A Top tip

• The information you are about to receive is vital to your success

• So make some notes

The Great Bristol GA 6th Form Competition March 2012

A Decision Making Exercise

How effectively have the London Olympics sites met the urban regeneration and sustainability agenda thus

far in the Lower Lea Valley

http://www.web-candy.co.uk/clocks/london2012.htm

What you will be enlightened by

1. The London Olympic Vision

2. Background to the bid

3. The location of the Games

4. Why the location was chosen

5. The major stakeholders

6. Parallel case studies

7. The S.E.E impacts of large sporting events

The Vision• ‘The 2012 Games will improve life for people in London’s most deprived

area. They will be a catalyst for the regeneration of London's east end and will provide affordable housing and quality living space for the people of Newham’, Barbara Cassani London Olympic Bid Vice Chair

• ‘The London Games in 2012 will be far more than just a four week festival of sport. They will be quite simply the most sustainable ever – leaving a lasting legacy of jobs, homes and environmental improvements for East London, London and Britain’. Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London.

• ‘The Games will lift our international profile, attract inward investment and boost profits and jobs for everyone’. Sir Digby Jones, Director General of the Confederation of British Industry.

• IOC say that successful Olympic hosts must show they are providing a sustainable legacy, lasting beyond the Olympics themselves.

Background to the bid• Bid for 2012 submitted July

2003• Of the 9 bids submitted. IOC

reduced choices to 5 by May 2004

• These were London, Madrid, Moscow, New York, and Paris

• July 2005 Singapore the final announcement

• London beat Paris in a close contest

Location of the London Olympics: the main site

• The Lower Lea Valley

• It is the boundary between the boroughs of Newham, Hackney, Waltham Forest and Tower Hamlets

• The valley stretches for about 5 km between Stratford and the River Thames.

The main site: Before

The main site: During

1. The Lower Lea Valley is home to one of the most deprived communities in the country.

2. Considered the largest remaining regeneration opportunity in inner London.

3. Unemployment is high

4. The public health record is poor.

5. It suffers from a lack of infrastructure.

6. Industry provided low-density employment.

7. Poor environmental quality - Fly tipping has been a major problem in the area for years + high levels of contaminated land.

Reasons for the choice of location: Lower Lea Valley

Urban regeneration in East London

Today East London is an area of regeneration with a rising population. It is made up of the London boroughs of Barking & Dagenham, Hackney, Havering, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest. The total area of this group of boroughs is 318.64 km² and the total population in 2004 was 1.5 million.

East London, like many inner cities, suffered as a result of deindustrialisation, particularly between 1960-70 when the Docklands area was unable to compete with new container ports such as Tilbury and Felixstowe.

The London Docklands urban Development Corporation (LDDC, 1981) and Enterprise Zone (1982) helped to regenerate the Docklands area. When the LDDC finished in 1998, the whole Docklands area had seen massive change and development. Its achievements included the establishment of a secondary financial district and the development of an improved transport

Social Indicators

Social Indicators

Economic Indicators

Multiple Deprivation Index Data

1.Income2.Employment,3.Health4.deprivation and Disability,5.Education Skills and Training,6.Barriers to Housing and Services, 7.Crime the Living Environment.

Vicious Circle of decline

High unemployment

People have less money to spend on goods and services

People have more time and less money and opportunities.

