Olympic legacies: recurrent rhetoric and harsh realities

Abstract

This article traces the genesis of the principle of legacy as it has featured in Olympic discourse, and become enshrined in the expressed philosophy of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), so shaping elements in the process of bidding by cities to stage the Olympic Games, in both their winter and summer manifestations. The article shows how Olympic bidders have increasingly mobilised the idea of legacy, and how event by event over the last quarter of a century, evaluation of the significance of an Olympic Games has been centrally shaped by the legacy debate, in a multitude of applications and contexts. Particular aspects of legacy are focused upon, with reference to new studies, from city impacts to volunteers and workers, spatial politics and communities to gender discourse, and protest and publics. The article is flavoured by a running commentary on legacy claims by academics, politicians and IOC careerists concerning the London 2012 Summer Olympics, and considers the bidding rhetoric of cities beyond Rio de Janeiro 2016, through to Tokyo 2020. In conclusion, it is argued that despite the embeddedness of the legacy idea in Olympic discourse, the reality is that legacy will prove elusive without long-term planning before Olympic events, and remain unproven without systematic post-event research over realistically extended periods. Critical social science remains essential to such an understanding of the gap between legacy claims and the realities of the recurring Olympic narratives

Unravelling legacy: a triadic actor-network theory approach to understanding the outcomes of mega events

“…As shown in a statement issued by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) on the London 2012 Olympic Games, namely that 'legacy means ensuring a positive impact' (DCMS, 2014, p. 14), organising committees, governments and sporting organisations are reluctant to acknowledge negative impacts of mega events. A third criticism refers to the broadening nature of legacy because Tomlinson (2014) notes that when elastic is stretched too far, it snaps, thereby losing its precision, conceptual clarity and value.…”

“…Yet the term is often used interchangeably with a variety of notions such as heritage, impact and effect. Moreover, it has become a catch-call concept for the wider public that is stretched beyond sports to stress the economic appeal of a variety of mega events in times of neoliberal festivalisation (Tomlinson, 2014). Event leveraging implies a slightly different perspective because it refers to academic debates interested in shifting the focus from post-hoc evaluations of an event's economic, social and environmental impacts to the identification of effective 'strategies and tactics that can be implemented prior to and during an event in order to generate particular outcomes' (Chalip, 2006, p. 112).…”

Land remediation, event spaces and the pursuit of Olympic legacy

“…The 2008 global financial crisis raised the spectre of retrenchment (Gold and Gold, 2009). Local residents and environmental groups that were unconvinced about the potential gains from hosting the Olympics opposed their cities' bids for the Games (Timms, 2012;Tomlinson, 2014). The popular and professional media shifted their stance from largely uncritical approval towards greater negativity, characteristically highlighting instances of poor planning, overambitious stadium design, heavy cost overruns, environmental damage, security and militarisation, corruption, and lack of accountability (e.g.…”

Distributive Justice and Transportation Equity: Inequality in accessibility in Rio de Janeiro

“…The idea of leveraging mega-events to fast-track urban development and create lasting benefits for host cities has gradually been incorporated into the mega-events agenda and governments' discourse over the past decades (Gold & Gold, 2008;Leopkey & Parent, 2012;Tomlinson, 2014). In 2003, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) started officially requesting that candidate cities include legacy concerns in their bid proposals.…”

“…Most previous studies on transport legacy have focused on questions about the extent to which the short-term view of mega-events has influenced/dominated the long-term transport planning in host cities (Kassens-Noor, 2010Legroux, 2014;Rodrigues & Legroux, 2015). Although there is a general consensus in the literature of the importance of aligning transport projects related to mega-events with the long-term developmental goals of host cities (Hiller, 2000;Müller, 2015;Pillay & Bass, 2008;Steinbrink et al, 2011;Tomlinson, 2014), these projects should not be planned as ends in themselves. These projects only become valuable to the extent that they improve living conditions in the communities where they are implemented (Banister, 2002;Cervero, 2013).…”