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