case study london olympics 2012

GeographyCaseStudy.Com

Detailed resources for pre-university Geography students

Case study: London Olympics 2012

By Matt Burdett, 17 January 2018

On this page, we look at the London Olympics of 2012 as a case study of the costs and benefits for one country hosting an international sports event.

Why was London chosen?

London competed with other cities to host the 2012 Olympics. It was chosen from nine cities, with five shortlisted to make formal bids (Paris, Madrid, Moscow, London, and New York). London won the final round, beating Paris by 54 votes to 50.

It seems likely that there was a political influence in the decision – such as the French president insulting the Finnish delegation by complaining about the quality of Finnish food. However, the criteria of the IOC included government support and public opinion, city infrastructure (such as transport), sports venues and experience, olympic village and accommodation, environmental impact and legacy, safety and security, and finance. The following factors were partly responsible for the success of the bid:

• Youth engagement in sport was one of the pillars of London’s bit
• Sustainability and ‘legacy’ were pillars of London’s bid
• Regeneration was emphasised as part of the bid: the IOC was shown photos of the derelict former industrial areas
• The UK government had decided to focus its Olympic bids on London after failing to win the Games in 1992, 1996 and 2000 with bids from Birmingham and Manchester (two other major UK cities)
• Gender and age issues: most of those who spoke in the Paris presentation were male and middle aged; the London presentation included children and represented a multicultural London
• Financial: the British government was ready to back any over-spend on the construction of Games facilities. The initial estimate of GBP2.2bn was totally wrong and the games eventually cost around GBP10bn!

A further issue was the very local focus of London’s bid. Rather than being simply shown as a city- or country-wide bid, it suggested that the Olympics would have a lasting tangible impact on a deprived area of London, called Stratford.

The choice of Stratford in London

The area chosen for the main Olympic facilities was a relatively deprived part of London:

The area was therefore identifiably in need of regeneration and expected to benefit from improvements to infrastructure that would mean:

• Location of main venue just seven minutes by train from Central London
• London’s bid was one of the most compact Olympic Parks – only about 2 ½ square kilometres, so minimal impact on land use in the area
• Sizeable available brownfield sites for redevelopment, as well as the green spaces of the Lower Lea Valley, so there would be opportunity for further growth
• Development of a major transport hub in the form of Stratford International Station
• The athlete’s village was planned to be converted into 2818 new homes, of which about 40% would be ‘affordable’ homes for low and middle income families and disabled people
• Emphasis on urban regeneration: the swimming pools were planned for conversion into public pools after the Games
• Suitable location for further post-Games industry e.g. the media centre, where 20,000 people worked during the Games, was planned for conversion into one of Europe’s largest data storage centres

The costs and benefits of hosting the Games

Whether the Games were cost-effective depends very much on the perspective of the individual. Socially there were many benefits (see below) but these were not always long-lived, and participation in sport has now returned to pre-2012 levels. Economically, the Games occurred during the recovery from the global financial crisis of 2008-10, and many people felt that the approximate cost of GBP10bn to be too high, despite the lasting benefits to the environment and the future of the economy. Over the total period of the Olympics, some sources suggest “the city brought in around US$3.5 billion in revenues, and spent in excess US$18 billion – a negative balance of $14 billion plus” (Zimbalist, 2015).

However, many people feel that the London Games were overall a success, and provided a benefit to the city. It should be remembered that London is already the world’s second most globalised city (Dessibourg, Hales, and Mendoza Peña, 2017) and has been in that position since the index began in 2008. London has great wealth and experience in putting on large events and is used to welcoming visitors from around the world, so it was organisationally capable of running the Olympics. Other cities have fared less well with the legacy of such complex and expensive events.

• Eventual cost nearly £10 billion paid for by lottery fund so other things lose out e.g. arts
• Massive construction scheme lasting years disrupts local communities
• Better image for London and East End
• New sports venues around London and elsewhere e.g. sailing in Weymouth
• The UK government invested GBP 300 million to transform the Olympic site into the “Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park”, which includes housing, new schools, health centres, business space and sports venues.
• The first Join In weekend (encouraging volunteerism as the profile was increased from volunteers at the Olympics), in August 2012, featured over 6,000 events.
• 9000 new homes in total
• The Olympic Village was converted into more than 2,800 flats in 11 residential plots, with spacious courtyards, gardens and balconies.
• Five new neighbourhoods are being established around the park to include 11,000 residences, one third of which will be affordable housing
• The London Olympic Athletes’ Village is the largest sustainable homes project in the UK.

