The ‘summer of discontent’: Exclusion and communal resistance at the London 2012 Olympics

Abstract

London 2012 promised local small businesses access to lucrative Olympic event-tourism and visitor trading opportunities. However, as urban spaces were transformed to stage live Games, many local stakeholders found themselves locked out. We focus on one 'host' community, Central Greenwich, who emerged negatively impacted by such conditions. 43 in-depth interviews and secondary evidence reveal that this was a community determined to resist. Few papers have extended the concept of resistance to the context of mega-events so we examine why communities resisted, and how physical tactics and creative resistance were deployed. Although efforts afforded some access for local businesses-they proved too little, too late. We present the 'tactics for resistance', a series of 'hard' and 'soft' tactics businesses could use to encourage proactive, as opposed to reactive, communal resistance required to protect local interests and afford access to opportunities generated by temporary mega-event visitor economies.

Beyond the glamour: resident perceptions of olympic legacies and volunteering intentions

“…However, the lack of post-Games legacy organisations indicates that stakeholder engagement, including with host communities, does not always occur (Benson, Dickson, Terwiel, & Blackman., 2014;Dickson et al, 2011;Minneart, 2012). Questions also remain about how long legacies last, where they should occur, and at what costs (Duignan, Pappalepore, & Everett, 2019;Smith, 2014).…”

Perspectives on the Volunteering Legacy of the London 2012 Olympic Games: The Development of an Event Legacy Stakeholder Engagement Matrix

“…However, more recent attention has turned to the softer or social legacy from such events . The social legacy can include improved physical and mental health from increased sport participation (Chalip, Green, Taks, & Misener, 2017); capacity building within national voluntary sports organizations (Girginov, Peshin, & Belousov, 2017); increased community cohesion and social capital resulting from people living in the host city building new relationships, often through volunteering at the event (Zhou & Ap, 2009); the impacts of mega-event cultural programs in delivering Olympic legacies for local creative industries (Pappalepore & Duignan, 2016); new skills, improving local residents employability postevent (Kennelly, 2016;Minnaert, 2014); the positive impact on residents' perception of their city as a result of media coverage (Kim, Gursoy, & Lee, 2006;Prayag, Hosany, Nunkoo, & Alders, 2013), or less positively, exclusion and communal resistance (Duignan, Pappalepore, & Everett, 2019).…”

London’s local Olympic legacy

“…In an elementary form, they have been described as a 'tangible or intangible thing handed down by a predecessor; a long-lasting effect of an event or process, and the act of bequeathing' (Mangan, 2008(Mangan, : 1869. Critics argue that little examination is placed on evaluating the legacy of SMEs (Duignan, Pappalepore and Everett, 2019) as 'nobody has been prepared to commit the research resources required to carry out scientific study of the net legacy benefits' (Mangan, 2008(Mangan, : 1871) -leading to a superficial assessment and understanding of legacy (Furrer, 2002). Yet, ironically prospective cities continue to bid and project a legacy agenda that remains ill-defined, poorly measured and unpredictable (Preuss, 2015).…”