a 1500 word essay about the cost and benefit of olympic game(need do some reading)
724254675
1.pdf
Introduction
One of the main strategies adopted by cities that want to become part
of the ‘global network’ is to stage a mega-event. These events are
usually of international significance, require large-scale infrastructural
investment and have a high media profile. The Summer Olympics
is the most prized example of this type of urban spectacle. Olympic
host cities expect to benefit from the economic impacts, the urban
regeneration effects and the global attention that accompanies the
event. This paper discusses the reasons for the growing importance of
mega-events in urban policy and evaluates the ‘pros and cons’ of the
Olympics as a catalyst for urban renewal. Case studies of cities that
have substantially benefited from the ‘Olympic effect’ are considered,
together with the experience of other hosts where the impacts have
been less positive. This paper complements an earlier article written
specifically for schools in the UK (Chalkley and Essex 2000).
The emergence of mega-events in urban strategy
Deindustrialisation and globalisation have forced urban planners
to discard former policies of economic development based on
production funded from local, regional or national sources. Traditional
industries are no longer the major generators of wealth or creators of
employment that they once were, and they have, in addition, rendered
vast tracts of urban land derelict and obsolete through business
contraction and closure. These economic and land use problems
present urban planners with a considerable challenge, namely to
transform both the reality and image of a run-down urban area into
one that is attractive for new kinds of economic activity.
Consumption-based activities, such as service industries and tourism,
are the buoyant and growing sectors of the economy, but are not
easily attracted to old industrial areas. These new businesses are
highly geographically mobile with a global reach and often favour
high quality environments (Harvey 1989). Consequently, old
industrial areas have to undertake major urban revitalisation projects
in order to convert their damaged environments into places that new
businesses would consider as suitable locations. Often, new styles of
urban management in local and central government are also required
so as to develop a quick, responsive and entrepreneurial approach to
new economic opportunities and rapidly changing global markets.
world
status
Olympic Games
By Dr. STEPHEN ESSEX Principal Lecturer,
School of Geography, University of Plymouth
and PROFESSOR BRIAN CHALKLEY Director of the National Subject Centre for
Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Plymouth, UK
Figure 1: Inter-urban competition to stage the Summer Olympic Games 1896–2020
Many cities have recognised that staging a mega-event can bring
them major benefits in dealing with these sorts of issues. Large-
scale urban regeneration projects can be justified by events such as
the Olympics which modernise the sporting as well as the general
urban infrastructure. The construction of new or substantially
refurbished sports facilities is obviously required to stage the Games.
Wider investment in tourism, transport and telecommunications
infrastructure, including public services, hotel accommodation and
environmental improvement is now also necessary to ensure the
smooth running and success of the Games. The economic benefits
stimulated by the event itself can generate a fair proportion of the
finance to pay for such investments. The specific and unmoveable
deadline of the event itself initiates ‘fast-track’ redevelopment, which
achieves desired improvements within a much shorter timeframe
than would normally be the case. The planning and management of
such redevelopment can also encourage the introduction of a more
entrepreneurial approach to urban regeneration from within the public
sector. The media attention both before and during the event usually
acts as a form of place marketing, which can create longer-term spin-
offs in terms of inward business investment and tourism long after the
Games have taken place.
Inter-urban competition to stage the Olympics
The value of the Olympics as a stimulus to urban regeneration and
place marketing is evident in the fierce competition between cities
bidding for the right to stage the Games, especially since 1992 (see
Figure 1). The commercial success of the Los Angeles Olympics in
1984 was instrumental in renewing interest among potential hosts
and this was extended further by the model of urban transformation
presented by Barcelona’s preparations for the Olympic Games of
1992. As a consequence, expressions of interest and bids to host
subsequent Games have increased: there were 48 bids for the Games
of 2004 and 66 potential candidates for the Games of 2008. These
figures are clear evidence that cities have begun to recognise that
staging the Olympics can stimulate urban regeneration and help
secure ‘world city’ status. However, it should be noted that all of
the finalist candidate cities for the Games of 2012 are already what
might be termed ‘global cities’—Paris, Madrid, London, New
York and Moscow. This point has led some people to argue that the
Olympics are now entering a new, more intense phase of inter-urban
competition. Cities are no longer seeking the event principally to
stimulate urban transformations as previously, but now perceive
the Olympics as a means of simply developing their global status
(Beriatos & Gospodini 2004).