Education and sports participation

• A new youth sport strategy for the UK invested GBP1bn in youth sport over the five years following the Games and created 6,000 new community sports clubs.
• The Department of Education provided GBP 65 million to encourage efforts by physical education teachers to organise competitive sports, embed best practice and train primary school teachers.
• The official London 2012 education programme “Get Set” operated over a four-year period across the UK providing flexible teaching resources for over 25,000 schools and 6.5 million young people to assist them in learning more about the London 2012 Games, the Olympic and Paralympic values and global citizenship. An impressive 85 per cent of UK schools signed up to this programme
• The Olympic and Paralympic Games inspired over 2,000 community projects designed to educate young people in the UK about sport, health & fitness, art and Olympic values.

Environmental and general infrastructure

• Some people lost homes, allotments, and areas for fishing
• Olympic Park ‘largest [new] urban park in Europe for 150 years’ (ODA, 2015)
• Prior to construction, the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA, 2015) excavated and cleaned more than 2.3 million cubic metres of contaminated soil.
• Transport for London invested GBP 6.5 billion in transport infrastructure in preparation for the 2012 Games.
• Ten railway lines and 30 new bridges continue to connect London communities after the Games.
• The UK’s Home Office (the ministry of the interior) invested GBP 40 million in communications upgrades for London’s Underground, doubling radio capacity at key stations to help authorities deal with any emergency.
• At least 60 Games-related projects promoted greener travel, including a GBP 10 million investment to upgrade pedestrian and cycling routes across London.
• A fleet of 200 electric vehicles transported Olympians, supported by 120 charging stations that created the UK’s largest network of recharging points. The charging stations continue to support emission-free travel long after the Games
• More than 98 percent of the demolition waste from decrepit buildings that were torn down was recycled.
• Organisers helped develop 45 hectares of habitat, with a 10-year ecological management plan to encourage biodiversity.
• 300,000 plants were planted in the Olympic Park’s wetland area.
• Over 1,000 new trees were planted in East London.
• 380 businesses relocated away from park to make way for Olympics
• Cost of living in the area for poorer people will increase
• 3000 new jobs (ODA, 2015)
• Factoring in pre-Games construction and other early Games-related economic activity, an Oxford Economics study commissioned by the Lloyds banking group estimates that the Games will generate GBP 16.5 billion for the British economy from 2005 to 2017.
• During July and August 2012, visitors spent about GBP 760 million in the UK, averaging GBP 1,290 per person – almost double the normal amount.
• Expenditure from overseas visitors in August, including Games ticket sales, totalled GBP 4.5 billion
• 75 pence of every pound spent on the Olympics went towards providing a lasting legacy to East London residents.
• Independent experts said Games preparations were a major factor behind a 1.2 percent reduction in London’s unemployment rate in early 2012.
• More than 46,000 people worked on the Olympic Park and Olympic Village, 10 percent of whom were previously unemployed.
• The five Host Boroughs surrounding the Olympic Park provided nearly a quarter of the workforce throughout the project. For example, the Host Borough of Newham had 4,364 residents employed by LOCOG or by their contractors and a further 5,518 employed indirectly on the Games in the lead-up and at Games time.
• The (new) Westfield Stratford shopping centre houses 250 retailers, 70 dining establishments and represents a GBP 1.4 billion investment in East London.
• The Westfield Stratford shopping centre created 10,000 permanent new jobs from day one, including 2,000 for local people who were previously unemployed.

Anonymous, no date. Why was London chosen to host the 2012 Olympiad? https://www.rgs.org/NR/rdonlyres/1E506FE2-3179-439C-81F2-B43D0B97D058/0/CGT_NetRaising_8Olympicpresentation.pdf Accessed 17 January 2018.

