Read 5C2;01oct99 text version

Planning Perspectives, 14 (1999) 369­394

Urban development through hosting international events: a history of the Olympic Games

BRIAN CHALKLEY and S TE P HE N ES S EX {

Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK (email: [email protected] and [email protected])

In recent years, there has been increased interest in the idea of promoting urban development and change through the hosting of major events. This approach offers host cities the possibility of `fast track' urban regeneration, a stimulus to economic growth, improved transport and cultural facilities, and enhanced global recognition and prestige. Many authors attribute the increased importance of event-led development to wider transformations in the global economy, such as post-Fordism and globalization. However, event-led development has a long history and can be recognized, for example, in the World Fairs of the nineteenth century. The Olympic Games, the world's most prestigious sporting event, has been held for over one hundred years with signi cant consequences for the host cities. This paper reviews the effects of the Olympics on the urban environment of the various cities which have acted as hosts in the modern Olympic period (1896 ­1996). The material outlines the varied motivations for staging the Games and examines their outcomes in terms of urban development.

Introduction Since the revival of the Olympics at the end of the nineteenth century, the Games has emerged as the world's greatest sporting event. Its scale and signi cance creates major challenges and opportunities for the organization and infrastructure of host cities. A total of 311 athletes from 13 countries participated in the rst modern Games held in Athens in 1896 (230 of the athletes were Greek). In 1996, in Atlanta, 10 788 athletes from 196 countries took part. The increased size of the Games has produced implications for host cities that extend well beyond the provision of sporting facilities and the organization of the event for the athletes. Investment in supporting infrastructure, such as extra and=or improved airport capacity, hotel accommodation, public transport, water and sewage systems and urban landscaping, has also been required to ensure the effective operation of the Games and that the best possible image of the host city is presented to the international audience. Across the century, therefore, the Games has developed into much more than a sporting competition. For the main participating nations, it has become a quest for national prestige and, for the host city, it is now both a means of achieving international prominence

Brian Chalkley is Professor and Associate Head of Department of Geographical Sciences at the University of Plymouth. His main teaching and research interests are in urban geography and planning and in geographical education. {Stephen Essex is senior lecturer in the same department and has teaching and research interests in tourism and rural planning. Planning Perspectives ISSN 0266-5433 print/ISSN 1466-4518 online # 1999 Taylor & Francis Ltd

370

Chalkley and Essex

and an instrument for promoting physical and economic regeneration. For urban planners and policy-makers, the Games has come to represent a major opportunity for infrastructural investment and environmental improvement. In reviewing the history of the Games, the rst aim of this paper is to place the Olympic experience within the wider context of other `mega-events' such as fairs, festivals and commercial exhibitions, which have also provided a stimulus to urban investment and change. The second aim is to outline the goals and operation of the Olympic movement and to explain the bene ts which cities can accrue by hosting the Games. A third aim is to examine the increasing level of competition to host the Games. Finally, the fourth aim, which is essentially historical, is to trace and illustrate the changing nature and scale of the impact of the Games on the urban environment and its increasing role as an agent of urban policy. This historical discussion occupies a substantial part of the paper and uses, as its principal source, a series of of cial reports produced for each Olympic Games by its organizing committee. The analysis is presented in chronological order so that the reader can obtain a clear picture of the sequencing of developments and the changing trends and patterns in Olympic planning over time. The strength of this account lies in the richness of the description and in the wealth of empirical information [1]. A key theme which emerges is the major contrasts in the extent to which host cities have used the Games as a springboard for urban change, and so the paper concludes by addressing the question of why some hosts have pursued this strategy more energetically than others.

Hallmark events Hallmark events or mega-events have an ability to focus national and international attention on the host city [2]. Their contribution to the built environment and to plans for urban regeneration has a long history. Examples of such events include major fairs, festivals, expositions, cultural and sporting occasions which can be held on either a regular or one-off basis and which provide an opportunity for international commerce, competition, co-operation and=or celebration [3]. The rst world fair or exposition was the `Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations' in London in 1851, which acted as a `showcase' for the achievements of the industrial revolution and the global importance of Britain [4]. Over 19 000 exhibits were shown in the specially constructed Crystal Palace, a building of particular interest in that it heralded the widespread introduction of glass and iron in the design of elegant and lightweight structures. The Great Exhibition began a vogue for expositions and world fairs, many of which involved the preparation of a special site, investment in new infrastructure and the use of distinctive architecture and designs. The Eiffel Tower is a legacy of the Paris Exhibition of 1889 which was held to mark the centenary of the French Revolution and attracted over 30 million visitors. In London, Wembley Stadium is a legacy of the British Empire Exhibition held in 1924­ 5. In 1931, the Bureau International des Expositions was established, with its headquarters in Paris, to regulate the holding of large exhibitions in order to prevent too many being arranged too frequently in any one part of the world. It de ned a rst class exhibition as one where every participating nation

Urban development through hosting international events

371

provides a distinctive pavilion for its displays (as for example in the famous Expo '67 held in Montreal) and it laid down rules about the timing of events of this kind. Many of the great exhibitions have had a signi cant in uence on architectural styles. For example, the Paris exhibition of 1900 acted as a showcase for the ornamental art nouveau style which was subsequently taken up in other European cities. The major exhibitions have also provided a legacy of landmark public buildings. For example, the 1951 Festival of Britain in London bequeathed the Royal Festival Hall, since used mainly for large orchestral concerts. On a wider scale, fairs and exhibitions have also been used as a trigger for promoting more substantial programmes or urban renewal and re-design. As indicated by RubalcabaBermejo and Cuadrado-Roura [5], such events have been the planning instrument for clearing congested areas, re-organizing transport systems and for promoting parks, relandscaping and other forms of environmental improvement. Perhaps the city which has best illustrated this wider role is Barcelona. Its pre-eminence in this eld derives, in part at least, from its function as the capital of Catalonia, a nation without a state. For over a hundred years, Barcelona has regularly hosted international events as a means of enhancing Catalan identity and prestige and challenging the ascendancy of Madrid, the Spanish capital. These events have acted as a stimulus to the work of local planners, architects and artists [6] and have also been used as a trigger to various urban improvements designed to ensure that the city shows itself off to best advantage. For example, the Universal Exhibition of 1888 led to the renewal of parts of the central city and the erection of a number of substantial public buildings in the `Ciutadella' area. The Universal Exhibition 1929 led to major improvements in the city's public transport system and numerous changes in and around the Montjuõ¨c park, where an Exhibition Palace and several sporting facilities were provided. On the edge of Montjuõ¨c, a new monumental axis was constructed ¸ (the Via Reina Maria Cristina) together with the Place d'Espanyu, both of which have become major elements in the city's civic landscape. The sports stadium for the 1929 Universal Exhibition was later refurbished to act as the centrepiece for the 1992 Olympics, whose various urban legacies are discussed in more detail later in this paper. The Barcelona experience illustrates the increasingly important role of sporting occasions and their special signi cance as hallmark events. There has been a growing public interest in international sporting competitions which, to an extent, has tended to eclipse and overshadow part of the traditional role of commercial fairs and exhibitions. Events such as the Olympic Games, the Football World Cup, the World Formula One Racing Championships and the Americas Cup have come to assume an increased signi cance in global city promotion and in urban renewal strategies [7]. The Americas Cup, for example, played a vital role in ensuring the conservation (some would say the gentri cation) of the historic port of Fremantle, Western Australia [8]. A key factor in the impact of such sporting events has, of course, been the advent of global media coverage, as well as the fees which some of the events are able to command through sponsorship and television rights. In an increasingly global economy, there can be intense competition between cities for the right to stage these hallmark events or `urban spectacles'. Indeed, the selection of the host city (and the inter-urban and international rivalry that this generates) has itself become the subject of much media interest and coverage. Amongst academics, attention has tended to focus on hallmark events within the

372

Chalkley and Essex

context of globalization, de-industrialization and post-Fordism and the attempt by major world cities to modernize their economies and to project themselves more prominently on the world stage [9]. In terms of this kind of place-promotion, few if any, events can match the Olympics.

