Urban regeneration for the London Olympics 2012 and its social impact on the local residents
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Urban regeneration for the London Olympics 2012 and
its social impact on the local residents
Source: The Telegraph. Retrieved from: goo.gl/HBQ0pc
Master Thesis
Master in Urban Management and Valuation
Student: B.Sc. L.Arch. Marina Milosev
Tutor: Arch. Blanca Arellano Ramos
December, 2014
_1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS and OBJECTIVES 3 METHODOLOGY 4 LITERATURE REWIEV 5FINDINGS 6CONSLUSION
_the main objective
This research focuses on the recent urban regeneration that took place due to the London Olympics 2012. The main
aim of this study is to investigate its social impact on the local low-income residents of Newham borough.
_ statement of the problem
The urban regeneration of East London and its legacy were the main reasons for the UK to win to host the Olympics
2012, nine years ago.
Officials stated that the beneficial legacy of this urban regeneration would be long lasting and advantageous to the
local communities of the East End, which was among the poorest of London and even England.
Given extremely ambitious goals, the large scale, high spending, the promise that the Olympics would enhance the life
of the local community, and eradicate their poverty, has been seen as a tenuous promise.
Map of Olympic site and deprivation in London
The Olympic site
Dark green color represent the
LOSAs with high deprivation
Source: The Queen Elisabeth Olympic Park. Available at: http://queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/
1 INTRODUCTION __2 HYPOTHESIS and OBJECTIVES 3 METHODOLOGY 4 LITERATURE REWIEV 5FINDINGS 6CONSLUSION
_hypothesis
Despite the Government’s efforts to promote socially mixed communities and its promise of an
improvement that will mainly benefit local residents, the urban regeneration project and the
Olympics 2012 social legacy won’t benefit low-income residents of Newham borough but residents
that are more affluent. In other words, it will cause exactly the opposite effect of what have been
promised by local government, as local residents will suffer rough social and economic
consequences.
Source: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/
Homeless mothers who squatted flats of an empty housing estate in Newham. 9/10/2014.
1 INTRODUCTION __2 HYPOTHESIS and OBJECTIVES 3 METHODOLOGY 4 LITERATURE REWIEV 5FINDINGS 6CONSLUSION
_objectives
• To review the literature in order to study the urban regeneration and social sustainability in
urban areas as a general concept;
• To examine social issues related to this project;
• To analyse how social issues integrated with the Olympic Games 2012 project;
• To analyse how the Olympic project addresses local community necessities;
• To identify to what extent this project socially (social-economic) affected the residents of
Newham borough.
Source: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/
Homeless mothers who squatted flats of an empty housing estate in Newham. 9/10/2014.
1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS and OBJECTIVES _3 METHODOLOGY 4 LITERATURE REWIEV 5FINDINGS 6CONSLUSION
_methodology
The analysis of social impact of the urban regeneration was based on a mixed methodological
approach (qualitative-first): both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to collect and
analyse the data.
_methods
Qualitative:
• In- depth in person interviews
• Documentation analysis
• Fieldwork- observations
Quantitative:
• Survey- structural questionnaires
1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS and OBJECTIVES 3 METHODOLOGY _4 LITERATURE REWIEV 5FINDINGS 6CONSLUSION _literature review CONTEMPORARY VISION OF URBAN REGENRATION IN THE UK “... a comprehensive and integrated vision and action which leads to the resolution of urban problems and which seeks to bring about a lasting improvement in the economic, physical, social and environmental condition of an area that has been subject to change” (Roberts and Sykes, 2000: 17). SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY IN CONTEXT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT Social sustainability can be broadly defined as the maintenance and improvement of well- being of current and future generations (Chiu, 2003). According to McKenzie, (2004) the condition incorporated equity of access to key services (including health, education, transport housing and recreation) (Cited in Mak and Peacok, 2011: £). EVENT-LED URBAN REGENERATION AND ITS COMPLICATIONS Mega events, such as the Olympics, are considered to be great catalyst for urban changes. They offer an exclusive opportunity, to the host city, to boost the economic advancement (achieved through tourist and employment increase), infrastructure improvements, and urban development (Lei and Spaans, 2009). However, given its large scale, budget, short time, and often high ambitions that are being promised, event-led regeneration has been highly criticized for numerous complications. The main issue related to mega events are residents displacement, and other various socio-economic disadvantages that might impact local, specifically low-income, residents (Watt 2013; Porter et al. 2009)
1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS and OBJECTIVES 3 METHODOLOGY 4 LITERATURE REWIEV _5 FINDINGS 6CONSLUSION _socio economic profile of Newham • INCOME (IMD 3 in 2007) In 2013, gross annual salary in Newham was £28,283 while in Inner London was £34,524 and £32,800 in Grater London. • The UNEMPLOYMENT (IMD 55 in 2007) in Newham is 13.7%, while in London is 8.9% and in England 7.9%. • Relatively low levels of SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS (IMD 159 in 2007) compared to the city as a whole • HOUSING (IMD 2 in 2007): In 2009, 15% private houses were designated unfit, compared to 6% in London. 50% of social housing stock in Newham was below Decent Homes Standard. • Relatively high levels of CRIME (IMD 17 in 2007)and perceptions of crime within the resident population (Drugs, Violence, Robbery etc.). • An expanding black and minority ethnic community (high ethnic segregation); • HEALTH (IMD 25 in 2007): Newham residents have lower life expectancy and higher rates of premature mortality than other Boroughs in London and the average for England as whole.