Dessibourg, Hales, and Mendoza Peña, 2017. Global Cities 2017. https://www.atkearney.com/global-cities/full-report Accessed 17 January 2018.

Dugan, E. 2013. Olympics legacy: Did the Games succeed in rejuvenating East London? http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/olympics-legacy-did-the-games-succeed-in-rejuvenating-east-london-8711691.html Accessed 17 January 2018.

ODA [Olympic Delivery Authority], 2015. Olympic Delivery Authority 2006-2014 – final report. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/olympic-delivery-authority-report Accessed 17 January 2018.

Stevens, A. 2008. 2012 London Olympics to regenerate one of the poorest areas of the capital http://www.citymayors.com/sport/2012-olympics-london.html Accessed 17 January 2018.

Wihbey, J. 2016. Olympics and their economic impact: Updated research roundup. https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/infrastructure-government/economic-and-cultural-benefits-of-the-olympics-research-roundup Accessed 17 January 2018.

Zimbalist, 2018. The Illusory Economic Gains from Hosting the Olympics World Cup. In World Economics, 16, issue 1, p. 35-42, https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wej:wldecn:606 . Accessed 17 January 2018.

Case study: London Olympics 2012: Learning activities

• Outline the political, social, economic and environmental reasons why London was chosen for the 2012 Games. [8]
• Suggest reasons why some people feel that the Games were not an appropriate way to spend the money. [4]
• Suggest why some people feel that the Games provided a tangible legacy. [3]
• Create a spider diagram showing at least three social impacts, three economic impacts and three environmental impacts of the Games.
• Do you consider that the Games were a sustainable event? Explain your answer. [4]
• Overall, do you think that the Games were a success? Why? [6]

Other tasks

Imagine that you live in the area that is going to be transformed by the Games. Write a letter to the International Olympic Committee explaining why you do or don’t want the Games to come to London. Remember to attempt a counter-argument and rebuttal, and that this is a formal letter so you should be using formal ‘business’ language.

Going further

This site has a great number of additional sources that you could explore, for example if you are looking at the Olympics for the purposes of an extended essay. Page 11 is especially good.

• http://crln.acrl.org/content/75/1/24.full

Look at these sites for more in-depth information.

• http://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/23434844
• https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140221-olympics-sochi-rio-de-janeiro-london-boris-johnson-montreal-athens-world/
• https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/02/03/270950685/did-london-get-an-economic-boost-from-the-2012-olympics
• https://d2rpq8wtqka5kg.cloudfront.net/129049/open20120701120000.pdf?Expires=1511793842&Signature=R043y307dmxOAQKbZckf67uuGsQhQUZ3~Fuml0zdCMn0Y2ZjYobP36CAdEROzjj4QvHUN0aFZKha~v7h8RAt1XLxQKkIZGyf6Z5h3N~U01FZv~N5u4gIXs~z43IkDQMr~1ShM9I4Px7hWR6~yG7TRi57jLt8x3Ti~2HiHGZYAiDpXP68St7EadjRxLr6HDZRtf-mOBRGCSKCxx7S-bhDyZWlDqR8kP4jayZQr7UtYoN-qSbdz6SqNBd3AIrQNhaCLp51mWZkSFex8XdXJblqSZDlAgdPYHvGLyD6wsZLSZAmvUE9MDQ4ol~SOhQ9qI9-zggFSUgaagHj1mPDR9Ak9A__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJVGCNMR6FQV6VYIA

And even further:

• http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reference_documents_Factsheets/London_2012_Facts_and_Figures-eng.pdf Interesting facts in general.
• http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_282767.pdf Visitors impact – especially useful on p8
• http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ott/overseas-travel-and-tourism—monthly-release/august-2012/index.html Also pretty strong, same basic source as above but with other links that might be useful.

Share this:

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

The Employment Legacy of the 2012 Olympic Games

A Case Study of East London

• © 2020
• Niloufar Vadiati 0

HafenCity University Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

• Offers an empirically detailed intervention into a debate that is, to a large extent, politically charged and driven by grand claims and far-reaching projections
• Fills a gap in the mega event literature by examining the programmes, attempts and barriers to participation of local communities in deprived neighbourhoods, which has remained conspicuously absent from pertinent research to date
• Provides valuable in-depth research in an empirical field (East London and its migrant communities) that is traditionally difficult to access

Part of the book series: Mega Event Planning (MEGAEP)

2767 Accesses

2 Citations

3 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents (8 chapters)

Front matter, introduction.

