Urban regeneration for the London Olympics 2012 and its social impact on the local residents Master Thesis Master in Urban Management and Valuation Source: The Telegraph. Retrieved from: goo.gl/hbq0pc Student: B.Sc. L.Arch. Marina Milosev Tutor: Arch. Blanca Arellano Ramos December, 2014
_1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS and OBJECTIVES 3 METHODOLOGY 4 LITERATURE REWIEV 5FINDINGS 6CONSLUSION _the main objective This research focuses on the recent urban regeneration that took place due to the London Olympics 2012. The main aim of this study is to investigate its social impact on the local low-income residents of Newham borough. _ statement of the problem The urban regeneration of East London and its legacy were the main reasons for the UK to win to host the Olympics 2012, nine years ago. Officials stated that the beneficial legacy of this urban regeneration would be long lasting and advantageous to the local communities of the East End, which was among the poorest of London and even England. Given extremely ambitious goals, the large scale, high spending, the promise that the Olympics would enhance the life of the local community, and eradicate their poverty, has been seen as a tenuous promise. Map of Olympic site and deprivation in London The Olympic site Dark green color represent the LOSAs with high deprivation Source: The Queen Elisabeth Olympic Park. Available at: http://queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/
1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS and OBJECTIVES 3 METHODOLOGY 4 LITERATURE REWIEV 5FINDINGS 6CONSLUSION _hypothesis Despite the Government s efforts to promote socially mixed communities and its promise of an improvement that will mainly benefit local residents, the urban regeneration project and the Olympics 2012 social legacy won t benefit low-income residents of Newham borough but residents that are more affluent. In other words, it will cause exactly the opposite effect of what have been promised by local government, as local residents will suffer rough social and economic consequences. Homeless mothers who squatted flats of an empty housing estate in Newham. 9/10/2014. Source: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/
1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS and OBJECTIVES 3 METHODOLOGY 4 LITERATURE REWIEV 5FINDINGS 6CONSLUSION _objectives To review the literature in order to study the urban regeneration and social sustainability in urban areas as a general concept; To examine social issues related to this project; To analyse how social issues integrated with the Olympic Games 2012 project; To analyse how the Olympic project addresses local community necessities; To identify to what extent this project socially (social-economic) affected the residents of Newham borough. Homeless mothers who squatted flats of an empty housing estate in Newham. 9/10/2014. Source: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/
1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS and OBJECTIVES _3 METHODOLOGY 4 LITERATURE REWIEV 5FINDINGS 6CONSLUSION _methodology The analysis of social impact of the urban regeneration was based on a mixed methodological approach (qualitative-first): both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to collect and analyse the data. _methods Qualitative: In- depth in person interviews Documentation analysis Fieldwork- observations Quantitative: Survey- structural questionnaires
1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS and OBJECTIVES 3 METHODOLOGY _4 LITERATURE REWIEV 5FINDINGS 6CONSLUSION _literature review CONTEMPORARY VISION OF URBAN REGENRATION IN THE UK... a comprehensive and integrated vision and action which leads to the resolution of urban problems and which seeks to bring about a lasting improvement in the economic, physical, social and environmental condition of an area that has been subject to change (Roberts and Sykes, 2000: 17). SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY IN CONTEXT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT Social sustainability can be broadly defined as the maintenance and improvement of well- being of current and future generations (Chiu, 2003). According to McKenzie, (2004) the condition incorporated equity of access to key services (including health, education, transport housing and recreation) (Cited in Mak and Peacok, 2011: ). EVENT-LED URBAN REGENERATION AND ITS COMPLICATIONS Mega events, such as the Olympics, are considered to be great catalyst for urban changes. They offer an exclusive opportunity, to the host city, to boost the economic advancement (achieved through tourist and employment increase), infrastructure improvements, and urban development (Lei and Spaans, 2009). However, given its large scale, budget, short time, and often high ambitions that are being promised, event-led regeneration has been highly criticized for numerous complications. The main issue related to mega events are residents displacement, and other various socio-economic disadvantages that might impact local, specifically low-income, residents (Watt 2013; Porter et al. 2009)
1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS and OBJECTIVES 3 METHODOLOGY 4 LITERATURE REWIEV _5 FINDINGS 6CONSLUSION _socio economic profile of Newham INCOME (IMD 3 in 2007) In 2013, gross annual salary in Newham was 28,283 while in Inner London was 34,524 and 32,800 in Grater London. The UNEMPLOYMENT (IMD 55 in 2007) in Newham is 13.7%, while in London is 8.9% and in England 7.9%. Relatively low levels of SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS (IMD 159 in 2007) compared to the city as a whole HOUSING (IMD 2 in 2007): In 2009, 15% private houses were designated unfit, compared to 6% in London. 50% of social housing stock in Newham was below Decent Homes Standard. Relatively high levels of CRIME (IMD 17 in 2007)and perceptions of crime within the resident population (Drugs, Violence, Robbery etc.). An expanding black and minority ethnic community (high ethnic segregation); HEALTH (IMD 25 in 2007): Newham residents have lower life expectancy and higher rates of premature mortality than other Boroughs in London and the average for England as whole.
