‘A massive betrayal’: how London’s Olympic legacy was sold out(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
‘A massive betrayal’: how London’s Olympic legacy was sold out
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/30/a-massive-betrayal-how-londons-olympic-legacy-was-sold-out
61 comments
I'm not sure I understand this. The Olympics certainly massively improved certain areas. Hackney Wick has went from a handful of warehouses and junkyards to having a brand new train station, lots of new apartment blocks, bars and restaurants. Stratford and the Olympic's area between it and Hackney Wick has also seen massive development. Expecting this development to come with stacks of council housing is unfortunately naive. London obviously has big issues when it comes to affordable housing but using that to discredit the huge amount of development that came about because of the Olympics is silly.
Hackney Wick was already in the throws of gentrification, already had a perfectly fine working train station, already had a gallery scene and cheap housing popular with artists and a brewery, all before the Olympics.
Now you have some soulless gross blocks of flats built on a flood plain that'll all be crumbling before the decade is out.
Think you're naive to what the area was before, to be honest. Without the Olympics it would have done just fine.
Now you have some soulless gross blocks of flats built on a flood plain that'll all be crumbling before the decade is out.
Think you're naive to what the area was before, to be honest. Without the Olympics it would have done just fine.
>> Think you're naive to what the area was before, to be honest. Without the Olympics it would have done just fine.
I first lived near Hackney Wick in 2014 and it was a bit of a dump then, so I can only imagine what it was like a few years before that! What's there now may be 'soulless' but it's a hell of a lot nicer.
I first lived near Hackney Wick in 2014 and it was a bit of a dump then, so I can only imagine what it was like a few years before that! What's there now may be 'soulless' but it's a hell of a lot nicer.
The article notes that while massive development happened in Stratford, it was going to happen anyway even without the Olympics, and argues that the development would been much better and more human scale – better quality and more affordable housing, less oversized roads, etc.
So it doesn't seem at all silly to criticise the Olympics for degrading an already-existing development plan.
So it doesn't seem at all silly to criticise the Olympics for degrading an already-existing development plan.
How is it a good thing that employment places for working class people were replaced with housing and entertainment for yuppies?
A lot of the businesses were already struggling (as per the article) and given the 'death of the high street' and the pandemic, probably would have died anyway. It unfortunate, but natural, that if you improve an area with newer housing and amenities that different people will move in and lots of businesses will no longer be required while other types of businesses will be required.
>> probably would have died anyway.
So let this happen if it's going to, then deal with it accordingly. All they did was ensure it's demise by artificially picking winners and losers; there's nothing "natural" about it.
So let this happen if it's going to, then deal with it accordingly. All they did was ensure it's demise by artificially picking winners and losers; there's nothing "natural" about it.
Lots of (formerly) less affluent people owned houses in the area and now live close to much better facilities than they did before.
Nothing 'yuppie' about a nice park, Westfield shopping centre or a train station?
Nothing 'yuppie' about a nice park, Westfield shopping centre or a train station?
Gentrification and redevelopment has winners and losers. But I'm not sure the answer is to just let low income, rundown neighborhoods rot instead.
The working class people weren't "replaced", any that did leave just sold their houses to Yuppies. Many of them may have just became Middle Class. Or just now live in a much nicer area. Perish the thought.
No one is claiming this Olympics (or any) doesn't involve massive amounts of development. It's sold as long-term, social & community focused, then turns out to be short-term, profit-oriented and single event, all funded by gobs of public money for generations to come. It may be naive, but it's certainly not silly. You would get a far better product to the types of development you highlight without the distraction and leakage of the Olympics.
I lived in London between 2011-2014, just before I left my internet connection was upgraded from an extremely unreliable ADSL that wasnt strong enough to open twitter after 5pm and would randomly drop entire internet prefixes: to symmetric 1G FTTC with IPv6.
Why? Because the Olympic infrastructure investments were being sold off and providers were just paying for the last mile.
Internet is an insane economic multiplier and the City would have suffered massively during the pandemic had this infrastructure improvement not happened.
Should it have happened independently? Definitely. Would it? I wouldn't bet on it.