Niloufar Vadiati

Mega-Event: Urban Duality

Olympic games: legacy versus delivery, london versus east london, in pursuit of employment legacy, the career trajectory of ‘men of delivery’, east londoners as the workforce for london 2012, conclusion: legacy ambivalence, back matter.

• Olympic Studies
• Sports Management
• Mega Project/Events
• Metropolitan Studies
• Olympic Legacy
• London Olympics 2012
• East London
• landscape/regional and urban planning
• urban geography and urbanism

About this book

“In focussing on employment and the Olympic “legacy” in east London, Niloufar Vadiati‘s book makes a distinctive and important contribution to the academic literature on the 2012 London Games and to the study of mega-events in general.” (Prof. Paul Watt, Birkbeck, University of London)

Authors and Affiliations

About the author, bibliographic information.

Book Title : The Employment Legacy of the 2012 Olympic Games

Book Subtitle : A Case Study of East London

Authors : Niloufar Vadiati

Series Title : Mega Event Planning

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0598-0

Publisher : Palgrave Pivot Singapore

eBook Packages : Social Sciences , Social Sciences (R0)

Copyright Information : The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Hardcover ISBN : 978-981-15-0597-3 Published: 02 December 2019

eBook ISBN : 978-981-15-0598-0 Published: 21 November 2019

Series ISSN : 2633-5859

Series E-ISSN : 2633-5867

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XV, 139

Number of Illustrations : 14 b/w illustrations

Topics : Human Geography , Landscape/Regional and Urban Planning , Urbanism , Urban Studies/Sociology

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Critical Analysis of a Regeneration Case Study: East London & London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games

Year 2. Grade A 73%. Module: Tourism, Culture and Regeneration. Cities that hosts world-class events grasps a golden chance that can enable a shift in personality and image in a short period of time. Trivial places can become global places and world city’s can reinforce their existing image, position or status. It can stimulate and produce long-term benefits not exclusively to the host city and its citizens, but well beyond the surrounding region and the host country. The opposite is also true, if appropriate policies and strategies are not planned and executed, great harm to the image of the host city and country will be caused, risking future plans of attracting more events. (Smith, 2007) Mega events such as the Olympic games are a high status international event much desired by nations for a myriad of reasons. Besides the great feeling that team sports can exert over a society combined with the sense of union and global friendship it disseminates, host cities have the opportunity of attract inward investments, extensive media exposure, prestige and perform urban restructuring. (Law, 2002) For this piece of work, concepts such as urban regeneration, events-led regeneration, legacy and the creation of cultural quarters, creative clusters and hubs will be analysed, discussed and evaluated. Moreover, the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics games will be the chosen case study to illustrate the events-led regeneration.

Related Papers

Nancy Stevenson

Planning Perspectives

Juliet Davis

An issue commonly identified with the vast and costly developments that cities produce to host the Olympic Games is that they are prone to becoming ‘white elephants’ – obsolete or underused constructions that become cost burdens for cities. White elephants are particularly associated with some of the most recent Games of the twenty-first century, as reflected in accounts of ‘limping’ or obsolete venues in Sydney, Athens, Beijing, Rio and Sochi. This paper begins with a review of issues associated with spatial planning, architecture and planning process in the production of white elephants in Olympic history. It goes on to provide an historical account of London’s efforts from 2002 to 2012 avoid attracting a repetition of the critique that followed earlier Olympics. Finally, it assesses its ongoing efforts and record over the six-year period from 2012 to 2018.

Jonathan Grix , Dr Paul Michael Brannagan

The spiralling costs of hosting sports mega-events (SMEs) are usually justified by the ‘legacies’ that they produce. Therefore, this article begins by problematising the notion of SME ‘legacies’ and the benefits they are intended to bring to hosts. The article serves as a general introduction to the papers that follow in this Special Issue. Common to all papers is a concern with the multifaceted nature of ‘legacy’, its meaning to a variety of stakeholders involved in such events and how this impacts policy. The belief in the causal relationship between hosting major events and the realisation of specific legacies – increased sport participation in London’s case, highlighted in this paper – underpinned the United Kingdom’s bidding for, and subsequent hosting of, the Olympics. Thus, this paper serves as a discussion of some of the key concepts in, and assumptions about, the use of SMEs to produce a legacy for the hosting state.