1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS 3 METHODOLOGY 4 LITERATURE REWIEV _5 FINDINGS 6CONSLUSION _the Olympic legacy Costing 9.3 bn; Before the Games, 2005 After the Olympics 2013 2.5 square km; Completely transformed vast area of industrial and brownfield land; Around 200 buildings were demolished; entirely new infrastructure was developed (new utilities network to provide power, water and sanitation to the site); Around 100 hectares was allocated to the green space. Ex Clays Lane Co-Operative community New housing- Athletes Village
1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS 3 METHODOLOGY 4 LITERATURE REWIEV _5 FINDINGS 6CONSLUSION _the Olympic legacy New housing in the Olympic Park HOUSING LEGACY build over 9,000 new homes, a large proportion of which to be affordable. EMPLOYMENT LEGACY create 12,000 job opportunities in the area of the Park post- Games. SERVICES AND AMENITIES provide new sport, leisure, education and health facilities that meet the needs of residents, business and elite sport. Source: http://www.earth911.com/ Stratford, Westfield shopping center SOCIAL WELLBEIING - Socially-mixed community; residents participation, pride, sense of community etc. HEALTH 100ha of new green area; sport venues, North Park and South Plaza. Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
By staging the Games in this part of the city, the most enduring legacy of the Olympics will be the regeneration of an entire community for the direct benefit of everyone who lives there London Bid Book 2005
Social issues Socio-economic Olympic legacy/promise The facts, two years afterwards (survey, interviews, observations, facts and figures) Housing shortage and unaffordability Unemployment 1,379 affordable new housing units. -356 intermediate rent, -348 shared ownership, and -675 social 10.000 new jobs, 2.000 jobs for unemployed local residents. 32% can t afford 44% or residents can t afford 2, 65% 3 bedroom property at Affordable rent, 65% believes that rent increase as a result of the Olympics; Interviews shows displacement 37.5%, privately renting Low paid jobs (retail and hospitality); increases in unemployment between 2007-09 and 2010-12; 208 jobs were dislocated, 25 businesses employing 65 staff closed down. Social segregation, Sense of community and participation Health and lack of activates Barrier to the services Stigmatization Provide socially mixed communities. Improve the cohesion in the area. 90% of respondents calmed that they haven't been involved in the planning process. 74.2 % doesn t think that planning authorities didn t successfully addressed local community's necessities. North Park and South Plaza 75% don t use the park because of the lack of information, it is not considered local, difficult to reach. provide new sport, leisure, facilities that meet the needs of residents, business and elite sport re-brand the community, turn area into new cities hallmark 80% of residents don t use new facilities the main reason is lack of resources or no information; 70.8% think that this will improve the image of Newham, 57% feel proud that Newham hosted the event. Thought, the improvements are not for them.
1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS 3 LITERATURE REWIEV 4 METHODOLOGY _5 FINDINGS _6CONSLUSION _conclusion
1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS 3 LITERATURE REWIEV 4 METHODOLOGY _5 FINDINGS _6CONSLUSION _conclusion The first signal of a contradictory outcome was the residents displacement that took place during the early stages of the regeneration process. Moreover, displacement was not only specific to the resident who lived on the Olympic site but also it was extended to nearby areas due to the increase of the rent price. Overall, all data indicates that the local low-income residents won t socially benefit of this projects. Giving the fact that the Olympic legacy is designed to be fully deliver in next 15-20 years, this study underlines only some insights toward the real outcome of the whole social outcome. Therefore, it is essential to carry on the future studies and under assessments and all promises and their development.