Less taxes and business rates are paid to the local council

The local council invests less in housing, roads and education

Young people leave school with fewer qualifications

Petty crime often increases

The London Olympics: Major sporting Infrastructure

• Stadium

• Aquatics

• Velodrome

• Hockey Centre

• Basketball Arena

• Athletes Village

• Press Centre

Location of the London Olympics: the main site

Athlete’s Village

Canary WharfAquatics Centre

The Velodrome

The main Athletics Stadium

Hockey CentreBasketball centre

River Lea

Stratford International Rail link

The Main Stadium

The Aquatics Centre

The Velodrome + BMX track

The Hockey Centre

The Basketball Centre

The Athletes Village and Stratford Rail link

Location of the London Olympics: the other sitesLondon

• The ExCel centre – boxing, Judo etc

• The Millennium Dome - Gymnastics

• Wembley - Football

• Greenwich Park - Equestrian

• Royal Artillery Barracks - shooting

• Wimbledon - Tennis

• Lords - Archery

• Regents Park – Road race cycling

Outside London

• Weymouth – sailing

• Dorney Lake - Rowing

Who are/were the major stakeholders / players?Organisers• Seb Coe – Chair London Organising Committee • Ken Livingstone

Finance bodies• Private investors – fund staging of games (approx £2 billion)

– Coke, McDonalds, Panasonic

– BA, British Telecom, John Lewis, BP, Lloyds TSB

• Central Government and other bodies fund infrastructure + venues (£……)– National Government (tax payers) – 64%– National lottery – 23%– Mayor of London + LDA (London Development Agency – 13%

International Olympic Committee

They are interested in how the Olympics are viewed around the work and claim that if the games are to be a success they MUST leave a sustainable legacy

London Development Agency

They are interested in the development of London as a whole and will definitely want a strong legacy for Newham.

London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games

The group that are organising the big ideas. They make the decisions about where to spend the money

Olympic Delivery Authority

They put into place what the committee decide is best they want the games to run smoothly

Boris Johnston (Mayor of London)

Wants the economic, social and environmental well being of the city to be high and needs local people to feel that the games were a success so that they will vote for him again

Transport for London

They have to organise how the many millions of visitors are going to be transported around the city

Four London Borough Councils

They are more interested in the long term benefits that the games can bring rather than if the games are seen as a success

Who are/were the major stakeholders / players?

Parallel Case Studies: The 2000 Sydney OlympicsSocio Economic Impacts• Costs of games tripled to AU$6 billion• Costs rose partially due to high cost

of site decontamination• AU$6 billion investment in

infrastructure • Net loss AU$2.1 billion• Tourism numbers increased 2001. 1.6

million visitors spent AU$6 billion• Tourism numbers decreased in 4

years after the event• $2 billion received in TV rights,

sponsorship + ticket sales• Gentrification occurred + No

affordable housing generated in Athletes village

• Athletes village fully sold off after games. Now home to 5000 (Newington)

Environmental impacts

• Venues largely unused – white elephant although some reuse in 2003 Rugby World Cup

• 430 Hectares of ecologically significant wetland + remediated brownfield sites produced

• 40kms of cycle path and pedestrian footpaths created

• Water recycling system built. Now saves Sydney 850 m litres of drinking water / year

• Athletes village solar powered

• 95% of waste recycled in building phase

Parallel Case Studies: The 2004 Athens OlympicsSocio Economic Impacts• Costs skyrocketed to over $9.3 billion• Costs of maintaining the environment

= $500 million annually• Games Debt likely to take 2 decades

to repay• 21 of 22 venues now abandoned

including hockey and kayaking• Major stadium home to football team

FC Panathinaikos so well used• Athletes village not fully sold off after

games as isolated + lacked service provision

Environmental impacts• Many venues abandoned +

graffitied• Olympics acted as catalyst

for pedestrian walkways and metro system (now carries 600,000 a day)

• Solar panels were not installed on Athletes village due to spiralling costs

Classic Olympic issues: Social Impacts

1. Land rights

2. Gentrification + speculative developers

3. Social exclusion

4. Community displacement – Clay’s Lane

5. A genuine social Legacy of housing + services?

6. The feel good factor?

Not everyone is for the games

Classic Olympic issues: Economic Impacts

1. Overall spiralling costs? – Security?

2. Costs of developing a brownfield site

3. Impact on the local economy multiplier…

4. Job creation

5. Tourism footfall + spending

6. Rebranding / reimaging / regeneration

7. Investment in transport infrastructure

Investment in transport infrastructure

The costs and income of running the games

Classic Olympic issues: Environmental impacts

1. Brownfield site decontamination

2. Environmental sustainability of the site

3. Environmental Impact of the build

4. Energy supply + consumption

5. The impacts of Transport to / from and inside the venue(s)

6. Consumption during the games

How successful has regeneration been?