Susi Lovati

PATRICE BALLESTER

Ballester, Patrice (2018), « The 1992 Olympic and Paralympic games in Barcelona, Interview of Patrice Ballester » in Les cahiers de la chaire immobilier et développement durable, sous la direction d'Ingrid Nappi-Choulet et d'Emmanuel de la Masselière, « The Urban and Real Estate Legacy of mega-events », Cahier # 6, pp.160 – 169. Barcelona and its Olympic Games of 1992, a model of success and a critical look to take into account for future Olympics.city-planning, urban art, tourism, economic strategy. Through some twenty interviews with researchers, academics, elected officials and urban architects, this sixth edition of the Cahiers de la Chaire Immobilier et Développement Durable de l’ESSEC takes a critical look at the urban and real estate-related effects of major events on the cities that host them (Olympic and Paralympic Games and World Expos). It puts the urban and real estate legacy left behind by previous events in perspective with Paris’ expectations of the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games, to which it will be host and World Expo 2025, to which it could have been hosted if Paris' candidacy had been maintained. During the bidding process, as Paris confirms, the awaited impacts on development and real estate and urban re-development are tremendous. Post-time analyses in Europe, Brazil and Japan show that they differ from case to case. In some instances, the outcomes are mixed or even negative: white elephants are marooned, and the debt left behind has an impact on city finances for decades. In others, to the contrary, the outcomes are strikingly positive: a neighbourhood is created, or a city changes dimension and trajectory. Looking at each of these situations, this Cahier brings to light the conditions for successful mega-events. The most important is that the legacy be taken into consideration already upstream, from the bidding phase. The second is the development of a strategy for maximising the value of the event: the event is not, from an urban perspective, an end-purpose, but a fantastic opportunity for development; beyond the media enthusiasm, it strengthens and speeds up a project's dynamic. Barcelone et ses jeux Olympiques de 1992, un modèle de réussite et un regard critique à prendre en compte pour les futures olympiades. Aménagement, urbanisme, art urbain, tourisme, stratégie économique. À travers une vingtaine d’entretiens avec des chercheurs, des universitaires, des élus et des architectes urbanistes, ce sixième numéro des Cahiers de la Chaire Immobilier et Développement Durable de l’ESSEC porte un regard critique sur les effets urbains et immobiliers des grands événements sur les villes qui les accueillent comme les Jeux Olympiques, Paralympiques et les Expositions universelles. Il met en perspective cet héritage urbain et immobilier d’événements antérieurs avec les attentes de Paris envers les Jeux Olympiques et Paralympiques de 2024 qu’elle accueillera et l’Exposition universelle de 2025, qu'elle aurait pu accueillir si sa candidature avait été maintenue. Au moment des candidatures, et Paris le confirme, ces impacts espérés sur le développement et l’aménagement immobiliers et urbains sont immenses. Les analyses a posteriori en Europe, au Brésil et au Japon montrent qu’ils diffèrent d’un cas à l’autre. Parfois, ils sont mitigés voire négatifs : des éléphants blancs sont à l’abandon ; la dette laissée impacte les finances de la ville pour plusieurs décennies. Parfois, au contraire, ils sont très positifs : un quartier est créé, une ville change de dimension et de trajectoire. Face à ces situations diverses, le Cahier met en lumière les conditions du succès des mega-events. La plus importante est de penser l’héritage en amont, dès la phase de candidature. La deuxième est de se doter d’une stratégie de valorisation de l’événement : l’événement n’est pas, du point de vue urbain, une finalité mais une occasion formidable de développement ; au-delà de l’engouement médiatique, il conforte et accélère une dynamique de projet.

