City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: Snaith, B. (2015). The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park: Whose Values, Whose Benefits?. (Unpublished Doctoral thesis, City, University of London) This is the accepted version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/19291/ Link to published version: Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ [email protected] The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park: Whose Values, Whose Benefits? A Case Study Exploring the role of Cultural Values in Ethnic Minority Under-Representation in UK Parks. Bridget Snaith CMLI Thesis Submitted for the Award of Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Sociology, City University London March 2015 1 Contents List of Tables & Statistical Figures 8 List of Illustrations 9 Abstract 13 1. Introduction 15 1.1. Introduction 15 1.2. Objectives 17 1.3. Hypotheses 18 1.4. Further Options for Investigation 19 1.5. Definitions 20 1.6. Basic Assumptions 21 1.7. Limitations 21 1.7.1 Case Study Choice 21 1.7.2 Sampling 22 1.7.3 Generalisability of Findings 22 2. Literature Review: 23 2.1. Introduction 23 2.2. Parks & Minority Ethnicities 23 2.3. Why Ethnic Minority Groups May Use Parks Less 26 2.4. Marginality/Deprivation Hypothesis 27 2.5. Opportunity Hypothesis 27 2.6. Subculture / Ethnicity Hypothesis 28 2.7 Acculturation Hypothesis 29 2.8 Racism / Discrimination Hypothesis 30 2.9 Cultural Variation in Normative Behaviour 30 2.10 Territories Racism & Fear 34 2.11 Landscape Preference Research 39 2.12 Habitat Theory & Prospect Refuge Theory 40 2 2.13 Rachel & Stephen Kaplan: Psychological Research in Landscape 42 Preference 2.14 Empirical Evidence of Ontological or Ideological Variation in 45 Landscape Preference 2.15 Empirical Evidence of Variation in Preference by Personality Type 49 2.16 Summarising , & Identifying Gaps in the Literature 51 3. Wider Theoretical Framework 54 3.1. The Importance of Space in Social Science 54 3.2. Britain’s Cultural Landscapes: Aesthetics & Ideology 56 3.3. Maintaining & Defending Cultural Capital : Reproduction of Legitimate 62 Tastes 3.4. Absence at the Centre - Power, Whiteness & Normativity 66 3.5. Ethnicity, Race, the Group, the Other 67 4. The Case Study Area 71 4.1. The Social Context 71 4.1.1 Ethnic Diversity 74 4.1.2 Economy & Deprivation 74 4.2 Typical Aspects of Park Formation 76 4.3 Olympic Aspects of Park Formation 79 4.4 Producing the New Space of the Olympic Park 82 4.4.1 Timeline of Spatial Production for the 2012 Olympics 83 4.4.2 Creating & Controlling Legacy 84 4.4.3 Stitching the Fringe 84 4.4.4 Overseeing & Guiding Spatial Production 86 4.5 The Design Team 86 4.6 Processes of Consultation 88 4.7 Funding Strategy 91 5. Methodology 93 5.1 Introduction 93 5.2 Situating the Researcher 93 3 5.3 Empirical Research: Methods 95 5.4 Park Preference Survey 95 5.4.1 The Questionnaire 95 5.4.2 Sampling 96 5.5 Observation 98 5.6 Focus Groups 99 5.7 Elite Interviews 100 5.8 Spatial Analysis 102 6. Findings: Park Preference Survey 103 6.1 The Population Sample 103 6.2 Overall Sample Stated Park Preferences 104 6.3 The Impact of Age on Stated Park Preference 105 6.4 The Impact of Gender on Stated Park Preferences 106 6.5 The Impact of Education on Stated Park Preference 108 6.6 The Impact of Ethnicity on Stated Park Preference 109 6.7 Intersectionality 112 6.7.1 Ethnicity & University Education 112 6.7.2 Gender & Ethnicity 114 6.7.3 Age & Ethnicity 115 6.8 Conclusions 116 7. Findings: Focus Groups 118 7.1 Focus Group Description 118 7.2 Economic Capital 119 7.3 Cultural Capital 120 7.4 What Parks Are For 121 7.5 Do We All Find Beauty in Nature and Countryside? 126 7.6 What Makes Places Beautiful 131 7.7 Inherited Cultural Capital 134 7.8 Visiting arksP as Individuals or Groups 139 7.9 Social Capital 140 4 7.10 Dogs & Incivility in East London’s Parks 145 7.11 Cultural Conflicts & Everyday Racism 147 7.12 Discussion of Focus Group Findings 149 7.13 Summarising Group’s Expressed Normative Values 150 7.13.1 Represented Views of British Bangladeshi Participants 150 7.13.2 British akistaniP Participants 152 7.13.3 Are There ‘British Asian’ Values for Parks? 