The Olympic Games movement The Olympics has its origins in Ancient Greece. It was staged between 776 bc and a d 261 as a ve-day long event, including competitions for running, wrestling, horse-racing, chariot races and the pentathlon, as well as for the best trumpeters and heralds. Recreations of the Olympics were staged in the British Isles from the sixteenth century. Captain Robert Dover organized an Olympic Games at Dover's Hill, near Chipping Campden in Gloucestershire from 1612 until 1642 which included events for jumping, leaping, throwing the sledgehammer, fencing, wrestling, shin-kicking and horse-racing. After the English Civil War, the Games continued without Dover until 1852, although by this time it was poorly organized and, on occasions, degenerated into a disorderly assembly. (This Games was revived again in 1951 by the Robert Dover's Games Society and continues today, although more as a rural ritual than as a sporting competition.) Another series of `Olympic Games' was held at Much Wenlock, Shropshire as an annual event between 1849 and 1889 by a Dr W.P. Brookes. These Games included track and eld sports, cricket matches, tilting at rings while on horseback, and literary and artistic competitions [10]. It was a French nobleman, Baron Pierre de Coubertin (1863 ­ 1937) who had visited Brookes in Much Wenlock in 1890, who was responsible for the revival of the modern Olympic Games in Athens in 1896. Indeed, the Games is an expression of de Coubertin's theories of physical exercise as the basis of a balanced education and organized sport as an agent of international unity and social equality. He believed that the inclusion of physical education in British schools after 1840 was a major reason for the UK's prosperity and imperial power, in comparison with the physical inertia of the French. His proposal to revive the ancient Games received unanimous support at a Sports Congress at the Sorbonne, part of the University of Paris, in June 1894. He established the principle that the Games should be held in different locations every four years as a means of promoting and diffusing the Olympic spirit of freedom, progress and equality throughout the world [11]. De Coubertin's original objectives and principles have remained central to the operational purposes of the Games, which are: 1. to foster the goals of competitive sport; 2. to provide a legacy of facilities that will stimulate athletic development which would not have been possible with inferior facilities; and 3. to heighten the pro le of the sports involved by providing better opportunities for training as well as sites for national and international competition [12]. The preparations of host cities for the Games are strictly controlled by the Olympic movement which consists of four main institutions. The principal overseeing body is the International Olympic Committee (IOC), who controls the overall conduct of Olympic sport and selects the host cities. Membership of the IOC is drawn from the member nation

Urban development through hosting international events

373

states. The selection of the host city is by a system of voting, following visits to each of the sites. The winning city is tied to a strict contract with the IOC. In addition to the IOC are the International Federations (IF), which control each individual sport, determine the conduct of events and establish regulations regarding the construction of facilities. The various National Olympic Committees (NOC) are responsible for organizing and supplying teams to each Olympic event. The actual physical organization of the Games and the provision of facilities and supporting infrastructure is the responsibility of the host Olympic Organizing Committee, based in the host city. This committee co-ordinates and administers the Games according to the rules and directives of the IOC. The cost of staging the Games is borne by the Olympic Organizing Committee and by the host city, sometimes supported by the national government. In recent Games, television rights, corporate sponsorship, merchandizing and ticket sales have produced substantial revenues to offset the costs [13]. Over two-thirds of the funding for the Atlanta Games in 1996 was from the sale of television rights (35%) and sponsorship (35%) [14]. It is the IOC that negotiates the television rights and sponsorship agreements and is responsible for distributing the revenues to its partners. The IOC retains 10% of revenues and redirects the remaining funds to the IFs, NOCs and Organizing Committees [15]. Although the staging of an Olympic Games can be an expensive and high risk strategy, it can also offer the host city considerable advantages. As indicated earlier, many of the bene ts relate, of course, to obtaining a place on the international stage. Even Manchester's unsuccessful bids are said to have had a substantial effect in raising the city's pro le amongst the European business community [16]. However, pro le-raising and civic (or national) pride are not the only reasons for wanting to host the Games. At a more tangible and down-to-earth level, the Olympics can provide a stimulus to physical and economic regeneration. As illustrated in the following parts of this paper, the Games can underpin not only the building of new sporting facilities but also the development of wider programmes of infrastructure provision, urban renewal and environmental improvement.

The inter-urban competition The value of the Olympics as a stimulus to such developments is evident in the increased inter-urban competition for the right to stage the Games, particularly in recent years. However, such rivalry has not always been as strong and, indeed, the hosts for the rst three Olympics were assigned without any competition. By 1916, however, the Games had been placed on a much more secure footing after the successful Games of 1908 and 1912, and there were six potential hosts for the Games awarded to Antwerp (held in 1920). None the less, the number of bidding cities remained below 12 candidates until 1992. Indeed the scale, complexity and cost of related developments for the Rome Games of 1960 led to calls for the next Games to be cancelled (although in practice the Tokyo Olympics of 1964 proved to be even more extravagant). As a result, between 1964 and 1984, there were fewer bids received from potential host cities. This decline in interest was thought to be an indication that the Olympic Games was becoming too large and expensive for host cities. The Games of 1968 to 1976 also presented new deterrents to hosting the event, such as

374

Chalkley and Essex

civic opposition (Mexico, 1968), terrorism (Munich, 1972), long-term indebtedness (Montreal, 1976) and international boycotts (Moscow, 1980 and Los Angeles, 1984). Consequently, Los Angeles was the only candidate for the Games of 1984 and, because of public fears over the nancial cost, the event was staged as a totally privately-funded venture. The commercial success of the Los Angeles Olympics was, however, instrumental in renewing the interest of potential hosts in staging the Games. As the Olympics of 1988 had already been awarded by 1984, the effect of the Los Angeles Games was not evident until the competition for the Games of 1992, when there were 22 potential host cities. Most recently, the Games of 2004 received 48 bids and there are already no less than 61 candidates for the Games of 2008. The increased number of candidates, especially since 1992, is a clear re ection of the international inter-urban competition for investment, business and image which characterizes modern urban policy. The increased number of cities bidding also underlines the extent to which the Olympics are now widely seen as a means of securing major urban infrastructural change and modernization. For the student of urban policy, the contest to host the Games can be seen as a global urban competition which, in certain respects, parallels national competitions for urban investment. In the UK, for example, under the last Conservative government, cities were frequently placed in the position of preparing programmes which bid for funds in competition with proposals from other urban centres. The City Challenge was perhaps the best known illustration of this kind of policy. In a sense the Olympics replicate this approach at the international scale, with the judges being the members of the IOC rather than national politicians, civil servants or town planners.

The urban impact of the Olympic Games, 1896­1996 As a means of presenting a historical review of the impact of each Olympic Games on the host city's facilities, environment and infrastructure, four phases in the development of the Olympics have been identi ed. These phases are a useful guide to the main patterns and changes, although they are obviously a generalized model from which individual Games sometimes deviated. The rst phase covered the period from 1896 to 1904 when the event was small-scale, poorly organized and its urban impact was minimal. During the second phase, spanning the Games of 1908 to 1932, the event became larger in scale, better organized and usually involved the construction of some substantial new purpose-built sports facilities. During the third phase, involving the Games of 1936 to 1956, the sports facilities emerged as ` ag-ship' symbols of the host society and consequently began to attract much more attention, although (by today's standards) their wider urban impacts remained generally rather modest. Since 1960, which represents the fourth phase, the Games has often been used as a trigger for large-scale urban improvements and it has consequently had a much more substantial impact on the landscape and urban environment of its host cities. Although this growing impact is partly a response to the increased size of the Games, with more individuals and nations taking part, it also re ects a realization of the potential of the event to galvanize urban programmes and policies.