ASHTON-MANSFIELD. Newham Key Statistic: A detailed profile of key statistics about Newham by Aston-Mansfield s Community Involvement Unit. [online]. 2013. [Accessed 03 March 2014]. Available at: <http://www.aston-mansfield.org.uk/wpontent/uploads/2012/09/newham-key-statistics- summary.pdf>. CHENG, Y. QU, L. SPAANS, M. Framing the Long-Term Impact of Mega-Event Strategies on the Development of Olympic Host Cities. Planning, Practice & Research, 28(3): 340 359. 2013. CHRE (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions). Fair Play for Housing Rights: Mega-Events, Olympic Games and Housing Rights [online]. Jun 2007. [Accessed 20 February 2014]. Available at: <http://www.cohre.org/topics/mega-events>. COLOMB, C. Urban Regeneration and Policies of Social Mixing In British Cities: A Critical Assessment. In: Arquitectura, Ciudad y Entorno (17): 223 244. 2011. COLQUHOUN, I. Urban Regeneration. London, B.T. Basfort Ltd, 1995. p.12-27. COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, The English Indices of Deprivation 2010 [online]. 24 March 2011. [Accessed 27 February 2014]. Available at: <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6871/1871208.pdf>. DAVIDSON, M. LEES, L. New-Build Gentrification: Its Histories, Trajectories, and Critical Geographies. Population, Space and Place 16 (5): 395 411. 2010. DAVIDSON, M. LEES, L. New-build `gentrification' and London's riverside renaissance. Environment and Planning, 37: 1165-1190. 2005. DCMS (Department of Culture, Media and Sport) Our Promise for 2012 How the UK will benefit from the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. [online]. 2008. [Accessed 02 March 2014]. Available at: <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/77718/ourpromise201 2Forword.pdf>. EBY, D. Closing ceremonies: How Law, Policy and Winter Olympics are Displacing and Inconveniently Located Low-Income Community in Vancouver. Planning Theory & Practice, 10 (3): 395 418. 2009.
EVANS, G. London 2012. In: GOLD, R.J. and GOLD, M.M. eds. Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World s Games, 1896-2016. 2nd Edition. London, Routledge, 2010. pp. 359-389. GOLD, R.J. and GOLD, M.M. eds. Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World s Games, 1896-2016. 2nd Edition. London, Routledge, 2010. 360-380p. HALL, C.M. Hallmark Tourist Events: Impacts, Management, Planning. London, Belhaven. 1992. p. 83. International Olympic Committee (IOC). Olympic Legacy 2012. IOC Press, Jun 2012, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2012. JULIAN, C. Olympian Masterplanning in London. Planning Theory & Practice, 10 (3): 395 418. 2009. LEI, Q. & SPAANS, M. The Mega-event as a strategy in spatial planning: Starting from the city of Barcelona. In: The International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU). (4 th 2009, Amsterdam), Amsterdam, Delft. 2009. pp.1291-1300. LEES, L. SLATER, T. and WYLY, E. The Gentrification Reader. London, Routledge. 2010. MARCUSE P. Gentrification, Abandonment, and Displacement: Connections, Causes, and Policy Responses in New York City, Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law 28: 195-240. 1985. MONCLUS, F. J. Barcelona 2012. In: GOLD, R.J. and GOLD, M.M. eds. Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World s Games, 1896-2016. 2nd Edition. London, Routledge, 2010. pp. 267-286. NEL LO, O. The Olympic Games as a tool for urban renewal: the experience of Barcelona 92 Olympic Village [online article]. Barcelona: Centre d Estudis Oli mpics UAB. [Consulted: 01/03/2014] <http://olympicstudies.uab.es/pdf/wp090_eng.pdf> 1997. PORTER, L. Planning Displacement: The Real Legacy of Major Sporting Events. Planning Theory & Practice, 10 (3): 395 418, September 2009.
ROBERTS, P. SYKES, H. Urban Regeneration: A Handbook. London, Sage, 2000. The London Development Agency (LDA). The London Development Agency (Lower Lea Valley, Olympic and Legacy) Compulsory Purchase Order 2005. London, England, 2006. WATT, P. It's not for us. City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action, 17 (1): 99-118. 2013.
Thank you for your attention.