153 7.13.4 British Somalian articipantsP 153 7.13.5 Evidence of Islamic Values 154 7.13.6 White British Participants 154 7.13.7 British Caribbean articipantsP 155 7.14 Conclusion 156 8. Findings: Spatial Analysis 159 8.1 Introduction 159 8.2 Edges 160 8.3 Land Use 161 8.4 Movement Generators & Connections 162 8.5 Stylistic & Functional Content: North Park 165 8.6 Stylistic & Functional Content: South Park 168 8.7 Conclusion 170 9 Findings: Elite Interviews 173 9.1 Introduction 173 9.2 Determining Location & Accessibility from Surrounding 173 Neighbourhoods 9.3 Landscape Style / Character 178 9.4 Envisioned Activities in the Park 180 9.5 Strategies to Achieve Spatial Authorship 182 9.5.1 Specificity: Understanding Place & Time 183 9.5.2 Making Use of Social Capital 184 9.5.3 Similarity: Aligning With Elsewhere 185 9.5.4 Scientific Strategies: Establishing Proof 185 5 9.6 Fields of Influence 186 9.6.1 Development / Revenue Finance & Economics 187 9.6.2 The Political Field 189 9.6.3 Olympic Influences 191 9.6.4 Sustainability 192 9.7 National Image, Taste & The Rules of the Game 194 9.8 Representations and Perceptions of the Local Community 197 9.9 Conclusion: Whose Values 200 10 Findings: Observation 203 10.1 Introduction: Early Use Counts 203 10.2 Fieldwork Planning 203 10.3 Counting Methods 204 10.4 Findings 204 10.5 Conclusion: Whose Benefits 211 11. Conclusions: Whose Values, Whose Benefits at the Queen Elizabeth Olympic 212 Park 11.1 Introduction 212 11.2 Ethnicity & Cultural Values 212 11.3 Ethnicity & Landscape Taste 214 11.4 Community Cultural Values for Parks 215 11.4.1 Areas of Agreement 217 11.4.2 Restorative Value 217 11.4.3 Traditional Parks, Royal Parks & the Problem Of Victoria Park 218 11.4.4 Scenic Views & ‘Wild’ Space 218 11.4.5 Fear in Park Space 221 11.4.6 Representations of Space, & Spaces of Representation 221 11.5 Park Making Practices 221 11.5.1 The Rules of the Game 221 11.5.2 Whose Benefits 222 11.5.3 Whose Values 223 11.5.4 Powerless Consumers of Spatial Production 224 6 11.6 Impacts 226 11.7 Why Ethnic Minorities are Under-Represented as Users of UK Parks 227 12 Parks for People: Cultural Reflexivity in Park Design and Management 230 12.1 Introduction 230 12.2 Addressing Vulnerability in Unregulated Space 231 12.3 Countering Evidence of Greater Institutional Support for Some 232 Groups Rights to Space 12.4 Accommodating Multiple Culturally Normative Preferences & 234 Practices 12.5 The Importance of Cultural Consciousness in Equitable Provision 236 of Spatial Resources in Multi-Cultural Cities Appendices 239 Bibliography 260 7 List of Tables & Statistical Figures 4.1 2011 Ward Level Population Statistics by Ethnicity, Inner Catchment (ONS 2012) 73 4.2 2011 Ward Level Population statistics by Ethnicity, Outer Catchment (ONS 2012) 75 6.1 Respondents Claimed Ethnicity 103 6.2 Overall Park Image Preference 105 6.3 Park Image Preferences by Gender 106 6.4 Park Image Preferences by Level of Education 108 6.5 Park Preferences by Ethnicity (including Amalgamated Categories) 109 6.6. Park Preferences by Ethnicity Excluding Amalgamated Categories 110 6.7 ‘Fields’ of Ethnicity & Park Image Preference (Percentage Values) 111 6.8 White British, British Caribbean, & British Bangladeshi Park Preferences by 113 Education Level (Percentage Values) 6.9 Frequency of Park Image Selection by Education & Ethnicity 114 6.10 White British & British Bangladeshi Park Preferences by Gender (Percentage 115 Values) 8 List of Illustrations 1.1 Cover Illustration: North Park April 2014 Cover 1.2 Location and Context of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park 14 1.3 Promotional Image of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park (Pro Landscaper 2013) 19 3.1 Emscher Park (Danish Architecture 2014) 59 3.2 Pensthorpe, Piet Oudolf (Ashley Cooper, Alamy Stock Photo) 62 4.1 Inner (1.6km) & Outer (3.2km) Park Catchment 71 4.2 The Olympic Site in 2000 (based on Hartman 2012) 78 4.3 The 1.6km Catchment as Built 81 4.4 Bully Fen Nature Reserve (© Homer Sykes, The Guardian 2012) 82 4.5 Eastway Cycle Circuit (© Homer Sykes, The Guardian 2012) 82 4.6 The Olympic Legacy & Fringe Masterplan (Hartman 2012) 85 4.7 The LLDC Area Boundary 87 4.8 The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park & Legacy Vision for 2030 (based Hartman 2012 89 & London Legacy Development Corporation 2012 ) 5.1 Park Preference Survey Image Sheet 97 6.1 St James’s Park (London) (Anon, 2006) 105 6.2 Geometric Garden (Spanish Garden, Newstead Abbey)(Pipo Loco 2012) 105 6.3 Meadow/ Wasteland (Centenary Riverside Park, Rotherham) (Coe, 2011) 106 6.4 Perennial Flower Garden (Barnes Park, Sunderland) (Calroy, 2011) 106 6.5 Neoclassical (Weston Park, Sheffield) (Beardwood 2012) 107 6.6 Brownian (Bowood, Wiltshire) (Textlad 2008)