host cities therefore involves a process of selection.
Sporting facilities and precincts tend to remain more associated with “legacy” than other Olympic facilities (e.g. athlete housing and infrastructure). This association process varied across the case studies.
49 The most significant governance innovations in terms of legacy relate to institutional capacity and trusts. These two governance mechanisms are the key tools used to manage legacy production over the medium and long term.
State institutions that contain commitments to Olympic legacy (e.g. Sydney Olympic Park Authority) are the greatest innovators in legacy governance. They possess the resources and institutional capacity to pursue efforts to maintain and enhance legacy outcomes. Organisations such as Sydney Olympic Park Authority engage in continuous knowledge production in respect to legacy governance. Trusts and foundations that are established via Olympic revenues are significant mechanisms to ensure Olympic facilities have productive post-Games operations. There are likely opportunities to develop this mechanism in terms of design (e.g. co- partners, management) and funding targets (e.g. public spaces, social enterprises).
4.4 Recommendations
In cities where the long-term management of legacy has occurred, there are opportunities to learn from the innovations that governing authorities have undertaken to ensure ongoing legacy fulfilment. These innovations have not been extensively documented and circulated across host cities. Should this occur, it is likely that productive dialogue and reform might be undertaken. There is an opportunity to develop more transferable and sustainable models of trusts and foundations that can be used to enable a successful transition of Olympic facilities into everyday city life. At present, much of the development in this area has been undertaken on an ad hoc basis. The formalisation of trust/foundation options might encourage greater utilisation of the tool at the bidding and planning stages of the Olympics. Long-term legacy management planning should be sensitive to the geography of Olympic development. In particular, the management of a precinct-based Olympics (e.g. Sydney) presents different opportunities and challenges when compared to a dispersed Games (e.g. Atlanta). The specific institutional arrangements relating to legacy should therefore incorporate an understanding of how the urban geography of the Games impacts the governance of legacy.
50 5 Bibliography
Agha N., Fairley S. and Gibson H. (2012) Considering legacy as a multi-dimensional construct: The legacy of the Olympic Games, Sport Management Review, 15(1): 125- 139
Alberti, M. (1996) Measuring Urban Sustainability, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16(4-6): 381-424
Andranovich, G. and Burbank, M. (2011) Contextualizing Olympic Legacies, Urban Geography, 32(6): 823-844
Andranovich, G., Burbank, M., Heying, C. (2001) Olympic Cities: Lessons Learned from Mega-Event Politics, Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(2): 113-131
Appadurai, A. (1999) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Baade, R. and Matheson, V. (2000) Bidding for the Olympics: Fools Gold? Paper presented at International Association of Sports Economists conference in Lisbon, Portugal in November 2000. Available at: http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/specpaper/0007.htm [Last accessed: 2nd May 2015]
Boukas, N. and Ziakas, V. and Boustras, G. (2013) Olympic legacy and cultural tourism: exploring the facets of Athens’ Olympic heritage, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(2): 203-228
Briese, R. (2001), ‘Sustaining Sydney: the “Green Olympics” from a global perspective’, Urban Policy and Research, 19(1): 25-42.
Brown, D. (2004) Post-Olympism: Olympic legacies, sport spaces, and the practices of everyday life. In J. Bale and M. K. Christensen (eds) Post-Olympism? New York, NY: Berg. 99–117.
Bulkeley, H. and Betsill, M. (2005) Cities and Climate Change: Urban Sustainability and Global Environmental Governance. London: Routledge.
Burbank, M., Andranovich, G. and Heying, C. (2001) Olympic Dreams: The Impact of Mega-Events on Local Politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Cashman, R. (1998) Olympic Legacy in an Olympic City: Monuments, Museums and Memory, Fourth International Symposium for Olympic Research, 107-114.
Cashman, R. (1999) Legacy. In R. Cashman and A. Hughes (eds) Staging the Olympics: The Event and Its Impact. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press. pp.57–69.
51 Cashman, R. (2004) The future of a multi-sport mega-event. In J. Bale and M. K. Christensen (eds) Post-Olympism? New York, NY: Berg. 119–134
Cashman, R. and Hughes, A. (eds) (1999) Staging the Olympics: The Event and Its Impact. Sydney, New South Wales: University of New South Wales Press.
Castells, M. (1999) Information Technology, Globalization and Social Development. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development Discussion Paper No. 114
Chalip, L. (2000) Leveraging the Sydney Olympics for Tourism, Paper presented at the International Chair of Olympism. Available at: http://olympicstudies.uab.es/pdf/OD008_eng.pdf [Last accessed: 6th June 2015]
Chalkley, B. and Essex, S. (1999) Sydney 2000: The 'Green games'? Geography, 84(365): 299-307
Chappelet, J. (2008) Olympic environmental concerns as a legacy of the Winter Games, The International Journal of the History of Sport, 25(14): 1884-1902
Chappelet, J. (2010) Olympic Environmental Concerns as a Legacy of the Winter Games, in: Mangan, J. and Dyreson, M. (eds) Olympic Legacies: Intended and Unintended: Political, Cultural, Economic and Educational. New York: Routledge. pp.1- 19
Charlton, T. (2010) ‘Grow and Sustain’: the role of community sports provision in promoting a participation legacy for the 2012 Olympic Games, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 2(3): 347-366
Clark, G. (2008) Local Development Benefits from Staging Global Events. Paris, France: OECD Publications.