The inter-urban competition for the event is so fierce that potential
host cities often spend millions of dollars in attempting to impress
members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), who decide
which city will host the Games. On occasions, allegations of bribery
and corruption have emerged, with the most high-profile case being
the decision to award the Winter Games of 2002 to Salt Lake City. In
return for electoral support, the Salt Lake Bid Committee—making
their second application and determined to secure the event—
allegedly made payments to IOC members for holidays, medical
treatment and for members’ children while at university or working
in America (Toohey & Veal 2000). The subsequent IOC Inquiry led
to substantial reforms which included a ban on any inspection visits
to bid cities by IOC members and the inclusion of athletes in the
composition of the IOC. New eligibility criteria for ‘applicant cities’
have been introduced to ensure that all bid submissions are technically
and financially viable. These issues are an indication of how much
is at stake for bid cities in the competition to secure such events and
represent perhaps one of main downsides of making urban policy
dependent on a mega-event for its implementation.
The Olympics as a catalyst of urban renewal
The scale of the urban investment required to stage an Olympic
Games has obviously increased as the number of sports and athletes,
the global media interest and the level of commercial sponsorship
have all grown. Both the Summer and Winter Games have followed
similar trajectories in their impact on the urban infrastructure of
hosts (Essex & Chalkley 2002). Prior to 1960, both the Summer
and Winter Games were relatively small-scale events involving
only modest infrastructural investments, apart from the construction
of the actual sports venues. Since 1960, the Games have involved
increasingly large-scale urban transformations, which have acted as
tools of regional development. The phases outlined in Table 1 are a
useful guide to the main patterns and changes, although it obviously
represents a generalised model from which individual Games have
sometimes deviated (Essex & Chalkley 1998, Chalkley & Essex
1999). Indeed, the interest of existing global cities in staging the
Olympics, as discussed earlier, might begin to influence the trajectory
of urban impacts from 2012 and therefore require the addition of a
new phase to those proposed in Table 1.
The Barcelona Games of 1992 is widely regarded as one of the most
successful Olympics ever. The transformations made in the city for the
Olympics are considered as a model for other cities wishing to initiate
large-scale revitalisation schemes, although it must be emphasised that
the ‘Olympic’ plans were only part of a much longer strategy of urban
renewal initiated in the mid-1970s. The most striking transformation
occurred at Parc de Mar, where an area of declining industries became
the Olympic Village and public open space. The development opened
up the coast to the expansion of the city and has begun to change the
shape of the urban form. This area represents one of the main symbols
of Barcelona’s Olympic transformation.
The Sydney Games of 2000 were also generally considered to be a
major success at the time of the Olympic event itself. The Games
created a stunning spectacle and demonstrated what can be achieved
by event-led urban regeneration with a strong prominence given to
its sustainability credentials. The Olympic Stadium and Village at
Homebush Bay, 14 km to the west of the city centre, was constructed
on a 760-hectare site of contaminated wasteland used for dumping
household and industrial refuse, including the State Brickworks, the
State Abattoir and the Royal Australian Armaments Depot. These sites
Table 1: The changing infrastructural impact of the Summer and Winter Games 1896–2002
Summer Olympic Games Winter Olympic Games
Phase One: 1896–1904 Small scale, poorly organised and not necessarily involving any new development
Phase One: 1924–1932 Minimal infrastructural transformation apart from sports facilities.
Phase Two: 1908–1932 Small scale, better organised and involving construction of purpose built sports facilities
Phase Two: 1936–1960 Emerging infrastructural demands, especially transportation.
Phase Three: 1936–1956 Large scale, well organised and involving construction of purpose built sport facilities with some impact on urban infrastructure
Phase Three: 1964–1980 Tool of regional development, especially transportation and Olympic Villages.