Urban development through hosting international events

PHASE ONE: 1896­1904

375

The rst modern Olympic Games in Athens in 1896 was very small in scale, although it did involve limited provision of new facilities. After an appeal for public donations failed, private nance funded the successful rebuilding of the Panathenean Stadium to the extent that pontelic marble was used in its construction [17]. However, the following two Games were very low key and poorly organized events. In Paris in 1900, the Games was a part of the World Exhibition and no new facilities were provided; indeed the swimming competitions were held in the River Seine. In St Louis in 1904, the Games was held over several months as an adjunct to the World Fair, after the original host city (Chicago) ran into nancial dif culties. Here the swimming events took place in an arti cial pond on the fairgrounds [18] and various `anthropological' competitions were staged in which ethnic minorities took part in specialist events such as archery (using primitive bows) and tree climbing. Both the French and American Games had, in effect, been `side-shows', lacking the desired international interest ­ a factor which made the IOC consider Greek appeals for a permanent venue in Athens. An unof cial Games in Athens in 1906 controlled by the IOC generated considerable global attention (partly because international press coverage was made possible through technological advances). The IOC none the less continued with its strategy of moving the Games from city to city and the 1908 Olympics was awarded to Rome, although it was later transferred to London after the 1906 eruption of Mount Vesuvius which drained Italian resources [19].

PHASE TWO: 1908­1932

The London Games of 1908 was the rst to provide substantial new venues and facilities built expressly for the Olympics [20]. Although the Games was staged in association with the Franco-British Exhibition of the same year, the construction of the White City Stadium began to place the Olympic movement on a more secure footing. However, the stadium, which was rented to the British Olympic Association for the period of the Games, proved to be a less than ideal venue because it had too many different sports to accommodate. There were also controversies surrounding the organization of the event and the impartiality of the of cials, who were all British. Indeed, the founder of the Olympic movement, de Coubertin, expressed his dissatisfaction with the London Games by saying in 1909 that, after the experience in London, the `. . . Olympics must be more digni ed, more discreet, more intimate and less expensive' [21]. Such problems led to the establishment of the present Olympic organizational structure [22], although de Coubertin's plea for a more modest approach to hosting the Olympics was generally disregarded. Also as a result of the experience in London, new facilities for separate sports were built for the next Olympics in Stockholm in 1912. A number of new sporting venues were developed throughout the city of Stockholm to accommodate the numerous competitions and increasing number of competitors [23]. The athletics stadium emerged as the Games' main architectural and ceremonial arena. Originally the organizers had proposed a temporary stadium, but these plans were altered when the government allowed a number of lottery draws to raise funds for a rst class athletics ground which then became a permanent legacy from the Olympics [24] and one whose design, it was later claimed,

376

Chalkley and Essex

expressed the individuality and artistic taste of the Swedish people [25]. From this point, the architecture of Olympic facilities began to take on a grander style and to become a symbol of the host society's culture. Although the Games was not held during the First World War and was thereafter affected by the austerity and recession of the 1920s, the Games in Antwerp

Figure 1. Facilities of the Olympic Games in Los Angeles, 1932 (Source: Of cial Report, op. cit. [26]).

Urban development through hosting international events

377

(1920), Paris (1924) and Amsterdam (1928) did consolidate the status of the Olympics and con rmed the role of the athletics stadium as their centrepiece and ceremonial focus. The Los Angeles Games of 1932 clearly continued the trend for the development of more substantial facilities and venues for the competitions (Fig. 1). The facilities for the Games were originally conceived by the city's Community Development Association (CDA) with support from the California Fiestas Association who were hoping to help revive the city's traditional Spanish estas. Together with the city and county governments of Los Angeles, the CDA built the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum in Exposition Park and made the formal application to stage the Games which was awarded to the city in 1923, just as the Coliseum was completed. The CDA then became the Olympic Organizing Committee, with nancial aid from a state `Bond' system. To accommodate the Games, the Coliseum was refurbished, private enterprise built the Olympic Auditorium (for weightlifting, boxing and wrestling competitions), privately owned country clubs were encouraged to expand their provision for polo and other equestrian sports and the city government enlarged its recreational facilities and constructed new stadia for swimming and rowing (see Fig. 1). The Of cial Report of the 1932 Games noted that: `As a result, the city of Los Angeles now possesses several permanent sports improvements which are among the direct bene ts of the Olympic Games to the City' [26]. The Los Angeles Olympics is also signi cant in the history of the Games in that the organizers provided the rst communal establishment for athletes in the form of an Olympic Village (although wooden barracks had been provided at the Paris Games in 1924). The Los Angeles Olympic Village was located in a cool position and was carefully designed to blend with the surrounding landscape (Baldwin Hill, 101 ha). After the Games, although the prefabricated wooden cottages were auctioned off [27], the main stadium nevertheless remained as a legacy to the city and was used again to host the Olympic Games of 1984.

PHASE THREE: 1936­1965

The Berlin Games of 1936 had originally been awarded to the German Republic, but subsequently, under Hitler's Third Reich, it took on a new political dimension. The site in Berlin had rst been prepared for the Olympic Games of 1916, which was cancelled because of the First World War. The Berlin Racing Association had developed a 32 000seater stadium at Grunewald to provide the necessary facilities in the absence of public funds. After the First World War, these facilities were deemed not large enough for an Olympic event and later, following Hitler's direct intervention, there was a more substantial remodelling of the original proposals. His vision was that the entire Grunewald site should be developed as a sporting and cultural centre to promote national socialism. The facilities would include a national festival centre, where the symbols of the party would be displayed. The high standard and quality of the facilities would provide evidence to other countries of the New Germany's cultural accomplishments and abilities (Fig. 2). The staging of the Olympic Games in 1936 was therefore to have clear political overtones: `If Germany is to stand host to the entire world, her preparations must be complete and magni cent' [28]. In the redevelopment of Grunewald, the local racecourse was demolished. In its place

378

Chalkley and Essex

Figure 2. Facilities of the Olympic Games in Berlin, 1936 (Source: Of cial Report, op. cit. [17]).

were constructed a new stadium (for 100 000 spectators), a swimming pool, large assembly elds for mass demonstrations, an open air theatre, a sports forum and a large administrative building for the House of German Sport (Fig. 2). Native German materials were used in all buildings and the sites were well landscaped, producing a distinctive character to the Games, captured by Leni Riefenstahl's lm of the Games (`Olympia', 1936). In addition, a special Olympic Village for the competitors was erected beyond the western suburbs of Berlin, about 14.5 km from the main stadium. The location was carefully selected to be removed from Berlin's industrial sector in the north and east of the city and the site's predominant westerly winds guaranteed pure fresh air. The village was intended to impress the foreign visitors [29] and contained 160 whitewashed and tileroofed bungalows constructed in the natural contours of landscaped grounds which comprised 55 ha of forest and small lakes. Training facilities were also provided within the village. The city of Berlin was cleaned and dressed for a series of cultural festivals [30] and a 16 km ceremonial boulevard, `Via Triumphalis', was routed from the centre of the old city through the Brandenburg Gate to the Sports Complex. The Olympic Games of 1936 had a much wider impact on the urban infrastructure of the host city than any previous Games. On a political level, the event provided favourable political propaganda for the Reich government by presenting international visitors with an image of a successful and even respectable regime [31]. In physical terms, Berlin was left with a substantial legacy of

Urban development through hosting international events

379

sporting and cultural facilities. Interestingly, one of the main elements of this legacy, the 1936 Olympic stadium, is now planned for refurbishment as part of Germany's bid to stage the 2006 Football World Cup. The stadium, currently used by the rst division club Hertha BSC, is in a somewhat dilapidated condition but is scheduled for modernization at a cost of £200 million. The decision to make the 1936 stadium the centrepiece of Germany's 2006 bid is, of course, controversial because in many people's minds it will always be identi ed with Hitler and the Third Reich. The rst Games after the Second World War was held in London in 1948, which had previously been chosen to stage the cancelled Olympics of 1944. Initial plans had been drawn up in the late 1930s, but in practice, due to post-war austerity, the Games was forced to use existing facilities, such as Wembley Stadium, with RAF Uxbridge serving as the Olympic Village. Indeed, the event became known as the `Austerity Games' and had little impact on the wider urban structure of London. The next Olympics was held in Helsinki in 1952, where facilities had been in preparation since 1938. Interestingly, the Olympic Village was designed from the outset to become a permanent self-sustaining residential quarter after the Games [32]. The Melbourne Games of 1956 produced several new sporting facilities for the host city. Melbourne Cricket Ground was expanded to accommodate crowds of 100 000 and the Olympic Park complex still provides facilities for soccer, hockey and athletics. The Olympic Velodrome and Swimming Stadium were less successful. The cycling track in the velodrome did not conform to speci ed requirements and was later demolished. The swimming stadium was, in architectural terms, the most admired structure at the Games, but later became too costly to maintain. The Olympic Village, known as `Heidelberg', was subsequently used for a public-sector housing project for new immigrants [33]. Both the Helsinki and Melbourne Games, therefore, produced a legacy of sporting facilities for the host city and had at least a minor impact on the wider urban structure. From 1960, however, the Olympic Games began to have much more farreaching consequences.

