Funds and the games

When London won the bid for the 2012 Olympics in 2005, one of the primary concerns was that the games provided value for money. However, with spiralling costs and the economic downturn, public pressure is on developers to ensure that once the closing ceremony has finished there is a future for the investment made by millions of Londoners.

The London Development Agency, along with the Olympic Park Legacy Company, have already begun to make some announcements on the subject. The Olympic Village, that will be the home for the 23,000 athletes competing in the games, has already been allocated for transformation into 2,800 homes of which around half will be affordable. This will provide the capital with a necessary boost in housing as well as pay back some of the cost of hosting the games.

Problems potentially lie in the longer legacy of these buildings. Prior to the games, Stratford was a badly rundown area in need of regeneration. The games are raising the status of the area, but in an artificial way through a sudden huge cash injection. And there is nothing to say that, once this injection has stopped after the games, Stratford and surrounding areas won’t slide in that direction again.

The layout of the Olympic village, in apartment buildings in clusters of six to eight across eleven sites, could act as a catalyst for a downturn. Much as the estates of high rise towers from the 1950s and 1960s have come to be synonymous with ideas of social deprivation, unless careful consideration is given to how such a concentration of housing is sculpted after the games, there is a risk of the Olympic dream turning into an urban nightmare.

Another concern is for the fate of the stadiums constructed for the games. Careful thought has been givento the hosting of events. Many existing locations are to be used, such as Wimbledon tennis club and even Horse Guards Parade. As for the more specialised event centres, such as the canoeing venue, most are likely continue to serve their purpose as show cases for sporting excellence. Some, such as the basketball arena, are being built so that they can be dismantled and either used in other building projects or relocated to another part of the country.

Yet the fate of the main Olympic stadium remains undecided. The enormous size of the venue will make it difficult to find a new owner and already the designers of the 80,000 people capacity venue have indicated that seats can be removed to reduce the capacity to just 25,000 people. This type of capacity would make the venue an ideal new stadium for a London football team. In particular, it’s been suggested that West Ham United could relocate to the stadium – a move strongly backed by its new management team but attracting a mixed response from fans. Such a deal is speculative, so careful negotiation would be required to achieve a profitable result on the stadium.

Equally, the future of the International Broadcast Centre, providing a place for press registration and activity during the games, will need to be considered. Currently, proposals are for this 80,000 sq m building to be turned into prime business space after the games, boosting the local economy and creating jobs. This plan for recouping investment will of course be dependant on the state of the rental and purchase markets after the games. And currently, that’s anyone’s guess.

Of course, there is still time to ensure that the legacy of the Olympics is a positive one. Yet both in the run-up to the event and afterwards, media scrutiny of the use of Olympic funds will likely be sustained. Once the fireworks of the closing ceremony have faded, the real challenge for London will begin.