Phase Four: 1960–1996 Large scale, well organised and involving construction of purpose built sports facilities with significant impacts on urban infrastructure
Phase Four: 1984–2002 Large-scale urban transformations, including multiple Olympic Villages.
Source: Chalkley and Essex (1999); Essex and Chalkley (2004).
were cleaned-up and the subsequent developments had the principles
of environmental sustainability incorporated into their design and
operation—for example, solar power, water recycling and passive
heating and cooling. The area was transformed into a new suburb of the
city, although the post-Olympic use of the stadium was much questioned
until it gained new life as the venue for the Rugby World Cup in 2003.
Dangers of the Olympics as a tool for urban renewal
While the general perception of the ‘Olympic effect’ in Barcelona and
Sydney has been highly positive, instances of less welcome outcomes
can also be identified in these cities. The transformation of a deprived
residential area at Parc de Mar in Barcelona into a much more affluent
and privileged community who now reside in the Olympic Village
has led to criticisms of ‘unnecessary gentrification’ (Valera & Guardia
2002). Barcelona also expanded its hotel accommodation stock for
the Olympics, whose occupancy could not then be maintained in
the immediate post-Olympic period. Between 1990 and 1994, the
room capacity of Barcelona increased by 44.5 per cent, while its
room occupancy declined by 23.2 per cent. Real ‘boom and bust’
dangers are apparent concerning investment in accommodation, as
well as other infrastructure. Sydney’s main Olympic venue, Stadium
Australia, has proved to be too large (80,000 capacity) for local sports
events that typically attract half that number of spectators. These
longer-term consequences, well beyond the duration of the event
itself, are perhaps the costs involved in cities participating in this form
of post-modern urban policy (Searle 2002).
Other examples of the risks of staging the Olympic Games are still more
striking and obvious. Cities can become infatuated with monumentality
and the world-class status promised by staging the Olympic event
(Harvey 1989). Plans can be over-ambitious or ignore the implications
for certain sections of the local community. Montreal, the host city of the
1976 Games, is often regarded as the most vivid example of the dangers
of the ‘Olympic effect’. The Games provided the stimulus for Montreal
to construct an ‘Olympic Park’ on a brownfield site in the city as well
as several new roads, hotels, an extension of the subway system and a
new airport. Unfortunately, the financial burden of staging the Games
was accentuated for Montreal by a worsening economic situation in
Canada, an international recession and global inflation. These economic
difficulties were compounded by a number of other factors, such as local
opposition to staging the Games, technical and construction problems
resulting in major cost over-runs, and labour relation disputes. The
consequence of all these factors was a long-term debt of CAN$600m or
US$460m (Kidd 1992).
Equally, however, host cities can also jeopardise the perceived success
of their Games by attempting to be too economical with the ‘Olympic’
investment. The Atlanta Games of 1996, for example, attempted to
replicate the private sector led financial success of the Los Angeles
Games of 1984, but are often cited as a failure of American private-
public sector partnerships, because of the lack of investment in the
city’s wider infrastructure. As a result, traffic congestion, administrative
problems, security breaches and over-commercialisation meant that the
city did not receive favourable media coverage. The President of the
IOC was only prepared to pronounce the Games in Atlanta as a qualified
success rather than as the customary ‘best Games ever’. He is reported
to have told a German newspaper that he would never again support
a largely privately-funded Olympics, with such prominent business
sponsorship.
The need for timely planning and management of the Olympic
infrastructure is also demonstrated by the criticism of the preparations
for the Athens Games staged this summer. The IOC gave severe
warnings to the Athens Organising Committee as early as April 2000
about the inadequate progress being made on the Olympic facilities
(BBC 2000), allegedly caused by poor management and cronyism,
nepotism and corruption over the award of contracts. With 120 days
before the start of the Games, newspaper reports were claiming that
half of the 39 Olympic-related projects were behind schedule, that
the construction of a roof over the outdoor aquatic centre had been
abandoned, and that there was doubt whether tramways linking the
city to some Olympic venues and the airport would be ready on time
(Smith, The Guardian, 22 April 2004). Whether these issues will have
a real effect on the Games in August 2004 remains to be seen at the
time of writing.