So, I think its easy to overlook these second order effects, but I witnessed it first hand- I was seriously considering leaving the capitol due to the inability to be on-call effectively; I didn't have mobile data in my apartment either.
Why? Because the Olympic infrastructure investments were being sold off and providers were just paying for the last mile.
Internet is an insane economic multiplier and the City would have suffered massively during the pandemic had this infrastructure improvement not happened.
Should it have happened independently? Definitely. Would it? I wouldn't bet on it.
So, I think its easy to overlook these second order effects, but I witnessed it first hand- I was seriously considering leaving the capitol due to the inability to be on-call effectively; I didn't have mobile data in my apartment either.
Multiple companies are, to this day, regularly digging up streets all over London to install 1G+ FTTH, so I'm not sure it had too much to do with the Olympics.
Personally I'm not sure fibre is even all that important anymore. My previous flat had abysmal slow ADSL, and no fibre available, but blisteringly fast 5G that you could get for £30/month with no contract.
Personally I'm not sure fibre is even all that important anymore. My previous flat had abysmal slow ADSL, and no fibre available, but blisteringly fast 5G that you could get for £30/month with no contract.
Hyperoptic (my ISP at the time) wouldn't have rolled out FTTC if not for the back-haul capacity supplied from the Olympic village.
I didn't have 4G/LTE (or even 3G) in my flat. It was really untenable.
I don't really understand the other replies to my comment, are people upset that houses got demolished? lots of single family homes are gone but there's a lot more mid/high density in the area now. Towers in Stratford that came about from the developments in the area.
I was living in Bow in mid-density apartment blocks (4-5 floors, near Devon Road DLR) if that helps give context.
I didn't have 4G/LTE (or even 3G) in my flat. It was really untenable.
I don't really understand the other replies to my comment, are people upset that houses got demolished? lots of single family homes are gone but there's a lot more mid/high density in the area now. Towers in Stratford that came about from the developments in the area.
I was living in Bow in mid-density apartment blocks (4-5 floors, near Devon Road DLR) if that helps give context.
This is like a deranged version of Bastiat's broken window fallacy. The silver lining of bombing a city flat is all the construction jobs that are created.
yes, but, If you don't have any control over essential infra via government reps or something its just bad and you should help change that, following your logic if there is an explosion in old housing its ok since the housing infra will be updated
In 2015 it had been determined that Boston was going to make a bid to host the olympics in 2024. What took place was a grassroots campaign and clear heads that stopped the process. While some of the development would have been cool to see, I'm incredibly grateful we didn't go down that path
https://www.wbur.org/news/2015/07/27/why-boston-olympics-bid...
https://www.wbur.org/news/2015/07/27/why-boston-olympics-bid...
I was still living in Boston in 2015, and I happy to see my city put a stop to that. We still have collective PTSD from the Big Dig, and we can identify a "over-promises and under-delivers" from a mile away.
Even beyond a general hosting the Olympics more often than not is a bad idea, as I vaguely recall there was a bunch of particular screwiness related to the planned Boston bid as it related to the Olympic village among other things.
Calling the big dig ptsd is delusional. The big dig probably increased real estate values in the tens of billions. Not to mention the health aspects of less pollution from cars and all the new businesses/restaurants created.
Giving the big dig credit for an economic revitalization that happened to damn near every city over the same time period is disingenuous at best.
Money spent ensuring that some jerk in his apartment downtown didn't have to look at a highway is money not spent improving the T or fixing other highway problem points for a sum total of the same or better economic effect.
Making transit options not suck increase property values regardless of how you make them. It's the results that matter. Green Monster V2 that yielded the same transit times between various points would have had the same economic effect.
And this ignores the fact that the state let all sorts of infrastructure go into disrepair over the course of the project and we're still digging out of that hole.
Money spent ensuring that some jerk in his apartment downtown didn't have to look at a highway is money not spent improving the T or fixing other highway problem points for a sum total of the same or better economic effect.
Making transit options not suck increase property values regardless of how you make them. It's the results that matter. Green Monster V2 that yielded the same transit times between various points would have had the same economic effect.
And this ignores the fact that the state let all sorts of infrastructure go into disrepair over the course of the project and we're still digging out of that hole.
I'm not an urban planner but it's hard to separate effects.