Cochrane, A., Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (1996) Manchester Plays Games: Exploring the Local Politics of Globalisation, Urban Studies, 33(8): 1319-1336
Dansero, E. and Puttilli, M. (2010) Mega-event tourism legacies: the case of Torino 2006 Winter Olympic Games – a territorialisation approach, Leisure Studies, 29(3): 321- 341
Davis, J. and Thornley, A. (2010) Urban regeneration for the London 2012 Olympics: Issues of land acquisition and legacy, City, Culture and Society, 1(2): 89–98
Dyreson, M. and Llewellyn, M. (2008) Los Angeles is the Olympic city: Legacies of the 1932 and 1984 Olympic games, The International Journal of the History of Sport, 25: 1991–2018
52 Essex, S. and Chalkley, B. (1998) Olympic games: Catalyst of urban change, Leisure Studies, 17: 187–206
Essex, S. and Chalkley, B. (2007) The Winter Olympics: Driving urban change, 1896– 2004. In J. R. Gold and M. M. Gold (eds) Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning, and the World’s Games, 1896–2012. New York, NY: Routledge. 48–58
French, S. and Disher, M. (1997) Atlanta and the Olympics: A One-Year Retrospective, Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(3): 379-392
Flyvbjerg, B. and Stewart, A. (2012) Olympic Proportions: Cost and Cost Overrun at the Olympics 1960-2012, Saïd Business School Working Papers (Oxford: University of Oxford) Available at: SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2238053 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2238053 [Last accessed: 6th June 2015]
Girginov, V. (2012) Governance of the London 2012 Olympic Games legacy, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 47(5): 543-558
Girginov, V. And Hills, L. (2008) ‘A Sustainable Sports Legacy: Creating a Link between the London Olympics and Sports Participation’, in Mangan, J. and Dyreson, M. (eds) Olympic Legacies: Intended and Unintended. New York: Routledge. 208-233
Girginov, V. and Hills, L. (2009) The political process of constructing a sustainable London Olympics sports development, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 1(2): 161-181
Glynn, M. (2008) Configuring the Field of Play: How Hosting the Olympic Games Impacts Civic Community, Journal of Management Studies, 45(6): 1117-1146
Gold, J. and Gold, M. (2008), Olympic Cities: Regeneration, City Rebranding and Changing Urban Agendas, Geography Compass, 2(1): 300-318
Gospodini, A. (2009) Post-industrial trajectories of Mediterranean European cities: the case of post-Olympics Athens, Urban Studies, 46 (5/6): 1157-1186
Gratton, C. and Preuss, H. (2008) Maximizing Olympic Impacts by Building Up Legacies, The International Journal of the History of Sport, 25(14): 1992-1938
Hall, M. (2006) Urban entrepreneurship, corporate interests and sports mega-events: the thin policies of competitiveness within the hard outcomes of neoliberalism, The Sociological Review, 54(2): 59-70
Harvey, D. (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism” Geografiska Annaler B, 71: 3–17
53 Hiller, H. H. (2002) Toward a science of Olympic outcomes: The urban legacy. In M. de Moragas, C. Kennett, and N. Puig (eds) The Legacy of the Olympic Games 1984–2000. Lausanne, Switzerland: IOC. 102–109
Hiller, H. (2006) Post-event Outcomes and the Post-modern Turn: The Olympics and Urban Transformations, European Sport Management Quarterly, 6(4): 317-332
Holden, M., MacKenzie, J. and VanWynsberghe, R. (2008) Vancouver’s promise of the world’s first sustainable Olympic Games, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(5): 882-905
International Olympic Committee (IOC) (1999) Olympic Movement’s: Agenda 21 - Sport for sustainable development. Lausanne, Switzerland: IOC.
International Olympic Committee (IOC) (2007) Olympic Charter. Lausanne, Switzerland: IOC.
International Olympic Committee (IOC) (2013) Olympic Legacy. Lausanne, Switzerland: IOC.