Richard Giulianotti

This article examines the diverse forms of public opposition, protest, criticism, and complaint in the United Kingdom on the staging of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in London. Our discussion draws heavily on empirical research, primarily fieldwork and interviews in East London with local residents, opposition groups, business people, politicians, and other stakeholders. The article is separated into three main parts. First, we explore the setting and political–economic context for London 2012. The main Olympic setting—the London Borough of Newham—features very high levels of poverty and ethnic diversity. We argue that London 2012 represented a form of “festival capitalism” that was part of a broader set of “New Right two-step” policies in poor urban areas, involving initial Keynesian investment, followed by a deeper and far-reaching array of neo-liberal measures. Second, in the main part of the article, we identify and examine, in turn, six forms of public conflict, criticism, and complaint that centered on the Games, specifically national criticisms (e.g., on distribution of Olympic resources), local criticisms (e.g., on lack of jobs and business benefits), issue-specific campaigns (e.g., on the environment), “glocal” protests against specific nations and sponsors (e.g., campaigns against BP, Dow, and Rio Tinto), neo-tribal transgressions and situationist spectacles (e.g., mass cycle rides near Olympic venues), and anti-Olympic forums and demonstrations (e.g., critical web sites, multi-group marches). Third, we set out briefly the importance of conducting research into critics and opponents of sport mega-events, and discuss different arguments on how the social impact of protest movements might have been intensified at London 2012. The findings in this article may be extended to examine critical public responses to the hosting of other mega-events in different settings.

Andressa Guimarães

Leonardo Mataruna , Silvestre Neto

The objective of this research is to identify best practices used to manage the legacy of sports facilities of the host Olympic Games Cities, establishing if they can be transferred to sustain the legacies of the 5th Military World Games - Rio 2011.

Trish Greenhalgh

Mega-sporting event regeneration, as a specific approach to urban renewal, uses impending host-city status as a catalyst for revitalisation and has the potential to improve health both through addressing deprivation and by promoting increased sport and physical activity among the host-city's population. This qualitative study explored how hosting of the London 2012 Games impacted upon the way East London residents perceived and experienced the social determinants of health in their local neigh- bourhood. We conducted narrative family interviews, go-along interviews and video focus group workshops with 66 Newham residents, aged 12–55 years, immediately after the Games. A narrative analytic approach examined accounts of health and wellbeing experiences in terms of neighbourhood change and the spectacle of the Games. Participants of this qualitative study generally welcomed the respite and the unexpected chance to live in a cleaner, safer and more unified environment. However, this positivity was underscored by an acute awareness that this was a very temporary situation and one that was intended to support the event rather than residents.

Ian Brittain

This paper will present a Marie Curie funded research project evaluating the social legacy of impacts of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. This research will commence in September 2013 for two years and will contribute extensively to the knowledge pool surrounding the use of sporting and other mega-events as tools to bring about social change. The use of such events to bring about transformation of socially deprived areas of major cities is becoming an increasingly important part of the raison d'être for hosting such events, especially given the immense costs involved and the current economic climate. The tax-paying public are increasingly having to be persuaded of the benefits, beyond the event itself, to spend the nations resources in this way. This work proposes to evaluate some of the social legacy programmes of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games within the 5 London host Boroughs and to assess their transferability to the Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic...

RELATED PAPERS

Penny Bernstock

Rojan Thomas Joseph

The Hospitality Review

Carole Favre

Ilaria Pappalepore

M H Tavakkoli, PhD

ITU (Istanbul Technical University) Journal of the Faculty of Architecture

Robert Holden

az.itu.edu.tr

Oluwatobi Ajayi

Martin Müller , Christopher Gaffney

Simona Azzali

Eva Kassens-Noor

Dr Joseph Dunne-Howrie

Deborah Blackman , Angela M Benson

Erick Omena de Melo

Planning Theory & Practice

Libby Porter

Juliet Davis , Andy Thornley

Gabriel Silvestre

Leonardo Mataruna , Thiago Melo , Andressa Guimarães

Planning Theory and Practice

Billy Graeff , Bárbara S de Almeida

Bárbara S de Almeida , Billy Graeff

ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies

Francesca Weber-Newth , Sebastian Schlüter

Katia Rubio

Journal of Sport Science and Physical Education

Christopher Gaffney

Handbook of the London2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Vol.2. London