Conclusion
Some host cities have utilised the Olympics as a springboard to wider
urban development much more energetically than others. The needs
and circumstances of individual hosts obviously vary. Substantial
investment has been required in some cities to raise public health
and environmental standards to levels that would be acceptable to
international visitors and the world’s media. Economic factors in
both the local and global contexts have also played a key role in
determining levels of infrastructural investment. The prevailing
national and local attitudes to public expenditure and the role of the
state can affect the level of provision. Games more dependent on the
commercial priorities of the private sector, such as those organised in
America since the 1980s, have less wide-ranging impacts on the urban
infrastructure. Political motivations, such as the demonstration of
the success of a particular government or political party, can also be
reflected in the scale of investment in new facilities for the Olympics.
The Olympics as a catalyst of urban revitalisation also raises global
equity issues. The geography of Olympic host cities is predominantly
concentrated in Europe, North America and the Pacific Rim—all
regions which have the financial resources to provide the required
infrastructure. It has been suggested that the Summer Games cost
approximately US$2 billion, with a further US$1 billion plus in
government expenditure (IOC, 2002). It is doubtful whether many
urban centres in the less developed world would now be able to
stage the event on the required scale, unless substantial changes are
implemented.
The IOC Olympic Games Study Commission (IOC, 2002) has
recently recognised the need to review the scale of the event:
‘The Games have reached a critical size which may put their future
success at risk if the size continues to increase. Steps must be undertaken
and serious consideration given to effectively manage future growth,
while at the same time preserving the attractiveness of the Games. If
unchecked, the current growth of the Games could discourage many
cities from bidding to host the Games’ (IOC 2002, p. 16).
The Commission’s report made a number of suggestions about how
the scale of the Games might be controlled, such as reductions in
the number of sports and official visitors of the ‘Olympic family’,
and by only permitting permanent facilities if a positive post-Games
legacy could be demonstrated (IOC 2003). Any changes along these
lines must, of course, not reduce the quality of the facilities for the
athletes or compromise security measures against potential acts of
terrorism. The preparations and infrastructural investment for future
Olympic Games are, however, likely to be driven increasingly by
these emerging principles and especially that the event should leave a
positive legacy for the host city and its citizens.
Beriatos, E. and Gospodini, A. 2004, ‘“Glocalising” urban landscapes: Athens and the 2004 olympics’, Cities, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 187–202.
British Broadcasting Corporation 2000, ‘Athens Olympics in
jeopardy’, BBC Online, 20 April, 2000, available at <http://news.
bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/720631.stm>.
Chalkley, B. and Essex, S. 1999, ‘Urban development through hosting
international events: a history of the Olympic Games’, Planning
Perspectives, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 369–394.
Chalkley, B. and Essex, S. 2000, ‘Learning from the Olympic
Games’, Teaching Geography, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 112–118.
Essex, S. and Chalkley, B. 1998, ‘Olympic Games: catalyst of urban
change’, Leisure Studies, vol. 17, no. 3, pp.187–206.
Essex, S. and Chalkley, B. 2004, ‘Mega-Sporting Events in Urban
and Regional Policy: A History of the Winter Olympics’, Planning
Perspectives, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 201–204.
Harvey, D. 1989, The Urban Experience, Blackwell, Oxford.
International Olympic Committee (IOC) 2002, Olympic Games Study
Commission: Interim Report to the 114th IOC Session (Mexico,
November 2002), IOC, Lausanne, November , available at <http://
multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_581.pdf>.
International Olympic Committee 2003, Olympic Games Study
Commission: Report to the 115th IOC Session (Prague, July 2003),
IOC, Lausanne, available at <http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/
en_report_725.pdf>.
Kidd, J. 1992, ‘The Culture Wars of the Montreal Olympics’,
International Review for the Sociology of Sport, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.
151–161.
Mraz, J., Kriewaldt, J. and Digby, B. 2004, Sports Geography: The
Athens Games, Australian Geography Teachers’ Association,
Camberwell, Victoria.