PHASE FOUR: 1960­1996

The 1960 Rome Olympics produced both new sports facilities and substantial improvements to the urban infrastructure. The main sporting activities were focused in two separate areas: the North Olympic Centre (Foro Italico) and the South Olympic Centre, which was on the site of the 1942 Universal Exhibition and later developed into a new suburb of Rome. The two centres were linked by a new road called the Olympic Way. In addition, the city developed a new municipal water supply system, new airport facilities, improved public transport, street lighting and illumination of monuments and numerous decorative improvements to the city. Interestingly, the changes produced by the Olympic Games in Rome led to calls for the next Games to be cancelled because of the scale and complexity of the related urban developments. The role of the Olympics in urban renewal was nevertheless taken further in the Tokyo Games of 1964. The city had been the proposed site for the cancelled Games of 1940 and the award of the Games to Tokyo for 1964 symbolized the political rehabilitation of Japan after the Second World War and was the rst Games to be staged in Asia [34]. Tokyo had begun preparations for the 1964 Games in the Autumn of 1959 and used the event to give

380

Chalkley and Essex

impetus to its already proposed ten-year development plan, involving recreation and sport venues, road improvements, harbour development and housing and tourist accommodation projects [35]. The organizers and government were to spend US $2.7 billion on developments related to the staging of the 1964 Olympic Games, with signi cant consequences for Tokyo's urban structure. Although the sports venues were provided mainly by the reconstruction and expansion of existing facilities, in contrast to previous Olympic Games, new development for Tokyo was weighted much more heavily towards projects other than those designed for the sporting events and the athletes. The construction of a new road and highway network was the largest of the Olympic projects and was designed to meet both the short-term demands of the event itself and, in the long-term, to accommodate the city's continued population and traf c increase. A total of 22 main highways were constructed in time for the Games, the cost being shared equally between the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the Tokyo Expressway Corporation. The total cost of the road schemes was 72.1 billion yen (or US $200m), of which 50 billion yen (or US $138m) was spent on land acquisition, compensation and providing alternative sites for the activities displaced. Two underground railway lines, part of longer-term plans for eight subway lines approved in 1946, were also speci cally completed in time for the Games. The port of Tokyo was enlarged to handle the expected growth in passenger ships, together with some land reclamation to connect the port with the Expressway system. In addition, the city made a number of more general infrastructural improvements. First, an improved water supply system was introduced by piping water from Kanagawa and other surrounding prefectures. Tokyo had experienced severe droughts in the period prior to the Games and such investment was essential for the event's success. Second, three sewage disposal plants were constructed to improve the city's waste management system. Third, standards of public health within the city were improved by regular refuse and garbage collections; renovation of public toilet facilities; cleaning of streets, rivers and streams; and food hygiene controls and checks. These improvements were considered necessary to meet the demands of foreign competitors and spectators during the event, but set standards which the city later sought to adhere to on a continuing basis. The next three Olympic Games were affected by civil opposition, terrorism and overambitious investment which, at the time, seemed to threaten the very future of the Olympic movement. The decline in the number of candidates for the 1968 Games was thought to be an indication that the Games was becoming too large and that prospective host cities simply could not afford developments on the scale of Tokyo [36]. The Games was awarded to Mexico but, due to nancial constraints and the general condition of the country's economy, a much less ambitious approach was taken. Existing facilities were utilized and, because they were scattered in various parts of the city, the public transport system was placed under tremendous strain. The main investment was in the Olympic Village consisting of 24 purpose-built, multi-storey buildings. Nevertheless, ordinary Mexicans questioned the investment required to stage the Games which they saw as an unnecessary extravagance when there were severe social problems to be solved with many people living in conditions of poverty and poor housing. The opposition prior to the event resulted in violent clashes between protesting students and units from the police and army. Some 250 students were killed.

Urban development through hosting international events

381

Figure 3. Facilities of the Olympic Games in Montreal, 1976 (Source: [44]).

The role of the Olympic Games as a catalyst for urban renewal re-emerged in the preparations for the event in Munich in 1972. The city was awarded the Games in April, 1966, and had identi ed a 280 ha derelict site in the north of the city (Oberwiesenfeld) as the Olympic venue. The site was an abandoned Second World War airstrip, which had subsequently been used as a dump and as a site for fairgrounds. The 1963 City Development Plan had earmarked the site for the development of a sports complex over a period of 15 ­20 years but, with the stimulus of the Olympic Games, the development was `fast tracked' and completed in ve years. An architectural competition was held by the city for the development of the site, which was decided in April 1967 [37]. The sports facilities were to be provided in landscaped grounds designed on a `human scale', were to exclude `every pretension to monumentality'

382

Chalkley and Essex

and were to be characterized by `openness, simplicity and comprehensibility' [38]. The site was divided into two halves, with sports facilities in the south and the Olympic village in the north. The chief characteristics of the sports facilities were the common roof structures and the incorporation of both existing landscape features (e.g. Rubble Hill, Nymphenburg Canal and Television Tower) and new landscape features (e.g. arti cial lake and tree planting). The Olympic Village was constructed in the immediate vicinity of the sports facilities to accommodate 10 000 athletes during the Games: afterwards the village was used to house middle and lower income families and single persons [39] and became a successful self-sustaining community [40]. Within the city of Munich, various improvements were made especially for the Olympic Games, such as the restoration and pedestrianization of the historic quarter, the improvement of public transport, the provision of underground car parking, the development of a new shopping centre with hotels and the construction of three new expressways totalling 145 km [41]. The Games was overshadowed, however, by the killing of 11 Israeli athletes in a terrorist attack, which heightened issues of security at future events. The Games of 1976 had been awarded to Montreal in 1970, despite competition from much bigger cities such as Los Angeles and Moscow. The IOC wanted to show that a smaller city could successfully stage the Games and thereby to counter criticism of Olympic commercialization and extravagance [42]. The Montreal organizers, initially lacking government support, at rst matched these aspirations with a modest, self- nancing Games. However, the Mayor of Montreal at the time (Drapeau) saw advantages in using `grand projects' as a means of redeveloping the city, as in the 1967 Expo World Fair [43]. Having been awarded the Games and with a growing realization of the likely costs, the provincial government accepted the responsibility for any de cit in 1973 and the federal government thus allowed revenue to be raised through a special Olympic lottery. The development of the Olympic facilities in Montreal shared some similarities with the preparations made in Munich, with the main Olympic site (at Maisonneuve Park, northeast of the downtown core) having been earmarked for recreational use much earlier. A municipal golf course and Botanical Gardens had been provided on the site during the 1930s, with the Maurice Richard Arena, Maisonneuve Sports Centre and athletic elds being developed from plans in the 1950s. The Olympics provided the stimulus for the construction of a main stadium, swimming pool, velodrome and Olympic Village between 1971 and 1976, with the rest of the site being used to create an `Olympic Park', designed ambitiously by French architect, Roger Taillibert (Fig. 3). The main Olympic Stadium was the centrepiece of the complex and incorporated the Olympic Pool and Velodrome in one sweeping unit, surrounded by attractive landscaping. The Of cial Report [45] described the stadium as a `colossal, shell-like, cantilevered structure, the most striking feature of which was a column-free elliptical roof' (see Fig. 4). The Olympic Village consisted of two 19-storey buildings in the shape of pyramids containing 980 apartments surrounded by terraces. After the Olympics, the accommodation was offered as housing and was soon fully occupied, with a long waiting list [46]. There were three new constructions outside the Olympic Park ­ the Etienne Desmarteau Centre (to serve as an Olympic competition and training site), the Claude Robillard Centre (located in an area short of sports facilities), and the Olympic Basin close to the downtown area of the city of the St Lawrence River (for rowing and canoeing competitions).