Kasimati, E. and P. Dawson (2009) Assessing the impact of the 2004 Olympic Games on the Greek economy: A small macroeconometric model, Economic Modelling 26(1): 139-146
Kirkup, N., & Major, B. (2006) The reliability of economic impact studies of the Olympic Games: A post-games study of Sydney 2000 and considerations for London 2012, Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11(3-4): 275-296
Kissoudi, P. (2008) The Athens Olympics: Optimistic Legacies – Post-Olympic Assets and the Struggle for their Realization, The International Journal of the History of Sport, 25(14): 1972-1990
Kornblatt, P. (2006) Setting the bar preparing for London’s Olympic Legacy, Centre for Cities Discussion Paper 8. Available at: http://www.centreforcities.org/publication/setting-the-bar-preparing-for-londons-olympic- legacy/ [Last accessed: 6th June 2015]
Law, C. (1994) Manchester Bid for the Millennium Olympic Games, Geography, 79(344): 222-231
Leopkey, B. and Parent, M. (2012) Olympic Games Legacy: From General Benefits to Sustainable Long-Term Legacy, The International Journal of the History of Sport, 29(6): 924-943
Lenskyj, H. (2002) The Best Olympics Ever? Social Impacts of Sydney 2000. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
54 Levine, M. (2003) Tourism-Based Redevelopment and the Fiscal Crisis of the City: The Case of Montreal, Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 12(1): 102-123
Li S. and Mccabe S. (2013) Measuring the socio-economic legacies of mega-events: Concepts, propositions and indicators, International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(4): 388-402
Lochhead, H. (2005) A new vision for Sydney Olympic Park, Urban Design International, 10: 215-222
MacAloon, J. (2008) ‘Legacy’ as Managerial/Magical Discourse in Contemporary Olympic Affairs, The International Journal of the History of Sport, 25(14): 2060-2071
Matheson, V. (2004) Economic Multipliers and Mega-Event Analysis, Economics Department Working Papers. Paper 104. Available at: http://crossworks.holycross.edu/econ_working_papers/104 [Last Accessed: 6th June 2015]
Minnaert, L. (2012) An Olympic legacy for all? The non-infrastructural outcomes of the Olympics Games for socially excluded groups (Atlanta 1996-Beijing 2008), Tourism Management, 33(2): 361-370
Newman, H. (1999) Neighborhood impacts of Atlanta’s Olympic Games, Community Development Journal, 34(2): 151-159
Newman, P. (2007) ‘“Back the Bid”: The 2012 Summer Olympics and the Governance of London’, Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(3): 255-267
Ong, R. (2004) New Beijing, Great Olympics: Beijing and its Unfolding Olympic Legacy, Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs, 4(2): 35-49
Owen, J. G. (2002). Estimating the cost and benefit of hosting Olympic Games: What can Beijing expect from its 2008 Games? The Industrial Geographer, 3(1): 1-18
Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (2002) Neoliberalizing space, Antipode, 34(3): 380–414
Preuss, H. (2004) The Economics of Staging the Olympics: A Comparison of the Games, 1972-2008. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ritchie, J. (2000) Turning 16 Days into 16 Years Through Olympic Legacies, Event Management, 6(3): 155-165
Roche, M. (2000) Megaevents and Modernity: Olympics and Expos in the Growth of Global Culture. London: Routledge.
55 Sassen, S. (1996) Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New York: Columbia University Press.
Satherthwaite, D. (ed) (1999) The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Cities. London: Earthscan Publications.
Sydney Olympic Park Authority (2002) Vision 2025 Masterplan. (Sydney, NSW: Sydney Olympic Park Authority)
Sydney Olympic Park Authority (2010) 2030 Master Plan (Sydney, NSW: Sydney Olympic Park Authority)
Searle, G. (2002) Uncertain legacy: Sydney's Olympic stadiums, European Planning Studies, 10(7): 845-860
Shoval, N. (2002) A New Phase in the Competition for Olympic Gold: The London and New York Bids for the 2012 Games, Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(5): 583-599
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., Miller, H.L. (eds) (2007). IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toohey, K. (2008) The Sydney Olympics: Striving for Legacies – Overcoming Short- Term Disappoints and Long-Term Deficiencies, The International Journal of the History of Sport, 25(14): 1953-1971
Toohey, K. and Taylor, T. (2012) Surveillance and securitization: A forgotten Sydney Olympic legacy, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 47(3): 324-337
Toohey, K. and Veal, A. (2007) The Olympic Games: A Social Science Perspective. Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI.
Veal, A., Toohey, K. and Frawley, S. (2012) The Sport Participation Legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games and other International Sporting Events Hosted in Australia, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 4(2): 155-184
Vigor, A. (2004) Creating an Olympic legacy, New Economy, 11(1): 35-39
Waitt, G. (1999) Playing games with Sydney: Marketing Sydney for the 2000 Olympics, Urban Studies 36(7): 1055-1077
Whitelegg, D. (2000) Going for gold: Atlanta's bid for fame, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(4): 801-817
56 United Nations (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Available at: http://www.un-documents.net/wced- ocf.htm [Last accessed: 6th June 2015]
Zhang, Y. and Zhao, S. (2007) Impact of Beijing Olympic-related Investments on Regional Economic Growth of China: Interregional Input–Output Approach, Asian Economic Journal, 21(3): 261–282
Zhang, Y. and Zhao, S. (2009) City branding and the Olympics effect: A case study of Beijing, Cities, 26(5): 245-254
57