Figure 2: Location of host and bidding cities for the Summer Olympics
Definitions—review your understanding of the following terms: IOC, mega event, infrastructure, globalisation, deindustrialisation, redevelopment, urban renewal, regeneration, fast track developments, environmental sustainability.
Understanding the text
1. Identify the mega-events that might be considered valuable for cities aspiring to become part of the ‘global network’.
2. For cities wanting to achieve enhanced global status, why are the Olympics considered to be the ‘best of them all’?
3. Explain the significance of consumption-based industries for cities looking to host mega-events such as the Olympic Games.
4. Compile a list of major benefits to be derived from staging a global mega-event.
5. What is the role of the media in the staging of these mega-events?
6. Why is there such intense competition between cities for the right to host the Olympic Games?
7. What reasons are given for the continuing interest of existing global cities in staging the Olympics?
8. Who do candidate cities have to impress to gain the right to host the Games? How do they achieve this?
9. The IOC has introduced new eligibility criteria for applicant/bidding cities. Why has this been done? What concerns are behind the introduction of these criteria?
10. Explain how and why the hosting of a mega-event generally results in urban regeneration and renewal.
11. Account for the development of the Olympic Games from a relatively small-scale sporting festival to the global mega-event they are today.
12. Assess the environmental credentials of the Sydney 2000 Games.
13. Describe some of the environmental features of the venues developed for those Games.
14. Examine some of the issues faced by Sydney after hosting the Games in 2000.
15. Explain the ‘boom and bust’ aspects of hosting a mega-
event such as the Olympic Games. Give examples to illustrate your answer.
16. Outline the ‘Olympic effect’ referred to in the article.
17. How important is timing when preparing for an Olympic Games? Research some of the issues and problems faced by Athens in preparing for the 2004 Games.
18. What regions of the world have hosted most Olympic Games?
19. Suggest reasons to explain why the geography of the Olympic Games is so uneven.
20. Why are many cities of the world never likely to be considered as prospective hosts for mega-events?
Skills 1. Refer to Figure 1.
a. What is the general trend in the number of cities expressing interest in hosting the Games, even though they may not present a formal bid?
b. Why do you think this trend exists? c. Why should so few cities actually bid formally, having
expressed interest?
2. a. What do you notice about: • the general location of cities hosting the Olympics? • which continents have held the Olympics most
frequently? b. Why do you think this situation has arisen?
3. Use the data to either support or reject arguments why the following cities should host the Olympics in 2012: a. London. b. Paris. c. New York. d. Moscow. e. a city in the developing world.
Discussion and debate Discuss or debate the following statements:
1. ‘The Olympics is a means by which cities can gain enhanced global status’.
2. ‘There are many positive aspects of mega-events, but they are often short-lived’.
3. ‘The scale of the Olympic Games has got out of control’.
Searle, G. 2002, ‘Uncertain Legacy: Sydney’s Olympic Stadiums’,
European Planning Studies, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 845–860.
Smith, H. 2004, ‘Clock ticks as Athens sprints for the line’, Guardian
Unlimited, 22 April, 2004, available at <www.guardian.co.uk/
international/story/0,3604,1200164,00.html>.
Toohey, K. and Veal, A.J. 2000, The Olympic Games: A Social Science Perspective, CAB International, Wallingford.
Valera and Guardia, 2002 ‘Urban Social Identity and Sustainability: Barcelona’s Olympic Village’, Environment and Behaviour, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 55–66.
Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles, Virtual archive of Official Reports of past hosts of the Olympic Games, <www.aafla. org/6oic/report_frmst.htm>.
Athens Olympic Organising Committee, Athens 2004, <www. athens2004.com/athens2004/>.
British Olympic Association 2003, London Olympic Bid, <www. olympics.org.uk/olympicbid.asp>
International Olympic Committee, <www.olympic.org/>.
Olympic Studies Centre, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, <http:// blues.uab.es/olympic.studies/dir/fl.html>, includes educational
resources and Fundamental Olympic Lessons.