You also have the ongoing Seaport buildout and, as you say, Boston (and Cambridge) was well-positioned in any case to take advantage of technology/science industries and many educated young professionals moving back into cities. (The Cambridge biotech/pharma buildout had very little to do with the Big Dig for example.)
On the other hand, the Big Dig did improve downtown and airport access in various ways so I'm not sure the degree to which the Seaport expansion would have been possible without fairly large-scale road work. (And, yes, the public transit infrastructure done to service the area is sub-optimal.)
You also have the ongoing Seaport buildout and, as you say, Boston (and Cambridge) was well-positioned in any case to take advantage of technology/science industries and many educated young professionals moving back into cities. (The Cambridge biotech/pharma buildout had very little to do with the Big Dig for example.)
On the other hand, the Big Dig did improve downtown and airport access in various ways so I'm not sure the degree to which the Seaport expansion would have been possible without fairly large-scale road work. (And, yes, the public transit infrastructure done to service the area is sub-optimal.)
PTSD is hyperbolic obviously. But it was pretty bad to live through and I didn't even live in the city. And it was hugely over budget and schedule. Fortunately, thanks to Tip O'Neill the rest of the country at least paid most of the bill. Thanks for that!
But, at the end of the day, it was a huge improvement for Boston even if traffic is still mostly pretty bad. Just getting rid of the elevated highway to reconnect downtown to the North End is a big improvement for the city--as is airport access which was pretty ridiculous before.
But, at the end of the day, it was a huge improvement for Boston even if traffic is still mostly pretty bad. Just getting rid of the elevated highway to reconnect downtown to the North End is a big improvement for the city--as is airport access which was pretty ridiculous before.
Fortunately it's getting harder and harder for the olympics and the world cup to find hosts. One can only hope that this trend will expand beyond these two most egregious locusts.
When Chicago was bidding they planned to host some soccer up here in Minneapolis.
I was hoping they would get it for that alone… but I want nothing to do with ever hosting it locally.
Most countries have plenty of athletic facilities. Adding / expanding local facilities seems wasteful.
I was hoping they would get it for that alone… but I want nothing to do with ever hosting it locally.
Most countries have plenty of athletic facilities. Adding / expanding local facilities seems wasteful.
That is a shame, and there's not any World Cup 2026 venues near you either :(
You can’t transform the area and expect it to remain cheap.
I lived in the Olympic Village for 3 years and they did a great job:
- lovely park
- completely pedestrianised
- good, and still relatively affordable, apartments
Feels like a success to me.
I lived in the Olympic Village for 3 years and they did a great job:
- lovely park
- completely pedestrianised
- good, and still relatively affordable, apartments
Feels like a success to me.
Yes, this article feels slightly disingenuous. "We campaigned to bring the Olympics to an industrial area full of dirty industrial businesses so it would regenerate, and it did, and now we're angry that our dirty industrial businesses are gone and the area is appealing to live in".
Unfortunately the reality is that gentrification and regeneration go hand in hand. If you make an area modern, clean and pleasant then it will become desirable. Desirable areas cost more because they are desirable. Businesses invest in improving areas because that will make them more valuable.
The problems in Stratford - "locals" getting driven out by new developments - are not really due to the Olympics. They're playing out in every corner of London (and many other western cities), and the causes are the familiar bogeymen of rising housing costs - low interest rates, population growth and demographics, and the increasing concentration of high paying jobs in a limited number of cities.
Unfortunately the reality is that gentrification and regeneration go hand in hand. If you make an area modern, clean and pleasant then it will become desirable. Desirable areas cost more because they are desirable. Businesses invest in improving areas because that will make them more valuable.
The problems in Stratford - "locals" getting driven out by new developments - are not really due to the Olympics. They're playing out in every corner of London (and many other western cities), and the causes are the familiar bogeymen of rising housing costs - low interest rates, population growth and demographics, and the increasing concentration of high paying jobs in a limited number of cities.
At the time I calculated that if all the money spent on the 2012 Olympics (supposedly to inspire a nation's children to love sport) was instead given as endowments, then every single secondary school in England would receive something like £150,000 a year extra in their budget to spend on sport - in perpetuity.