Özlem Edizel Tasci

Matthew Allen

Elizabeth Booth , James Kennell

Julie Clark

Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 23(1), 1-22

Jonathan Gardner

Postgraduate research grant programme 2012 report

Global Sport Management News

David P. Hedlund

Nelson Todt , Xavier Ramon

International Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• About initiative
• Case studies
• Challenges and Improvements Framework
• Contractual Models
• Key references

London 2012 Olympics sustainable London

Sustainability

• Preparations for the London 2012 Olympics involved 137 projects each in separate contracts of varying scale, from major works including the 80,000-seat Olympic stadium, through to preparation works at small-scale competition spaces. 
• The program was delivered amid a local environment of heavy government, media, regulatory, and public scrutiny that demanded the program be delivered on-time with positive health and safety, quality, and environmental and sustainability outcomes . 
• London 2012 was delivered by the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), a Special Purpose Vehicle. The structure gave the ODA autonomy to implement its own program delivery, organisational and governance structures independent of external political influences, and allowed the ODA to establish clear roles and responsibilities and develop bespoke procurement and contracting strategies.
• Olympic programs such as London 2012 involve the construction of significant amounts of new infrastructure, which requires the consumption of significant quantities of construction materials, energy, and other resources, and generates large volumes of construction, food, and other waste.
• The program’s absolute requirement to deliver all projects before the opening of the Olympic Games had the potential to contribute to delivery personnel focusing on delivery timeliness at the expense of sustainability outcomes, (e.g. material use and waste) and environmental impact of new infrastructure over the assets’ entire lifecycle.

Improvement

• The flexibility of governance arrangements owing from the ODA’s structure allowed it to appoint an independent body, the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012, in January 2007. The commission was jointly funded by the ODA, Transport for London, London Development Agency, Government Olympic Executive, and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG). 
• The commission was responsible for, ‘monitoring the delivery of a sustainable Olympics and Paralympics and providing an assurance process to ensure sustainability objectives, targets, and aspirations were being met’ and monitored the ODA in addition to the third-party organisations participating in the delivery program.
• The Commission conducted process assurance of key processes / themes across the London 2012 program including food, waste, energy, logistics, materials, staff and volunteer diversity, accessibility and transport, and ‘last mile’ transport to venues.
• The themes were monitored on a workflow-basis and were identified through the commission’s existing knowledge of the key processes and in consultation with LOCOG.
• Following the Olympics, the Commission was responsible for overseeing the sustainability of transitioning Olympic Park to long-term post-Olympic use and was wound up following the conclusion of these works in March 2013.

Stakeholders

• Commission for a Sustainable London 2012
• Government Olympic Executive
• Greater London Authority (Transport for London and London Development Agency)
• Local London Boroughs
• Infrastructure Projects Authority
• CLM Consortium – Jacobs, Laing O’Rourke and Mace – Delivery partner.
• July 2005 – London selected as the 2021 Olympic Host City
• March 2006 – ODA established
• September 2006 – CLM Consortium appointed as Delivery Partner
• January 2007 – Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 established
• Summer 2012 – 2012 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games held
• March 2013 – Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 wound up.

Results / impact

• Works for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games were delivered ahead of time, under budget, and deemed a success by 83% of the general public. [1]
• 48% onsite (and 59% including offsite measures) reduction in carbon emissions from operation of the assets post-games against a target of 50%
• 11% of energy from renewable sources against a target of 20%
• 90% of waste diverted from landfill, achieved by implementing a site-wide waste contract and providing financial incentives to subcontractors to segregate their waste, which was self-funded through savings in the site-wide waste operation
• 34% recycled content by value in materials used, and 40% recycled content by mass against targets of 20% and 25% respectively
• 60% reduction in potable water use against a target of 40%
• Buildings delivered to BREEAM Outstanding or LEEED Platinum standards, such as Skanska head office (Sweden), PWC Office (London), Hollywood House (Woking), London School of Economics
• Large infrastructure projects adopting the ODA’s process of specifying sustainability outcomes, such as Crossrail (London), Toronto Waterfront (Toronto, Canada), and Barangaroo (Sydney, Australia).

