Ipek Chakki
︎ Podcast Link
How Olympic Housing Legacy Promises Fail Their Local Communities
A comparative study of housing promises in the London 2012 and Paris 2024 Games
A comparative study of housing promises in the London 2012 and Paris 2024 Games
The Olympic Games is a mega-event that cities all around the world compete to host. The cities’ Olympic committees come up with a legacy plan that they present to the International Olympic Committee in order to get selected as the host city. The Olympic legacy is the plan that the host cities put out which promises that if the city hosts the Olympics, the city and its community will experience long-term benefits throughout the Olympic journey of the city. Currently, the Olympic legacy is known in the public as a promise failing them in various aspects. In the past, some of the cities’ political leaders and Olympic organizers over-promised in the legacy plan to win the bid election and have the community’s support. This case is not all the same but with such mega-events there tend to be complications which usually end up with communities’ needs sacrificed. This tendency of sacrificing community needs made by the committee in the past caused the Olympic housing legacy to be one of the most controversial parts of the legacy.
London and Paris have always been significant hosts in Olympic history. The first built structure for an Olympic was for the London 1908 Games, White City Stadium before that the existing structures were restored to use for the Olympics. The White City Stadium ended up being the first “white elephant” case. After that, new venues were started to be built for various reasons. The white elephant term is used commonly in the Olympics, and it is used for “something that is expensive, or that costs a lot of money to keep in good condition, but that has no useful purpose and is no longer wanted”. In the Paris 1924 games, the first venue was built to host athletes named “Olympic Village”. Therefore, the London 2012 and Paris 2024 games have been put in the spotlight by the media and public.
2010 Vancouver and 2012 London Olympics are both much-debated Olympics when it comes to giving back to the communities. Before the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, the public were concerned about hosting the Olympics and the newly built Olympic Housing would cause more damage to the city’s homeless people issues. The city’s Olympic Committee promised 3,200 new social housing but only delivered 1,400. London Olympics legacy is a controversial topic and housing is one of the most obvious unkept promises which I will investigate further in the London 2012 Olympic Housing legacy Promises and Realities chapter.
1976 Montréal Olympics is another example of letting down the community which in that case concluded taxpayers to be in debt. It had been especially unsuccessful in serving the community in many big cities which usually have an increasing number of social problems like the homeless people number. 2016 Rio Olympics destroyed 700 homes for an empty landscape and increased the number of homeless people. These promises aim to improve the city in multiple aspects to serve the community. In reality, those promises had been unkept by host city committees reasoning the “Unexpected cost increase”.
Both London 2012 and Paris 2024 games housing are built in regions that are close to the city but accommodate low-income communities who tend to be more in need of affordable housing. For the Paris Olympics post-game usage of the village to not fail the community in the area London 2012 Olympics should be analysed to not make the same mistakes, especially when it comes to the communities who need these spaces. This is particularly interesting because when we look at the difference between legacy plans and outcome reports many promises made for the community’s benefit aren’t fulfilled or decreased. The gap can be disappointing for the city and the redeveloped area’s community. Politicians and the Olympic committee claim the event creates opportunities for economic benefits such as tax revenues, job and business opportunities with international publicity which lures investors and tourists by gaining international reputation. They also point out urban development with regeneration, increasing the employment numbers and sociocultural impacts which improves the quality of the local community’s life. However, the public still disagrees with this claim. The complexity of the event can bring along many negative impacts to the city, especially to the local community. Academics such as, Dogan Gursoy are trying to prove how the Olympics can be harmful to the communities and the importance of their support for the Olympic period and the future. Economic issues had been experienced earlier in the Olympics such as higher tax burdens and mismanagement of public funds. social issues like marginalization of disadvantaged groups, damage to cultural, historic sites and resources.
This dissertation aims to answer two main questions. If these symptoms are known, why are the Olympic committees not prepared for them to prevent these gaps in the Olympic Legacy promises and reality? Why are the authorities still allowing the gap to occur even though a significant number of academics are demonstrating how the communities and host cities are suffering? The research will start with the Olympic Legacy’s History as background research to have a decent understanding of the topic, case studies and what are the issues that occurred. I will continue with an investigation of Martin Müller’s research about “Mega-Event Syndrome” to understand further the issues mega-event organizers deal with. The literature explains how and what can go wrong in mega-events and what are some common cases. Concurrently, I will conduct an interview with Ali Kiremitcioglu who is the former CEO of the Istanbul 2020 Bid Committee and currently one of the board members of the European Olympic Committee’s Marketing and Communication team. I hope to explain Martin Müller’s “Mega-Event Syndrome” research and discuss the causes of these outcomes and understand his perspective while directing the thesis questions to him.