Urban development through hosting international events

383

Figure 4. The Olympic Stadium used to stage the Montreal Games of 1976. The Olympic facilities at Maisonneuve Park were designed ambitiously by French architect, Roger Taillibert. Technical and construction problems, related to an unstable site and the use of new construction materials and techniques, added to the problems experienced in staging this event. The city incurred a debt of $1.5 billion.

Otherwise, the Olympics used existing facilities (at universities, colleges, high schools, public swimming pools, sports centres and parks) improved by renovation and new equipment. There were also wider improvements made to the general infrastructure of the city. The subway system was extended by 20 km, including a direct service to the Olympic Park [47]. A new airport was constructed and new roads and hotels were also created for the event. However, the Montreal Games highlighted only too clearly that staging an Olympic Games could be a high risk strategy which can result in long-term indebtedness [48]. The award of the Games to Montreal coincided with a worsening economic situation and period of global in ation, which accentuated the nancial burden of staging the Olympics. These economic dif culties were compounded by local opposition to hosting the Games. Technical and construction problems, related to an unstable site and the use of new construction materials and techniques, were also experienced with the facilities at Olympic Park, which resulted in major over-runs in cost. Labour relations disputes lost 155 working days in the period immediately prior to the Games (November 1974 to May 1976), and a

384

Chalkley and Essex

24-hour working day was required to complete the facilities on time, which involved crippling costs in overtime, heating, equipment rentals and delays on sub-contractors. The overall result was a debt of CAN $1.5 billion [49]. In addition, the Games was nearly cancelled 16 days before the opening ceremony due to an international political dispute over recognition of China and Taiwan and the participation of New Zealand which had sporting links with South Africa. None the less, the Of cial Report [50], perhaps not surprisingly, stressed the long-term community bene ts of the Olympic Games, such as new sports venues, improved awareness of sport and physical tness and increased tourist spending, rather than the adverse nancial consequences. The Moscow Games of 1980 was in stark contrast to the massive expenditure at Montreal. The organizers did not attempt to outdo their predecessors by building ever larger and more spectacular structures, but sought instead to build only essential installations. The city already had, or had planned, enough sports facilities to hold the Olympics. These facilities had been included in the tenth ve-year plan (1971) and the city had already held a number of major sporting events, such as the USSR Summer Spartakiade in 1973 and the European Football Championships in 1976. The award of the Games to Moscow none the less accelerated the construction of 12 new sports centres identi ed in the ve-year plan and led to the renovation of 13 existing facilities. In addition, new hotels, a new air terminal, an Olympic Television and Radio Centre, an Olympic Communications Centre and buildings for the Novosti Press Agency were constructed for the Games. The Olympic Village was built as a new residential area in the south-west of Moscow, where 14 500 Muscovites now live. The Olympic Games provided Moscow with the opportunity to bolster an underdeveloped tourist industry, to attract foreign currency and to promote the city as a cosmopolitan, `fun-loving capital' [51]. Still mindful of Montreal's problems, the 1984 Los Angeles Games was also characterized by comparatively modest investment in new facilities. There was considerable local opposition to staging the Games in the city on the grounds of potential environmental damage, nancial costs and the disruption to everyday life. Consequently, the taxpayers refused to fund the Games and the event became a totally private-sector funded event. In order to avoid great capital expenditure, the organizers used existing sports facilities and accommodation over a wide geographical area, including the 1932 Olympic Stadium and student residences at the University of California and Southern California. The IOC had allowed this strategy as Los Angeles was the only candidate to host the Games. The Olympics may have brought little change to the urban infrastructure, but they were a substantial commercial success, bene ting from increased television income and business sponsorship. A surplus of US $215m was produced, which was greater than all previous Olympic Games combined [52]. As a result, many potential host cities began to show a renewed interest in staging the Olympics. The Seoul Games of 1988 resumed the role of the Olympics as a vehicle for urban change. The sports facilities and Olympic Village (of 3692 units) were provided as usual, but in addition there were schemes for improved traf c management, the enhancement of cultural facilities, an environmental beauti cation programme and action to ensure health and hygiene standards throughout the city. The main emphasis in the traf c management programme was on the encouragement of public transport. Three new subway lines were opened to ease traf c congestion on the north­south axis and 47 bus routes were extended.

Urban development through hosting international events

385

Exclusive lanes for buses, one-way systems and reversible lanes were established, and the international airport was extended. During the period of the Games, the use of private vehicles was restricted. Locals were only allowed to drive their car every other day according to even and odd plate numbers [53]. Projects were also established to emphasize the cultural aspects of the Olympic Games, including the construction of the Seoul Arts Centre, the National Classical Music Institute, the National Museum of Contemporary Arts and the Chongju Museum. A programme of refurbishment and extensive repair of historic monuments (e.g. palaces and shrines) was also undertaken in time for the Games [54]. The environmental beauti cation programme was a comprehensive scheme to improve both the aesthetics of the street-scene as well as to remove sources of physical pollution. Sculptures, decorative artwork and landscaping were introduced together with 389 new parks and 152 refurbished parks. Streets were improved by the laying of asphalt pavements, the widening of roads, the introduction of street lamps, the realignment of advertising displays and rooftop antennae, and the control of street stalls. Interestingly, many of the street stalls were ordered to move into the back alleys out of public sight during the Games [55]. Moreover, Hill [56] reports that walls were built to hide the slums and poor quality houses from television coverage of the marathon run. These examples illustrate very graphically the way in which urban spectacles can attempt to disguise social problems in an effort to project a positive global image [57]. A large programme to depollute the Han River was implemented to maximize the usable space for waterway transportation during the Olympics. Rubbish was removed from the river bed and wharves constructed to accommodate river traf c. Culverts were constructed on both sides of the river to transport household sewage and industrial waste water to disposal stations. A considerable source of pollution was, therefore, removed to create new amenity space along the riverbanks where plazas and parks were provided. The local community was encouraged to participate in these projects through conservation awareness campaigns and the formation of local committees for environmental beauti cation [58]. New programmes were introduced to deal with air pollution, garbage control, water quality preservation and the renovation of traditional restaurants. The cost of the transport improvements and urban beauti cation projects has been estimated at US $14 billion [59]. The Barcelona Games of 1992 continued and extended the role of the Olympics as a catalyst for urban redevelopment. The modi cations to the urban structure of Barcelona were, however, by no means entirely new proposals. A programme of public open-space creation, for example, had been proposed in 1980 to correct the shortage of land and leisure facilities following an era of minimal urban planning during the Franco period [60]. The Games was, therefore, used as a means of bringing forward many schemes which might otherwise have been long delayed or even cancelled [61] and which were necessary for the city to compete for a place on the `global cities network' [62]. As noted in the Of cial Report [63], the preparations for the Olympic Games were to have a signi cant in uence on the city of Barcelona: `The Games have been the catalyst for improvements in the general infrastructure of the metropolitan area and for large scale planning projects which, because of their location and their size, will alter the shape of the growth of the city'. The sporting facilities were provided at two main locations in the city, and involved the construction of 15 new venues, the refurbishment of ten existing venues and the use of 43

