The London School of Economics and Political Science The evolving vision of the Olympic legacy: the development of the mixed-use Olympic Parks of Sydney and London Volume 1: Text Hiromasa Shirai A thesis submitted to the Department of Sociology, Cities Programme of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, August 2014 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 92,019 words. I can confirm that my thesis was copy edited for conventions of language, spelling and grammar by James Disley. 2 Abstract In the long history of Olympic urbanisation, the creation of an “Olympic Park” where various Olympic facilities are concentrated has been favoured by both host cities and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), due to the regenerative opportunity it presents and its management advantages during the Games. Yet the usages and financial viability of such an approach after the Games were questioned by past Olympic cities, such that turning the post-Olympic Park into a multifunctional “mixed-use” urban precinct rather than a mono-functional sporting quarter was the approach taken in Sydney and London. This thesis explores the evolution of the mixed-use vision, its governance and integration into the wider urban tissues in the pre-bid, post-bid and post-Olympic phases, through the cases of the Sydney and London Olympic Parks, and highlights the evolution from Sydney to London. This long-term analysis shows that the vision of the mixed-use Olympic Park originated as a mixture of the existing urban socio-economic aspiration and the specific spatial demands of the Olympic Games. This evolved in different planning climates, along with changes in the governance of the Olympics and legacy planning. I argue that while in the case of Sydney the governance of the legacy in each phase was confined within the designated planning timeframe and focused on the vision within the Olympic Park, London’s approach was more overlapping and extended beyond the boundary of the Olympic site, which created a considerable difference in terms of the realisation of the initial mixed-use vision and integration with adjacent neighbourhoods. Although the thesis traces the evolution from Sydney to London, it also suggests how these cities shared the limits of their entrepreneurial urban governance through the application of the public–private partnership model to legacy planning and challenges in satisfying both local and regional political aspirations for the post-Olympic Park. 3 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my three supervisors – Professor Bob Tavernor, Professor Andy Thornley and Professor Ricky Burdett – for their extensive support of my thesis. Bob and Andy provided tremendous advice to guide my PhD from the beginning of my project at the Cities Programme, and after Bob officially retired from LSE Ricky kindly became my official supervisor and provided valuable comments, while Bob generously continued to support my thesis. Together they provided invaluable guidance during the development of this project. Since my research topic was the exploration of the Olympic legacy in Sydney and London, I have conducted fieldwork in Sydney, London and Lausanne, where the IOC headquarters and great archives of the Olympic Games are located. During the course of collecting the data, I have met with various experts who were involved in planning and managing the Olympic Parks in Sydney and London, as well as many staff members at the IOC; I would like to express my appreciation to all those who provided valuable knowledge and information in support of my research project. In particular, I would like to express my gratitude to all of the interviewees who shared their fascinating experiences of planning the Olympics and the legacy development. Financially, I would gratefully like to acknowledge the financial support I received from the LSE Postgraduate Research Studentship in 2007–2009 and the IOC Postgraduate Research Grant in 2008. In addition to this financial contribution, I would also like to thank the Australian Centre for Olympic Studies at the University of Technology Sydney, which kindly invited me to be a visiting research fellow in 2008–2009, and provided great support for my fieldwork in Sydney. Finally, during my PhD project I also faced various difficulties and indeed had to interrupt my research for a while. Nevertheless, throughout my long-term commitment to the PhD project, my wife and son, Toshiko and Shun, have always encouraged me to continue this great challenge with their lovely smiles. I would like to express my deep appreciation to them for their continuous support. 