This has happened to every modern Olympics venue. "This time it'll be different" is always wishful thinking. The amount of money that goes into building these single-use venues continues to be completely bonkers.
Which single use venues are your referring to, exactly? All the venues built for the London Olympics are either still in active use, or were specifically designed to be temporary.
Every dedicated Olympics complex built in every host nation?
Sure, they get a little bit of use afterward, but not nearly enough to justify the expense of construction.
Sure, they get a little bit of use afterward, but not nearly enough to justify the expense of construction.
Isn’t the usual problem that most of these venues are just simply left to rot? That’s not the case for London.
The problem this piece highlights is “just” that the redevelopment didn’t fulfil the promises on affordable housing. It’s a lovely place for those who can afford it.
The problem this piece highlights is “just” that the redevelopment didn’t fulfil the promises on affordable housing. It’s a lovely place for those who can afford it.
The term "affordable housing" has begun to bother me lately. Another way to make affordable housing is to instead raise the wages of the bottom-earners?
It didn't happen in Los Angeles for the 1984 Olympics.
The Los Angeles area has so many pro sports teams with stadiums or arenas and so many colleges with stadiums or arenas that most of what they needed was already covered. They only had to build two new permanent venues and make some temporary adjustments to some of the existing ones.
The new ones were a velodrome and a swim stadium, both paid for by corporate sponsors. The velodrome was built at a Cal State university paid for by 7-11, and the swim stadium was built at USC and paid for by McDonalds.
Both of those venues were useful after the Olympics. The velodrome was the only Olympic standard velodrome in the US and remained in use until 2004 when it was replaced with a bigger facility nearby that included an Olympic velodrome plus facilities for some other sports. The swim stadium hosted many major swim events until 2013 when it was closed and renovated and resumes hosting major events.
Los Angeles was also able to make its Olympic Village and athlete housing cheaply. They used undergraduate housing at USC and UCLA. Combined they have enough on-campus housing for something like 35000 undergraduates, most of which is empty over the summer.
Los Angeles has so much normally going on when it comes to large events and tourism that an Olympics is not really a big deal there when it comes to infrastructure.
The Los Angeles area has so many pro sports teams with stadiums or arenas and so many colleges with stadiums or arenas that most of what they needed was already covered. They only had to build two new permanent venues and make some temporary adjustments to some of the existing ones.
The new ones were a velodrome and a swim stadium, both paid for by corporate sponsors. The velodrome was built at a Cal State university paid for by 7-11, and the swim stadium was built at USC and paid for by McDonalds.
Both of those venues were useful after the Olympics. The velodrome was the only Olympic standard velodrome in the US and remained in use until 2004 when it was replaced with a bigger facility nearby that included an Olympic velodrome plus facilities for some other sports. The swim stadium hosted many major swim events until 2013 when it was closed and renovated and resumes hosting major events.
Los Angeles was also able to make its Olympic Village and athlete housing cheaply. They used undergraduate housing at USC and UCLA. Combined they have enough on-campus housing for something like 35000 undergraduates, most of which is empty over the summer.
Los Angeles has so much normally going on when it comes to large events and tourism that an Olympics is not really a big deal there when it comes to infrastructure.
To further your comment, all 3 times LA got the Olympics it was because nobody else wanted them...because they were getting too expensive.
And the first two times, LA showed that an Olympics could be done profitably, by reusing existing facilities.
For the 2028 Olympics, LA is following in the footsteps of the 1984 Olympics and reusing undergraduate housing and sports venues. LA has 5 soccer/track and field stadiums (Rose Bowl, Coliseum, Sofi, Dignity Health, and Banc of California), 5 Arenas (Forum, Staples, Galen Center, Pauley Pavilion, and the forthcoming Intuit Dome), 4 baseball stadiums (Dodgers, Angels, USC, and UCLA), 4 Olympic-size pools (Expo Park, USC, UCLA, and Loyola Marymount)...and these are just the major venues with Olympics-level seating. Also, the LA, Anaheim, and Long Beach convention centers are available for indoor early-round events that somehow can't fit into the aforementioned venues. The only venue being purpose-built just for the Games is the media center, which will be constructed by NBC at its own expense.