386

Chalkley and Essex

existing facilities that required little alteration. The main location for the Olympics was the Montjuõ¨c area, which (as explained earlier) had been the site of the Barcelona International Exposition in 1929 and had become the largest park in the city. The facilities in this area included the main stadium, which was redeveloped and refurbished, thereby using and enhancing a building that symbolized the spirit and sporting tradition of Barcelona. The use of this area for the Olympics brought about a general refurbishment of the park and the consolidation of its function as a signi cant part of the city [64]. The second main location for Olympic events in Barcelona was the Vall d'Hebron area, which was a large, isolated and unstructured area in the north of the city and which the Olympics transformed through the provision of important leisure and sports facilities with zones for cycling, tennis, archery and volleyball [65]. The Olympic Village was developed on a 130 ha site at Parc de Mar, which experienced the most innovative of all the transformations in the preparations for the Barcelona Olympics [66]. Before the Games, the land was occupied by declining industries, which were separated from the rest of the city and from the coast by two railway lines. The Olympics provided a justi cation for the redevelopment of the area involving the restructuring of the rail network, the building of a coastal ring road, the development of the Olympic Village, a new marina (Olympic Harbour), the restructuring of the sewage system

Figure 5. Facilities of the Olympic Games in Atlanta, 1996 (Source: Press Guide, op. cit. [69]).

Urban development through hosting international events

387

and the regeneration of the coastline. The development created a continuation of the Eixample district and opened up the city to 5.2 km of coastline with easy access for the city's inhabitants. Here the new beaches and waterfront facilities have transformed the landscape and now offer attractive new leisure opportunities for Barcelona's three million population. The preparation for the Games also led to the renovation of the city's cultural infrastructure, including the National Museum of Art of Catalonia, Municipal Auditorium, National Theatre of Catalonia, Centre of Contemporary Culture, Museum of Contemporary Art and a new Botanical Garden [67]. In addition, the city undertook the landscaping of squares, commissioned new sculptures, built a new airport terminal, renovated the railway station and provided public transport links to all sports venues. A less visible, but still signi cant, effect of the Games was the upgrading of the urban technology and telecommunications necessary to host the world's media. These improvements have had major implications for the further development of the city as a business and administrative centre [68]. In contrast, the Centennial Games of 1996 in Atlanta was mainly focused on the development of new sporting facilities and produced only minor change in the city's infrastructure. The Games affected two districts in Atlanta: the Olympic Ring in the heart of the city, containing the Olympic Stadium, Village and Centre; and Stone Mountain Park sited 25 km east of downtown Atlanta, providing indoor sporting venues (Fig. 5). A total of ten new construction projects were undertaken to provide sports venues, with a further four adaptations of existing facilities. The centrepiece of the Games was the Olympic Stadium (capacity of 85 000) constructed especially for the event with private nance. Its height was designed to blend with surrounding two and three-storey buildings. After the Games, the stadium was converted to a 45 000­48 000 seat baseball park for use by the Atlanta Braves baseball team. Their existing Atlanta ­ Fulton County Stadium was demolished. Other new facilities, such as the Aquatic Centre, basketball gym, hockey stadium and equestrian venue, were subsequently given to educational establishments or local authorities. The Olympic Village (133 ha) was located on the campus of Georgia Technical College. The other main infrastructural legacy to the city from the Games was the Centennial Olympic Park in central Atlanta. The park, consisting of fountains, trees, landscaped topography and paths, was intended to be a gathering place for visitors during the Games and later to enhance the quality of life for local residents. After the Games, the Georgia World Congress Centre Authority developed a permanent 8.5 ha commemorative park offering a natural amphitheatre and Olympic museum [69]. The Centennial Olympic Park was paved with commemorative engraved bricks sold through public subscription ($35 per personalized brick). The lack of a substantial programme of wider investment in Atlanta's infrastructure was related to the fact that the local organizing committee (Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games [ACOG]) had been formed as a private, non-pro t-making organization with responsibilities for the development of sporting facilities only. Other agencies involved in the preparations for the Games appear to have been ineffective in producing broader changes to the urban infrastructure [70]. The Metropolitan Atlanta Olympic Committee, established to oversee the ACOG's activities and protect the interests of Georgia taxpayers,

388

Chalkley and Essex

had limited powers. The Corporation for Olympic Development in Atlanta, formed to oversee development outside the Olympic venues, lacked funds and experienced opposition from community and business leaders, while the city government appears also to have lacked funds and been deliberately sidelined by the ACOG in favour of the private sector. The preparations for the Atlanta Games have been cited as a failure of American public­ private sector partnerships, with the ACOG operating as a `privatised government', entirely unaccountable to the local population [71]. Without a co-ordinated strategy, the window of opportunity for major investment and redevelopment was too narrow and short-lived [72]. In many respects, these organizational problems were re ected in the operation of the Games itself. There were transportation problems in moving the athletes to their events. The severity of the traf c congestion called into question the decision not to invest in new urban freeways or major public transport systems. Security arrangements received some criticism, particularly after the bombing in Centennial Square in which two people were killed and 110 people were injured. The President of the IOC was only prepared to pronounce the Games in Atlanta as a quali ed success in his speech at the Closing Ceremony rather than as the customary `best Games ever'. He is reported to have told a German newspaper that the Games could have been better and that he would not again

Figure 6. Olympic facilities for the Sydney Olympics at Homebush Bay (courtesy of Sydney Olympic Coordination Authority).

Urban development through hosting international events

389

support a privately funded Olympics, with such prominent business sponsorship. As a result of the traf c congestion, administrative problems, security breaches and overcommercialization, Atlanta did not receive the kind of media attention it would ideally have liked. Its experience highlights the dangers as well as the bene ts of being under the international spotlight. Finally, the Sydney Games to be held in the year 2000 is of particular relevance to the theme of this paper because of its emphasis on sustainable development. The IOC has signalled a desire to apply concepts of sustainable development to the Olympic movement as a means of raising global awareness of environmental and resource issues [73]. A detailed set of `green' guidelines intended to govern the design, layout and construction of Olympic facilities was published by the Sydney Organizing Committee. Some 90 principles are included, covering statements on recycling, renewable energy sources, public transport, derelict land and protection of threatened environments and endangered species. The main site for the Sydney Games is Homebush Bay, which is located 14 km to the west of the city centre [74]. The site had been scarred by noxious land uses and areas of contaminated wasteland used for dumping household and industrial waste, but was earmarked for environmental remediation and as a future centre for sporting, exhibition and business uses to complement existing facilities on adjacent sites (the State Sports Center, 1984 and Bicentennial Park, 1988). The new facilities of an Athletics Stadium (see Fig. 6), warm-up track and Aquatic Center, together with the Olympic Village, will create a multi-use centre for Western Sydney [75]. The village is intended to act as a model for ecosensitive design which can be reproduced elsewhere in Australia or abroad. It was designed with Greenpeace and incorporates solar power, water recycling and passive heating and cooling. By having so many Olympic facilities within walking distance of each other, the theme of sustainability is achieved by reducing the dependence on the motor car. Public transport to the Olympic site is being enhanced by a new state-of-the-art rail link, capable of delivering up to 50 000 passengers an hour [76]. However, the `green' credentials of the Games have been challenged. A number of environmental organizations and pressure groups have questioned whether the various commitments set out in the Environmental Guidelines will actually be delivered. Measures to increase the city's airport capacity, an integral part of the Olympic development, have been opposed by local residents who argue that there will be adverse environmental consequences in terms of noise and pollution. There have been media allegations that not enough work has been undertaken to clean up areas on the Homebush Bay site from toxic contamination. Suspected dioxin contamination has aroused particular concern. The `green' Olympics remain, therefore, the subject of considerable controversy.