4 Table of Contents Declaration 2 Abstract 3 Acknowledgements 4 Table of Contents 5 List of tables 10 Glossary of Abbreviations 11 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Research topic 12 1.2 Research background: the Olympics and the urban legacy 14 1.2.1 Olympics urbanisation: the dominance of the “Olympic Park” model 1.2.2 Concerns regarding the Olympic legacy 1.2.3 Mixed-use as a new alternative? 1.2.4 Timescale and spatial scale of the Olympic legacy 1.3. Research cases: the Sydney and London Olympic Parks 20 1.3.1 The Sydney Olympic Park (SOP) 1.3.2 The London Olympic Park (LOP) 1.3.3 The SOP and LOP in the context of the Olympic movement 1.4 Research questions 23 1.5 Thesis structure 26 Chapter 2: Approach to the Olympic legacy: theoretical and methodological frameworks 2.1 Theoretical framework 29 2.1.1 The Olympic legacy, its ambiguity and multi-dimensions 2.1.2 Legacy as a process 2.1.3 The Olympics as “external” forces 2.1.4 Entrepreneurial urban governance as a powerful driver 2.1.5 Land-use plans as a representation of a process of mediating different visions 2.1.6 Mixed-use strategy, its opportunity and constraint 2.1.7 Olympic “bubble” as a result of enclave development 2.2 Methodological framework 43 2.2.1 Changes over time 2.2.2 Contrasting the two cases 2.2.3 Research timeframe and challenges met 2.2.4 Data collection 2.2.5 Visual materials 5 Part I: The Pre-Bid Phase Chapter 3: Sydney 3.1 Olympic vision 63 3.1.1 Beginning of the Olympic vision: Bidding for the 1972 Games 3.1.2 Emergence of Homebush Bay as an Olympic site: Bidding for the 1988 Games 3.1.3 Intensification of the sporting character in Homebush Bay: Bidding for the 1996 Games 3.1.4 Bidding for the 2000 Games 3.2 Industrial vision 71 3.2.1 The industrial past of Homebush Bay 3.2.2 The evolving role of Homebush Bay in the regional planning framework 3.2.3 New industrial development in Homebush Bay 3.3 Evolution of the mixed-use vision in Homebush Bay 77 3.3.1 Olympic impacts 3.3.2 Interim periods 3.3.3 Finalisation for the vision of the Olympic site 3.4 Concluding remarks 85 Chapter 4: London 4.1. Olympic vision 89 4.1.1 Proactive versus reactive approach: Bidding for the 1988 Games 4.1.2 Fragmented governance: Bidding for the 2000 Games 4.1.3 A different approach: Bidding for the 2012 Olympic Games 4.1.4 Conceptualising the "Olympic legacy" in international and regional contexts 4.2 Diverse vision for the LLV 100 4.2.1 Industrial past 4.2.2 Mixed-use vision: Residential and job opportunities 4.2.3 Cohesion between old and new 4.2.4 Recreational and sporting vision 4.3 Spatial vision for the LLV 107 4.3.1 Patchwork of the spatial vision 4.3.2 Olympic and legacy masterplan for the 2012 Games 4.4 Concluding remarks 112 Part I Conclusion: Similarities and differences in Sydney and London 116 6 Part II: The Post-Bid Phase Chapter 5: Sydney 5.1 Governance of the Olympic legacy and its reflection of the spatial vision 121 5.1.1 Fragmentation: Post-bid Olympic governance (1993–1995) 5.1.2 Concentration: Change of the NSW Government (1995–1996) 5.1.2 Impact of the 1996 Atlanta Games 5.1.3 Legacy consideration during the preparation phase 5.2 Implementation of the vision 137 5.2.1 Involvement of the private sector 5.2.2 Vision of “Green Games”: the gap between the promise and implementation 5.3 Integration of the Olympic vision 142 5.3.1 Process of recognising the SOP in the regional strategy 5.3.2 Divorce from the local council 5.4 Concluding remarks 148 Chapter 6: London 6.1 Governance of the Olympic legacy and its reflection of the spatial vision 151 6.1.1 Intended transition: ODA (2005–2008) 6.1.2 Limits of the ODA 6.1.3 Unbalanced socio-economic objectives: LDA (2008–2009) 6.1.4 Change of the legacy governance: OPLC (2009–2012) 6.2 Implementation of the vision 165 6.2.1 Uncertainty of the public and private partnership: Olympic village 6.2.2 Blurring of use and exchange value 6.2.3 Inclusion of local needs? The case of the aquatic centre 6.3 Integration of the vision 172 6.3.1 The LOP in wider regional planning strategies 6.3.2 The legacy vision in the local planning context 6.4 Concluding remarks 177 Part II Conclusion: Evolution from Sydney to London 181 7 Part III: Post-Olympic Phase Chapter 7: Sydney 7.1 The governance and spatial planning