1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS 3 METHODOLOGY 4 LITERATURE REWIEV _5 FINDINGS 6CONSLUSION
_the Olympic legacy
Before the Games, 2005 After the Olympics 2013
• Costing £9.3 bn;
• 2.5 square km;
• Completely transformed vast area of
industrial and brownfield land;
• Around 200 buildings were
demolished; entirely new infrastructure
was developed (new utilities network
to provide power, water and sanitation
Ex Clays Lane Co-Operative community New housing- Athletes Village
to the site);
• Around 100 hectares was allocated to
the green space.
1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS 3 METHODOLOGY 4 LITERATURE REWIEV _5 FINDINGS 6CONSLUSION
New housing in the Olympic Park
_the Olympic legacy
HOUSING LEGACY
build over 9,000 new homes, a large proportion of which to be
affordable.
EMPLOYMENT LEGACY
create 12,000 job opportunities in the area of the Park post-
Games.
SERVICES AND AMENITIES Source: http://www.earth911.com/
provide new sport, leisure, education and health facilities that Stratford, Westfield shopping center
meet the needs of residents, business and elite sport.
SOCIAL WELLBEIING
- Socially-mixed community; residents participation, pride,
sense of community etc.
HEALTH
100ha of new green area; sport venues, North Park and South
Plaza.
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“By staging the Games in this part of the city, the most enduring legacy of the Olympics will be
the regeneration of an entire community for the direct benefit of everyone who lives there”
London Bid Book 2005Social issues Socio-economic Olympic legacy/promise The facts, two years afterwards (survey, interviews,
observations, facts and figures)
Housing shortage 1,379 affordable new housing units. • 32% can’t afford 44% or residents can’t afford 2,
and unaffordability -356 intermediate rent, 65% 3 bedroom property at Affordable rent,
-348 shared ownership, and • 65% believes that rent increase as a result of the
-675 social Olympics;
• Interviews shows displacement
• 37.5%, privately renting
Unemployment 10.000 new jobs, 2.000 jobs for unemployed • Low paid jobs (retail and hospitality);
local residents. • increases in unemployment between 2007-09 and
2010-12;
• 208 jobs were dislocated,
• 25 businesses employing 65 staff closed down.
Social segregation, Provide socially mixed communities. • 90% of respondents calmed that they haven't
Sense of community Improve the cohesion in the area. been involved in the planning process.
and participation • 74.2 % doesn’t think that planning authorities
didn’t successfully addressed local community's
necessities.
Health and lack of North Park and South Plaza • 75% don’t use the park because of the lack of
activates information, it is not considered local, difficult to
reach.
Barrier to the provide new sport, leisure, facilities that • 80% of residents don’t use new facilities the main
services meet the needs of residents, business and reason is lack of resources or no information;
elite sport
Stigmatization “re-brand” the community, turn area into • 70.8% think that this will improve the image of
new cities hallmark Newham, 57% feel proud that Newham hosted
the event. Thought, the improvements are not for
them.1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS 3 LITERATURE REWIEV 4 METHODOLOGY _5 FINDINGS _6CONSLUSION _conclusion
1 INTRODUCTION 2 HYPOTHESIS 3 LITERATURE REWIEV 4 METHODOLOGY _5 FINDINGS _6CONSLUSION
_conclusion
• The first signal of a contradictory outcome was the residents’ displacement that took
place during the early stages of the regeneration process. Moreover, displacement
was not only specific to the resident who lived on the Olympic site but also it was
extended to nearby areas due to the increase of the rent price.