Key lessons learnt

• The Post-Games Report published by the Commission in March 2013 [3] found that a key driver of successfully delivering the program in a sustainable manner was the early establishment of the commission, and the implementation of clear sustainability objectives with measurable targets, and clear assurance and accountability structure.
• The review found little evidence of similar sustainability efforts being implemented in other large sporting programs such as the Rio and Sochi Olympics, and Glasgow and Gold Coast Commonwealth Games, and found little evidence of use of these sustainability practices beyond large-scale, high-profile projects. This was attributed to general scepticism about the business case value of adopting sustainability initiatives, inconsistent approaches to planning, lack of leadership, and lack of a supply chain suitable for delivering works in a sustainable manner.

Related case studies

Useful links and related resources

View or edit this activity in your CPD log.

NEC3 case study - London 2012 Olympic Velodrome

• Location: London UK
• Value: £68 million
• Contracts used: ECC
• Start - finish: March 2009 - February 2011
• Employer: Olympic Delivery Authority
• Contractor: ISG
• Project manager: CLM

The 6000-seat Velodrome was the first major venue to be completed at the Olympic Park in London for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The permanent venue was completed ahead of programme and to budget by contractor ISG for the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA). Like all other major London 2012 venues, it was procured under an NEC3 Engineering and Construction Contract option C (target contract with activity schedule).

The dramatic structure features a 12,000m2 double-curvature cable-net roof, red cedar external wall cladding and a 250m International Cycling Union approved cycling track made from 56km of sustainably sourced Siberian pine. After the Games the Olympic BMX circuit is retained and reconfigured to accommodate all levels of ability and a 1.6km road cycle circuit and 7km of mountain bike trails are added to form the Lee Valley VeloPark.

Most energy efficient venue The Velodrome is the most energy-efficient venue in the Olympic Park, achieving a 31% improvement over 2006 Building Regulations part L requirements. The compact design minimises heated air volume and extensive use is made of natural ventilation and lighting. Potable water demand has been reduced by 73% installing rainwater harvesting and low-water sanitary ware.

The design team of Hopkins Architects, Expedition Engineering and service engineer BDSP also sought to minimise the amount of construction material used through a detailed value engineering exercise. This resulted in contractor ISG developing a lightweight 30kg/m2 cable-net system, which saved 1000t of steelwork and reduced the size and depth of foundations.

Reasons for selection of NEC3 According to ODA Deputy Head of Procurement John Fernau, "The NEC3 Engineering and Construction Contract was selected for procuring the Velodrome and other London 2012 venues as it provides a collaborative approach supporting timely delivery, which was fundamental to ODA. There is full visibility of costs supporting effective programme budget management, and full visibility for assessing the impact of change, for example as designs were developed.

The contracts provide a prescribed methodology for project management, with processes and procedures to manage delivery and support a standardised contract management approach. They also have a proven record of use and understanding within the supply chain, in contrast to potential market uncertainty over any new ODA bespoke contract.

ODA made a number of enhancements to the contract to support its policy ambitions, including enhanced payment terms (18 days), enhanced dispute-avoidance provisions, which include the use of an ODA appointed independent disputes avoidance panel, sub-contract provisions including the use of competitive tendering and flow-down of other policy requirements, and changes to insurance clauses reflecting ODAs use of project insurance."

Benefits of NEC3

• The use of target arrangements provided contractors with a clear incentive to drive efficiency and programme delivery, evidenced by the construction progress and cost performance achieved. ODAs supply chain demonstrated positive behaviours focused on the delivery of ODAs objectives.
• ODA's formal dispute-avoidance mechanisms were only used to a very limited extent, a result of proactive use of the contract to resolve issues as they arose collaboratively.

• Harvard Business School →
• Faculty & Research →
• September 2009 (Revised May 2019)
• HBS Case Collection

The London 2012 Olympic Games

• Format: Print
• | Language: English
• | Pages: 18

About The Author

John T. Gourville

Related work.

• Faculty Research
• August 2021

The London 2012 Olympic Games Video Supplement

• The London 2012 Olympic Games  By: John T. Gourville and Marco Bertini
• The London 2012 Olympic Games Video Supplement  By: John T. Gourville