And the first two times, LA showed that an Olympics could be done profitably, by reusing existing facilities.
For the 2028 Olympics, LA is following in the footsteps of the 1984 Olympics and reusing undergraduate housing and sports venues. LA has 5 soccer/track and field stadiums (Rose Bowl, Coliseum, Sofi, Dignity Health, and Banc of California), 5 Arenas (Forum, Staples, Galen Center, Pauley Pavilion, and the forthcoming Intuit Dome), 4 baseball stadiums (Dodgers, Angels, USC, and UCLA), 4 Olympic-size pools (Expo Park, USC, UCLA, and Loyola Marymount)...and these are just the major venues with Olympics-level seating. Also, the LA, Anaheim, and Long Beach convention centers are available for indoor early-round events that somehow can't fit into the aforementioned venues. The only venue being purpose-built just for the Games is the media center, which will be constructed by NBC at its own expense.
I think it is likely that the Olympics will move to a permanent location or a rotation of host cities in the future. Most local governments and populations have realized that building the infrastructure for the games is a losing proposition. The process for bidding is ripe for local and international corruption and the IOC vacuums up all of the profits.
>I think it is likely that the Olympics will move to a permanent location
To a logical person this makes the most sense to host a sporting event like that.
But what you're not understanding is it's not a sporting event, it's a grift. And hosting it in one place doesn't benefit the Olympic committee at all. Why would you host something in one space and be responsible for it when you can have cities beg and throw money at you to host in their city then leave and make them deal with cleaning it up after.
To a logical person this makes the most sense to host a sporting event like that.
But what you're not understanding is it's not a sporting event, it's a grift. And hosting it in one place doesn't benefit the Olympic committee at all. Why would you host something in one space and be responsible for it when you can have cities beg and throw money at you to host in their city then leave and make them deal with cleaning it up after.
No, I understand that. It's just that even countries that are despotic are no longer bidding for the Olympics. I think if 5-10 major countries are willing to collude they could tip the scales in their favor. Say France, USA, Japan, Brazil, and Australia want to host the summer Olympics and Canada, Norway, Austria, Italy, and the USA want to host the winter Olympics for the next 100 years and will not bid against one another, who else is going to host the games?
Countries are already withdrawing their bids. Brisbane was the only city vying for the games in 2032.
Countries are already withdrawing their bids. Brisbane was the only city vying for the games in 2032.
I'd rather guess that, similar to FIFA World Cups and F1 races it will be mostly a rotation between the dictatorships that can pay the most.
There aren't many democracies left willing to pay for either of these mega events (or in case of F1, the starting fees for the teams), but there will always be a decent supply of dictatorships or oil sheiks wishing to white-wash their image and a supply of delegates/decisionmakers who can be bribed appropriately.
There aren't many democracies left willing to pay for either of these mega events (or in case of F1, the starting fees for the teams), but there will always be a decent supply of dictatorships or oil sheiks wishing to white-wash their image and a supply of delegates/decisionmakers who can be bribed appropriately.
The next two Olympics are being held in Paris and Los Angeles. The oil sheikdom World Cup is being followed by one shared between the US, Canada and Mexico. Formula One added events in Miami, Holland and Portugal to the calendar recently along with lomg standing events in several other democracies plus some petrostates and China.
The idea that democracies aren't interested in hosting major sporting events isn't based in reality.
The idea that democracies aren't interested in hosting major sporting events isn't based in reality.
Paris and LA were awarded the Olympics as a single decision without the normal bidding process - because there weren't any other legitimate and serious bids being put forward.
The 2026 World Cup was awarded to "North America" because the only other bid was from Morocco and FIFA didn't think they had any hope of being able to pull it off. They estimated that Morocco would need to devote 15-25% of their entire GDP just to build the facilities. The North American bid just had a list of cities and stadiums that might host some games and told FIFA to take it or leave it. They only decided on which stadiums they are going to use last month! And the list is missing a bunch of big cities that said "no thanks, we'll pass"!
The 2026 World Cup was awarded to "North America" because the only other bid was from Morocco and FIFA didn't think they had any hope of being able to pull it off. They estimated that Morocco would need to devote 15-25% of their entire GDP just to build the facilities. The North American bid just had a list of cities and stadiums that might host some games and told FIFA to take it or leave it. They only decided on which stadiums they are going to use last month! And the list is missing a bunch of big cities that said "no thanks, we'll pass"!