• Overall, all data indicates that the local low-income residents won’t socially benefit of
this projects.
• Giving the fact that the Olympic legacy is designed to be fully deliver in next 15-20
years, this study underlines only some insights toward the real outcome of the whole
social outcome. Therefore, it is essential to carry on the future studies and under
assessments and all promises and their development.ASHTON-MANSFIELD. Newham Key Statistic: A detailed profile of key statistics about Newham by Aston-Mansfield’s Community Involvement Unit. [online]. 2013. [Accessed 03 March 2014]. Available at: . CHENG, Y. QU, L. SPAANS, M. Framing the Long-Term Impact of Mega-Event Strategies on the Development of Olympic Host Cities. Planning, Practice & Research, 28(3): 340–359. 2013. CHRE (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions). Fair Play for Housing Rights: Mega-Events, Olympic Games and Housing Rights [online]. Jun 2007. [Accessed 20 February 2014]. Available at: . COLOMB, C. Urban Regeneration and Policies of “Social Mixing” In British Cities: A Critical Assessment. In: Arquitectura, Ciudad y Entorno (17): 223 – 244. 2011. COLQUHOUN, I. Urban Regeneration. London, B.T. Basfort Ltd, 1995. p.12-27. COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, The English Indices of Deprivation 2010 [online]. 24 March 2011. [Accessed 27 February 2014]. Available at: . DAVIDSON, M. LEES, L. New-Build Gentrification: Its Histories, Trajectories, and Critical Geographies. Population, Space and Place 16 (5): 395–411. 2010. DAVIDSON, M. LEES, L. New-build `gentrification' and London's riverside renaissance. Environment and Planning, 37: 1165-1190. 2005. DCMS (Department of Culture, Media and Sport) Our Promise for 2012 How the UK will benefit from the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. [online]. 2008. [Accessed 02 March 2014]. Available at: . EBY, D. Closing ceremonies: How Law, Policy and Winter Olympics are Displacing and Inconveniently Located Low-Income Community in Vancouver. Planning Theory & Practice, 10 (3): 395–418. 2009.
EVANS, G. London 2012. In: GOLD, R.J. and GOLD, M.M. eds. Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World’s Games, 1896- 2016. 2nd Edition. London, Routledge, 2010. pp. 359-389. GOLD, R.J. and GOLD, M.M. eds. Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World’s Games, 1896-2016. 2nd Edition. London, Routledge, 2010. 360-380p. HALL, C.M. Hallmark Tourist Events: Impacts, Management, Planning. London, Belhaven. 1992. p. 83. International Olympic Committee (IOC). Olympic Legacy 2012. IOC Press, Jun 2012, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2012. JULIAN, C. Olympian Masterplanning in London. Planning Theory & Practice, 10 (3): 395–418. 2009. LEI, Q. & SPAANS, M. The Mega-event as a strategy in spatial planning: Starting from the city of Barcelona. In: The International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU). (4th 2009, Amsterdam), Amsterdam, Delft . 2009. pp.1291-1300. LEES, L. SLATER, T. and WYLY, E. The Gentrification Reader. London, Routledge. 2010. MARCUSE P. Gentrification, Abandonment, and Displacement: Connections, Causes, and Policy Responses in New York City, Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law 28: 195-240. 1985. MONCLUS, F. J. Barcelona 2012. In: GOLD, R.J. and GOLD, M.M. eds. Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World’s Games, 1896-2016. 2nd Edition. London, Routledge, 2010. pp. 267-286. NEL·LO, O. The Olympic Games as a tool for urban renewal: the experience of Barcelona’92 Olympic Village [online article]. Barcelona: Centre d’Estudis Olímpics UAB. [Consulted: 01/03/2014] 1997. PORTER, L. Planning Displacement: The Real Legacy of Major Sporting Events. Planning Theory & Practice, 10 (3): 395–418, September 2009.
ROBERTS, P. SYKES, H. Urban Regeneration: A Handbook. London, Sage, 2000. The London Development Agency (LDA). The London Development Agency (Lower Lea Valley, Olympic and Legacy) Compulsory Purchase Order 2005. London, England, 2006. WATT, P. It's not for us. City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action, 17 (1): 99-118. 2013.
Thank you for your attention.
You can also read