Conclusion Across the last hundred years, the Olympic Games has played an increasingly important role as a stimulus to change within the host cities. Although the Olympics is the most prominent and publicized of the world's sporting competitions, it can also be seen as part of a wider system of hallmark events, exhibitions and fairs through which cities compete for a place on the international stage. In all such cases, the attraction of a substantial

390

Chalkley and Essex

number of visitors can bring at least short-term bene ts to the city's economy. The major world fairs and sporting events can also result in more lasting bene ts including new facilities, new buildings and a range of wider infrastructional developments. For example, while Barcelona was investing heavily in its plans for the 1992 Olympics, Seville was also preparing for Expo '92 which involved building a new airport terminal, new bridges over the River Guadalquivir and a high-speed rail link to Madrid. In comparison with other hallmark events, the distinctive features of the Olympics are, above all, its scale and the extent to which it attracts international media attention. This global interest has been made possible by various technical advances in telecommunications and in particular, since 1960, by the increasing role of live television coverage. In 1960, CBS, the American television company, paid US $440 000 for covering the Rome Games. The television rights for the 1996 Atlanta Games were sold for US $900 million and the American NBC network has purchased the rights until 2008 for US $3.6 billion. Other hallmark events and exhibitions cannot attract this level of media attention or funding. As a result, the Olympics has more money available to invest in facilities and infrastructure and therefore tends to generate more urban change and to leave behind a more substantial urban legacy. The Olympics also differs from many other international events, such as fairs and exhibitions, in that the facilities it demands are quite specialized and are unlikely to be used by a return visit (only three cities have hosted the Games more than once). Whereas the urban exhibition facilities in cities such as Birmingham, Frankfurt and Milan are used to accommodate a series of events each year, the Olympics is a brief and `one-off' event for the hosts. Under these circumstances, host cities have needed to give particular attention to funding issues and to ensuring that investments prove worthwhile in the longer term. In the days before television rights, although the Games was much smaller, its funding often required ingenious solutions or special fund-raising campaigns. The Athens Games of 1896 was paid for by a wealthy individual, the facilities for the 1908 London Games were nanced and constructed by the organizer of the Franco-British exhibition (who then leased them to the British Olympic Association) and the 1912 Stockholm Games was funded by a lottery. More recently, television rights have become the dominant nancial ingredient and have enormously increased the sums available to the host city. None the less, even in the last 30 years, major variations are evident in the extent to which hosts have used the Olympics as a stimulus to wider programmes of urban regeneration. For example, the Atlanta Games of 1996 was quite different in its approach from the Barcelona Games of four years earlier. Looking back across Olympic history, the question arises, therefore, of why some cities have been more positive and energetic than others in using the Olympics as a springboard to wider urban development. Five main possible explanations emerge. 1. The gradual increase in the scale of the Games has tended to increase the opportunities for harnessing the Games for wider urban purposes. Obviously, the early Olympics were simply too small to be used in this way. 2. The Games has been affected by the prevailing national and local attitudes to public expenditure and the role of the state. For example, it cannot be an accident that the two most recent Olympics held in the USA have both been private-sector led, with relatively little public-sector planning and infrastructural investment.

Urban development through hosting international events

391

3. The scale and nature of wider infrastructural provision has also re ected the needs and circumstances of the individual hosts. It is interesting, for example, that both Tokyo and Seoul used the Olympics as a stimulus to reduce pollution, improve sanitation standards and to modernize waste disposal systems. In both cases, it was felt that substantial public investment was needed to help raise environmental standards to a level which would be acceptable to international visitors and the world's media. 4. Economic factors have also played a key role. Mexico lacked the resources for major new investments and, in the post-Montreal period, successive hosts were wary of overcommitting themselves and so kept a tight rein on expenditure for fear of building up large debts. 5. Finally, political factors have sometimes been in uential. For example, the scale of investment for the 1936 Berlin Games obviously owed much to the ideology of the Third Reich and to Hitler's determination to use the Games as a showcase for National Socialism. Another political example (although very different from pre-war Berlin) was Barcelona's desire to express the achievements of Catalonia. In addition to the above considerations, it is possible that the scale of urban response to hosting the Olympics has also been affected by the attitudes of individual civic leaders and government authorities. Traditionally, national and city government departments have generally been characterized by bureaucratic and hierarchical forms of decision-making. In order that cities might exploit the full potential of hosting the Olympics, different approaches are demanded, characterized by speed, exibility, initiative, networking and a willingness to work with a range of other public and private-sector bodies. Cochrane, Peck and Tickell [77] illustrate some of the key features of this new urban politics with reference to Manchester's Olympic bids of the 1980s and 1990s. The extent to which the Games is used to bring wider urban changes may therefore depend on the extent to which traditional bureaucratic politics have been replaced by a more entrepreneurial approach. The most ambitious Olympic hosts have seen the Games as an opportunity to bring forward long-term plans, to accelerate the pace of change and, particularly in the case of Sydney, to pioneer the implementation of new planning concepts. It is interesting that this kind of event-led approach to urban policy does not t neatly into any of the accepted styles or models of town planning as set out, for example, by Brindley et al. [78]. It is neither traditional regulative planning nor trend planning. It is not led by government investment or by the dictates of private companies. Still less is it a response to the demands of local public opinion. Indeed, one of the dangers of hosting a major international event is that it might overshadow or marginalize the needs of local people. In this respect, Olympic planning brings with it similar dangers to schemes such as waterfront revitalization and docklands regeneration [79]. Planning for major events, such as the Olympics, therefore sits outside the existing categories of planning and represents a form of policy where the overriding aim must be to nd ways of hosting the event which satisfy the international or external dimension while also meeting local needs. Similarly, the peak demands of the event period must be accommodated without a subsequent legacy of redundant or under-used facilities. The boom of the Games must not be followed by a slump of wasteful over-capacity. As the new century beckons, urban spectacles and hallmark events are likely to play an increasingly

392

Chalkley and Essex

important role in urban planning. One of the challenges facing town planning (particularly in the major world cities) will therefore be to nd ways of using major events and transient exhibitions as vehicles for the achievement of more lasting bene ts. In addressing this issue, the study of Olympic history can provide a useful starting point.

Notes and references

1. A more conceptual but much less detailed review is available in S. Essex and B. Chalkley, Olympic Games: catalyst of urban change. Leisure Studies 27 (1998) 187­ 206. 2. J.R.B. Ritchie, Assessing the impact of hallmark events: conceptual and research issues. Journal of Travel Research 23, 1 (1984) 2­11. G.J. Syme, B.J. Shaw, D.M. Fenton and W.S. Mueller (eds) The Planning and Evaluation of Hallmark Events. Aldershot: Avebury, 1989. C.M. Hall, Hallmark Tourist Events: impacts, management and planning. London: Belhaven, 1992. C. Law, Urban Tourism. London: Mansell, 1993. C. Carreras I Verdaguer, Mega-events: local strategies and global tourist attractions, in A. Montanari and A.M. Williams (eds) European Tourism: Regions, Spaces and Restructuring. Chichester: Wiley, 1995, pp. 193 ­205. 3. C.M. Hall, Mega-events and their legacies, in P. Murphy (ed.) Quality Management in Urban Tourism. Chichester: Wiley, 1997, pp. 75­ 87. 4. B.M. Evans, A Celebration of enterprise: expos and garden festivals, in J.M. Fladmark (ed.) Cultural Tourism. London: Donhead, 1994, pp. 45 ­65. 5. L. Rubalcaba-Bermejo and J.R. Cuadrado-Roura, Urban hierarchies and territorial competition in Europe: exploring the role of fairs and exhibitions. Urban Studies 32 (1995) 379 ­400. 6. D. MacKay, Modern Architecture in Barcelona, 1854­1939. Oxford: BSP Professional Books, 1989. 7. G. Kearns and C. Philo (eds) Selling Places: the city as cultural capital, past and present. Oxford: Pergamon, 1993. W.F. Lever, Competition within the European urban system. Urban Studies 30 (1993) 935 ­48. L. Rubalcaba-Bermejo and J.R. Cuadrado-Roura, op. cit [5]. 8. G. Syme et al., op. cit. [2]. 9. R. Paddison, City marketing, image reconstruction and urban regeneration. Urban Studies 30 (1993) 339 ­50. D. Harvey, The Urban Experience. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989. 10. A. Guttmann, The Olympics: a history of the modern games. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992, p. 9. 11. O. Grupe, The sport culture and the sportization of culture: identity, legitimacy, sense and nonsense of modern sport as a cultural phenomenon, in M. Landry, M. Landry and M. Yerles (eds) Sport: the third millennium. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Sainte-Foy: Les Presses de L'Universite Laval, 1991, p. 143. ´ 12. C.M. Hall, op. cit. [2], p. 36. 13. R.W. Pound, Economic aspects of hosting major sports events, in M. Landry, M. Landry and M. Yerles (eds) Sport: the third millennium. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Sainte-Foy: Les Presses de L'Universite Laval, 1991, p. 361. ´ 14. M. Payne, One hundred years of Olympic marketing, in C. Searle and B. Vaile (eds) Of cial Olympic Companion. London: International Olympic Committee=Brassey's Sports, 1996, pp. 469­ 74. 15. M. Verdier, The IOC: a vast and complex global organisation, in C. Searle and B. Vaile (eds) Of cial Olympic Companion. London: International Olympic Committee=Brassey's Sports, 1996, pp. 464­ 8. 16. C. Law, op. cit. [2].