Reimaging Regeneration

Social Yet to be seen Until recently, plans for housing have been substantial, with estimates of up to 9000 new homes around the Olympic Park after 2012. However, the new Mayor has promised to make the Games ‘less about regeneration and more about sport’ and is known to be keen to make efficiency savings where possible. In Sydney after 2000, cost pressures and a change of political will forced a change of policy from social housing to free market private housing, which promised far higher rewards.

Economic The people who value land post-2012 will have to factor inincreased land values as the ‘desirability' of the area increases. Even if a prolongedcredit crunch ensues, land values around the Olympic Park will have more thandoubled since 2005.

It is fair to ask whether London’s costs can balance. The UK Government estimatedin mid-2008 that costs would reach £10-£11 billion, over four times the original estimate, but that these would be exceeded by the scale of benefits. These costs will have to be balanced by ticket sales and sponsors – but the payback will occur largely through indirect impacts. Tourist spending and the increase in construction employment each generate ripple effects in east London, but the big payback will come in terms of land values.

Environmental Yet to be seen The plans for London’s 2012 have extended Sydney’s concept of the ‘Green Olympics'. Using some of the same design personnel responsible for Sydney, London’s central hub is Olympic Park, the first major park in London for over a century. As well as providing a traffic-free concourse during the Olympics andParalympics, the Olympic Park will promote the regeneration of the Lea Valley and create a new Lea Valley Regional Park.

Green rules. How sustainable will the games be?

• Use ‘brownfield’, not ‘greenfield’ sites.• Use or adapt existing materials, rather than build from

scratch• Design and use environmentally friendly buildings and

materials• Minimise adverse impacts of Olympic events on

residents• Minimise waste, and recycle wherever possible• Protect native ecosystems, fauna or flora• Make Olympic sites fully accessible by public transport.• Manage water sustainably• Use energy efficiently• Create a local amenity and access for people

‘Assess’, An exam tastic term

1. Assess = consider both sides of the argument and come to a considered conclusion

2. To do this…

3. Consider Costs Vs Benefits

4. Of various S.E.E.P impacts

5. Be balanced

6. But show complexity in your arguments ‘However’

Your BIG task

Assess the success of the London Olympic Games in meeting

regeneration and sustainability agendas thus far

Assess the success of the London Olympic Games in meeting regeneration and sustainability agendas thus far:

The activity and the task

1. You have decide how far the Olympic games site have been successful with the regeneration and sustainability agenda. So consider both sides of the argument and come to a considered conclusion.

2. Consider Costs Vs Benefits. Use data.3. But show complexity in your arguments ‘However’

4. Include the views of the various stakeholders5. Set the decision within the framework of

sustainability. Remember to cover social, economic and environmental impacts

Getting started

1. Send a representative to collect an information pack2. Read through the information in the packs3. Then distribute the 5 tasks from the previous slide

between the different members of the team4. Send a representative to collect paper, pens etc5. You have one hour before you presentation must be

delivered to the judges6. Good luck and remember unimaginable prizes, fame

and glory for the winning team.

Spare stuff / templates for additional slides

Making decisions are never easy in Geography

• A key element of geography and the working world is decision making• The key is..• Be informed. Read up to give you breadth of understanding of the SEEP

points (Social, Economic, Environmental and Political)• Then you can make an informed decision which will allow you to PEE (a

great relief)• Identify your social, economic and environmental Points and consider

the sustainability factor• Expand and explain your points• Support them with Evidence• Finally see the complexity ‘However’, Recognise your weaknesses and

prepare your counter arguments