After gathering information from both perspectives as my case studies, I will be researching the London Olympics and Paris Olympics Housing Legacy Promises and what happened in reality. I will focus on the Olympic Village’s post-game housing specifically to focus mainly on the legacy housing and not the cities’ overall regeneration. I am interested in the gap between the promises made and the reality of what was delivered as that’s a part where most academics focus on. In conclusion, Martin Müller’s “Mega-Event Syndrome” and the interview with Ali Kiremitcioglu will be used to measure the success of the case studies.I will unveil how many of these symptoms occurred in London and have the potential to occur in Paris and answer the thesis questions.
London and Paris have always been significant hosts in Olympic history. The first built structure for an Olympic was for the London 1908 Games, White City Stadium before that the existing structures were restored to use for the Olympics. The White City Stadium ended up being the first “white elephant” case. After that, new venues were started to be built for various reasons. The white elephant term is used commonly in the Olympics, and it is used for “something that is expensive, or that costs a lot of money to keep in good condition, but that has no useful purpose and is no longer wanted”. In the Paris 1924 games, the first venue was built to host athletes named “Olympic Village”. Therefore, the London 2012 and Paris 2024 games have been put in the spotlight by the media and public.
2010 Vancouver and 2012 London Olympics are both much-debated Olympics when it comes to giving back to the communities. Before the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, the public were concerned about hosting the Olympics and the newly built Olympic Housing would cause more damage to the city’s homeless people issues. The city’s Olympic Committee promised 3,200 new social housing but only delivered 1,400. London Olympics legacy is a controversial topic and housing is one of the most obvious unkept promises which I will investigate further in the London 2012 Olympic Housing legacy Promises and Realities chapter.
1976 Montréal Olympics is another example of letting down the community which in that case concluded taxpayers to be in debt. It had been especially unsuccessful in serving the community in many big cities which usually have an increasing number of social problems like the homeless people number. 2016 Rio Olympics destroyed 700 homes for an empty landscape and increased the number of homeless people. These promises aim to improve the city in multiple aspects to serve the community. In reality, those promises had been unkept by host city committees reasoning the “Unexpected cost increase”.
Both London 2012 and Paris 2024 games housing are built in regions that are close to the city but accommodate low-income communities who tend to be more in need of affordable housing. For the Paris Olympics post-game usage of the village to not fail the community in the area London 2012 Olympics should be analysed to not make the same mistakes, especially when it comes to the communities who need these spaces. This is particularly interesting because when we look at the difference between legacy plans and outcome reports many promises made for the community’s benefit aren’t fulfilled or decreased. The gap can be disappointing for the city and the redeveloped area’s community. Politicians and the Olympic committee claim the event creates opportunities for economic benefits such as tax revenues, job and business opportunities with international publicity which lures investors and tourists by gaining international reputation. They also point out urban development with regeneration, increasing the employment numbers and sociocultural impacts which improves the quality of the local community’s life. However, the public still disagrees with this claim. The complexity of the event can bring along many negative impacts to the city, especially to the local community. Academics such as, Dogan Gursoy are trying to prove how the Olympics can be harmful to the communities and the importance of their support for the Olympic period and the future. Economic issues had been experienced earlier in the Olympics such as higher tax burdens and mismanagement of public funds. social issues like marginalization of disadvantaged groups, damage to cultural, historic sites and resources.
This dissertation aims to answer two main questions. If these symptoms are known, why are the Olympic committees not prepared for them to prevent these gaps in the Olympic Legacy promises and reality? Why are the authorities still allowing the gap to occur even though a significant number of academics are demonstrating how the communities and host cities are suffering? The research will start with the Olympic Legacy’s History as background research to have a decent understanding of the topic, case studies and what are the issues that occurred. I will continue with an investigation of Martin Müller’s research about “Mega-Event Syndrome” to understand further the issues mega-event organizers deal with. The literature explains how and what can go wrong in mega-events and what are some common cases. Concurrently, I will conduct an interview with Ali Kiremitcioglu who is the former CEO of the Istanbul 2020 Bid Committee and currently one of the board members of the European Olympic Committee’s Marketing and Communication team. I hope to explain Martin Müller’s “Mega-Event Syndrome” research and discuss the causes of these outcomes and understand his perspective while directing the thesis questions to him.
After gathering information from both perspectives as my case studies, I will be researching the London Olympics and Paris Olympics Housing Legacy Promises and what happened in reality. I will focus on the Olympic Village’s post-game housing specifically to focus mainly on the legacy housing and not the cities’ overall regeneration. I am interested in the gap between the promises made and the reality of what was delivered as that’s a part where most academics focus on. In conclusion, Martin Müller’s “Mega-Event Syndrome” and the interview with Ali Kiremitcioglu will be used to measure the success of the case studies.I will unveil how many of these symptoms occurred in London and have the potential to occur in Paris and answer the thesis questions.