Urban development through hosting international events

393

17. Organisation Kommitee Fur Die XI Olympiade Berlin, The XI Olympic Games Berlin 1936: Of cial Report (two volumes). Berlin: Wilhelm Limpert, 1936, p. 129. 18. B.F. Gordon, Olympic Architecture: Building for the Summer Games. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1983. 19. D.B. Kanin, A Political History of the Olympic Games. Boulder: Westview, 1981. 20. British Olympic Association, Fourth Olympics: of cial report of Olympic Games of 1908 celebrated in London. London: British Olympic Association, 1908, p. 26. 21. D. Miller, Olympic Revolution: the Olympic biography of Juan Antonio Samaranch. London: Pavillion, 1992, p. 102. 22. D.B. Kanin, op. cit. [19], p. 33. 23. Swedish Olympic Committee, Fifth Olympics: of cial report of Olympic Games of Stockholm 1912. Stockholm: Wahlstrom and Widstrand, 1912, p. 167. 24. Ibid., p. 169. 25. Of cial Report, op. cit. [17], p. 129. 26. X Olympiade Committee of The Games of Los Angeles, USA, 1932 Limited, The Games of the Xth Olympiad, Los Angeles, 1932: of cial report. Los Angeles: Committee, 1933, p. 62. 27. B.F. Gordon, op. cit. [18]. 28. Of cial Report, op. cit. [17], p. 55. 29. R.D. Mandell, The Nazi Olympics. New York: MacMillan, 1971, p. 88. 30. Of cial Report, op. cit. [17], p. 139. 31. R.D. Mandell, op. cit. [29], p. xi. 32. B.F. Gordon, op. cit. [18], p.44. 33. R. Bailey, What the Games did to Melbourne. Sydney Morning Herald, 12 August 1993. 34. R. Espy, The Politics of the Olympic Games. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979, p. 76. 35. Olympic Committee for Games of the XVIII Olympiad, Of cial Report (two volumes). Tokyo: Olympic Committee, 1964, p. 46. 36. R. Espy, op. cit. [34], p. 114. 37. Pro-Sport Munchen, The Of cial Report of Olympic Committee for the Games of XX ¨ Olympiad, Munich, 1972 (two volumes). Munich: Olympic Committee, 1992, p. 125 (vol. 1). 38. Ibid., p. 2 (vol. 2). 39. Ibid., p. 129 (vol. 1). 40. B.F. Gordon, op. cit. [18]. 41. Ibid. 42. J. Kidd, The culture wars of the Montreal Olympics. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 27 (1992) 156. 43. J. Leveillee and R. Whelan, Preserving the gains, in D. Judd and M. Parkinson (eds) Leadership in Urban Regeneration. London: Sage, 1990, p. 155. 44. COJO-76, Of cial Report of Games of XXI Olympiad (two volumes). Ottawa: Olympic Committee, 1978. 45. Ibid., p. 10. 46. B.F. Gordon, op. cit. [18]. 47. Of cial Report, op. cit. [44], p. 3 (vol. 2). 48. J. Kidd, op. cit. [42], p. 151. 49. Of cial Report, op. cit. [44]. 50. Ibid., p. 18 (vol. 1). 51. B.F. Gordon, op. cit. [18]. 52. Los Angeles Olympic Organising Committee, Of cial Report of the Games of the XXIII Olympiad, Los Angeles 1984 (two volumes). Los Angeles: Organising Committee, 1985, p. 26.

394

Chalkley and Essex

53. Seoul Olympic Organising Committee, Of cial Report of the Games of the XXIV Olympiad (three volumes). Seoul: SOOC, 1989, p. 245. 54. Ibid., p. 247. 55. Ibid., p. 239. 56. C.R. Hill, Olympic Politics ( rst edition). Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992, p. 212. 57. D. Harvey, op. cit. [9]. 58. Of cial Report, op. cit. [53], pp. 239 ­41. 59. I. Kelly, The architecture and town planning associated with a hallmark event, in G.J. Syme, B.J. Shaw, D.M. Fenton and W.S. Mueller (eds) The Planning and Evaluation of Hallmark Events. Aldershot: Avebury, 1989, p. 269. 60. Barcelona Olympic Organising Committee, Of cial Report of the Games of the XXV Olympiad (four volumes). Barcelona: COOB'92, 1992, p. 75. 61. B. Chalkley, A. Jones, M. Kent and P. Sims, Olympic city under starter's orders. Town & Country Planning 60 (1991) 312 ­13. B. Chalkley, A. Jones, M. Kent and P. Sims, Barcelona: urban structure of an Olympic city. Geography Review 6 (1992) 2­6. 62. J.E. Sanchez, Societal responses to changes in the production system: the case of Barcelona ´ metropolitan region. Urban Studies 29 (1992) 949 ­64. 63. Of cial Report, op. cit. [60], pp. 77 (vol. 1). 64. Ibid., p. 155 (vol. 2). 65. Ibid., p. 231 (vol. 2). 66. Ibid., p. 89 (vol. 1). 67. Ibid., p. 93 (vol. 1). 68. J.E. Sanchez, op. cit. [62], p. 959. ´ 69. Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games, Press Guide. Atlanta: ACOG, 1995, p. 129. 70. S.P. French and M.E. Disher, Atlanta and the Olympics: a one year retrospective. Journal of the American Planning Association 63 (1997) 379­92. 71. C. Rutheiser, How Atlanta lost the Olympics. New Statesman 125 (19 July 1996) 28 ­29. 72. S.P. French and M.E. Disher, op. cit. [70]. 73. International Olympic Committee, Olympic Message: environment. Lausanne: IOC, 1993. 74. New South Wales Government, Homebush Bay Area: structure plan. Sydney: Homebush Bay Corporation, 1994. 75. B. Young, Homebush Bay master plan, Australian Planner 30 (1992) 221 ­6. 76. B. Chalkley and S. Essex, Sydney 2000: the `Green' Games. Geography, in press. 77. A. Cochrane, J. Peck and A. Tickell, Manchester plays Games: exploring the local politics of globalisation. Urban Studies 33, 8 (1996) 1319 ­36. 78. T. Brindley, Y. Rydin and G. Stoker, Remaking Planning. London: Unwin Hyman, 1989. 79. S. Brownhill, Developing London's Docklands: another great planning disaster? London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 1990.

Information

5C2;01oct99

26 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

135059

You might also be interested in

BETA
GNR 060707 print.indd
Print Layout 1
5C2;01oct99