> The idea that democracies aren't interested in hosting major sporting events isn't based in reality.
It's based on all of the contra-Olympic/WC movements that tend to crop up and successfully prevent any talks as soon as even rumors begin floating around.
> plus some petrostates and China
Out of the last 20 years worth of additions to the F1 calendar, we have Jeddah (Saudi-Arabia), Doha (Qatar), Baku (Azerbaijan), Sochi (Russia), Abu Dhabi (UAE), Istanbul (Turkey), Singapore, Bahrain and Shanghai (China) - which means 17 new tracks, of which nine are in a dictatorship of one or another kind.
That's just way too much appeasing to bribery for me.
It's based on all of the contra-Olympic/WC movements that tend to crop up and successfully prevent any talks as soon as even rumors begin floating around.
> plus some petrostates and China
Out of the last 20 years worth of additions to the F1 calendar, we have Jeddah (Saudi-Arabia), Doha (Qatar), Baku (Azerbaijan), Sochi (Russia), Abu Dhabi (UAE), Istanbul (Turkey), Singapore, Bahrain and Shanghai (China) - which means 17 new tracks, of which nine are in a dictatorship of one or another kind.
That's just way too much appeasing to bribery for me.
4/22 F1 races are in 'dictatorships'. Two of chose races have existed for many years (10-20 years). Doesn't seem like there's been a rush to dictatorships based on that.
Apart from Qatar (and arguably Russia) World Cup's, including the one after Qatar don't appear to have been held in dictatorships at all.
Apart from Qatar (and arguably Russia) World Cup's, including the one after Qatar don't appear to have been held in dictatorships at all.
>I think it is likely that the Olympics will move to a permanent location or a rotation of host cities in the future.
Eh. People have been talking about this for fifty years. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Eh. People have been talking about this for fifty years. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Any city that hosts the games deserves exactly what they get. The money spent, the legal exemptions, the short and long term disruptions. If you're willfully blind to 50 years of evidence I have no sympathy left for you.
I don't get the "abandoned venues" line. There are successful post-olympic uses - for starters, the Munich olympic park is still a major meeting area, and is still used for sports. It's Olympic village is a great place to live at (disclaimer: I did), both for homeowners as well as for students. I hear similar news from the Barcelona olympic venues.
Maybe it is not the Olympics to blame when your city is failing it's post-olympic legacy, but your city (and thus: your fellow citizens)?
Maybe it is not the Olympics to blame when your city is failing it's post-olympic legacy, but your city (and thus: your fellow citizens)?
The article isn’t saying the venues were abandoned but more that they didn’t fulfil the promises on affordable housing.
What a surprise, exactly what we said would happen happened.
Honestly The Olympics is a truly disgusting farce when you dig into the realities of it and the absurd committee demands.
Honestly The Olympics is a truly disgusting farce when you dig into the realities of it and the absurd committee demands.
I mean, anyone who believed the bullshit back in 2005 was being hopelessly naive, to put it mildly.
Comment was wrong and has been deleted.
Ken Livingstone was many things, but "right-wing mayor" is not among them.
I apologise. I will delete my ill-informed comment.
I see you've "deleted" your comment, but I encourage you to restore it with the original text, just replace "right-wing" with "left-wing" this time. Just seems a bit asymmetric, disingenuous, and unfair that you would use "right-wing" as a criticism but not the other way around.
I don't think anyone alive would consider "Red" Ken Livingston to be right wing
When it comes to building up the winning countries infrastructure in support of hosting the games, it always, always is about ultimately feeding that money into the pockets of the rich and the connected. It doesn't matter whether the country is first world or third world, the same people are the winners every single time and the poor, the losers. The olympics are the world's largest and longest running Ponzi scheme.
I wish people stopped using « Ponzi scheme » for anything and everything. It is not a Ponzi scheme. And even if it were, it probably wouldn't be the largest.
Yep, the subways, the streets, the parks, the new apartments, the sports venues, that all only benefits the rich and the connected. Calm your horses, Mr. Marx.