Lessons London Can Learn (Material Offered to National Press)

The final Olympic article, promise. This is a bit of a mish-mash of everything I'd learned about the upcoming Games, and I was positive that at least one newspaper editor would pick one of them up because everyone was going to go barmy about the Olympics in 2012. They did, but I have no idea how you're meant to pitch these to people. Around this time I made a definite decision to stay with fiction or at least less research based writing - I don't think it's very me, and I think you can tell that my writing's a bit forced. Writers must believe in what they're doing, and if you don't, your writing will be shit.

LESSONS LONDON CAN LEARN

By Christopher Stanley

   There’s no legacy in sport more tangible than an Olympic legacy. With five years until London unveils the work it’s put into the 2012 Summer and Paralympic Games, it’s sink or swim time for the government and the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) charged with making the Olympics a success. Like Halley’s Comet, Britain won’t see an Olympics for a very long time, so it’s of paramount importance that we get it right.

   Depending on who you believe, London 2012 will either be the biggest sporting triumph the country has seen since Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, or an unmitigated disaster. Unfortunately, we won’t be able to tell which hand we’ve been dealt until months, perhaps years after the event. Even for a financially and technologically advanced country such as Great Britain, it’s a leap into the unknown. The last time London held an Olympics, George VI was on the throne.

   But the ODA can, and should have, taken into account the experiences of Olympics past; not just four or even eight years ago, but stretching back to the last time that city hosted the Games. In 1948, and 1908 before that, the Olympic Games bought to the city of London prestige and pride; the bright glow of true amateurism has shone like a Belisha beacon throughout the whole of British sporting history.

   In 1908, hosting the fourth Olympiad, there was a feeling that it was a somewhat ‘prefab’ Olympics. The London authorities had constructed the White City Stadium in just under a year after the Italians pulled out, with Mount Vesuvius erupting in 1907. The stadium itself held 68,000, and stood on its original site until 1985.

   London 1908 bought a watershed in many Olympic sports, with many rules being crystallised afterwards due to controversy. Famously, the distance of the marathon was changed to 26 miles and 365 yards; the Royal Family wanted the start of the event, at that time one of the most prestigious due to its connotations with the ancient Games of Greece, to be from directly under the Royal balcony at Buckingham Palace. The change of distance exhausted diminutive Italian Dorando Pietri, leaving him to stagger over the line and be disqualified thanks to having been helped by officials. Queen Alexandra felt so guilty about it that she awarded Pietri with a gold cup of his own.

   But even if it was forty years before Britain would see another Olympics, the first post-war Games in 1948 still carried with them the same spirit of derring-do. There may have been rationing outside of Wembley Stadium, now the showpiece setting in London, but inside was a feast of athleticism. Fanny Blankers-Koen, the Dutch housewife, travelled to the Games incensed by a newspaper article claiming she was too old to compete after the war; she went on to claim four track records, having waived her right to compete in the high jump and pole vault. At the time, there was a limit on the number of events an athlete could compete in; Blankers-Koen already held world records in those events.

   It’s stories like these that give the Olympics its flavour. Since the first games in 1896, Games history has been replete with heroes, names, dates and faces that add spice and colour to what is viewed by many, especially in the UK, as something the smaller nations, ourselves included, cannot hope to come anywhere near the top of the pile. The medals table for most Olympics during the Cold War read less like an international contest, and more like a struggle for ideological domination between the Communists and the Capitalists.

   But eventually, what an Olympics boils down to for the organisers is that of a name and date. There’s rarely been any glory for the host city; rarely a profit or a tourist boom. After the glory of winning the bid in July 2005, London was bought straight back down to Earth in the cruellest of ways with the 7/7 attacks on London, a reminder is ever there was one that much hard work lay ahead for the capital.

   So what’s in it for London, you may ask. Well, careful reading of economic and social history surrounding an Olympics suggest that the Games are what you make them. There have been examples of profits, pitfalls, mammoth spending, ghost towns; tourist booms, regeneration and bitter antagonism. It seems there are no shades of grey in hosting the Olympics – you don’t just have to please athletes and the International Olympic Committee, but politicians, advertisers, the media and most of all, the general public. At the current moment, five years from what will surely be a fantastically overwrought opening ceremony, a lot of heads are looking decidedly wobbly.

   If the ODA are canny enough, they will have absorbed five very important lessons for the staging of a successful Olympics and designing a fine legacy. With billions to play with, how can they fail? A lot of host cities ask themselves that same question, as you can see.

   The first, most fundamental lesson that Tessa Jowell and Lord Coe need to grasp is that from now on, and especially when the budget for 2012 is announced in Spring 2007 is that they don’t make promises that they cannot possibly keep. Montreal found out the hard way in 1976 and beyond that if you speak without thinking, your Olympics is doomed to be a disaster from start to finish.

   The Olympic Games seemed like a dream for Montreal. Canada, forever in the shadow of its brash neighbour to the south, was not famous for sporting achievement beyond ice hockey and winter events. The city had already bid for the 1972 Games, losing out to Munich, but claimed the Olympics for itself in 1970.

   The project began well, and the Montreal government estimated the costs for the Games to be just $310 million, including increased security costs forced on them by the terrorist attack on the Munich Olympics. The mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, grandly claimed the city would host the first self-financing Olympics, and when this met with derision at the hands of the Canadian press, huffily suggested the country would soon be arguing about how to spend Montreal’s Olympic surplus. He dug his own grave when remarking ‘The Olympics can no more have a deficit than a man can have a baby.’

   With a proclamation like that, the Games were bound to hit trouble. The Olympic Stadium, designed by Frenchman Roger Tallibert, was a revolutionary design including the world’s largest inclined structure, housing the world’s first retractable stadium roof, made of futuristic-looking orange Kevlar. All very grand, but the problems were mounting up in Montreal.

   It became obvious that the budget was inflating wildly. The workers at the stadium went on strike, and the costs for that alone were in the region of $400-500 million. Eventually, the Quebec government stepped in and levied a tobacco tax on its citizens to make sure the Games didn’t go bankrupt. The stadium was still being finished as the athletes filed in for the opening ceremony.

   That was not the end of the problem. The revolutionary roof wasn’t ready. It would not be ready to use until 1988, some 12 years after Montreal kissed the Olympic rings good-bye. Even then, the roof had a tendency to rip when being winched. It cost $700,000 dollars a year to keep the roof working. Ten years later, the tent-like rook was removed, and replaced with an opaque blue cap.

   At times the problems the Canadians faced seem almost comical. On the eve of the Olympics there was a mass walkout by the African delegations in protest about the New Zealand rugby team touring apartheid-ridden South Africa; 1976 was the year of the Soweto riots, and feelings were running high. The Games themselves were disappointing and bland, and it was left to a fifteen year old Romanian gymnast, Nadia Comaneci, to put a smiling face on a dour Games. Montreal finished paying for the Games in November 2006, after paying out more than $2 billion. The costs inflated by an estimated 120,000%.

   Another lesson for London is that they should be clear about what they’re aiming for – clear profit, tourism, or a sporting legacy the country can be proud of? The government talk of the latter, but it’s hard to take them at face value with the amount of land and school playing fields they and the former government have sold to developers over the past two decades. But is it surprising that they’re after the former instead, when adults and youngsters alike are so apathetic about playing sport and watching events like athletics; even mega-events like the Olympic Games?

   This is not a new phenomenon. It’s an interesting fact to behold but in bidding for the 1984 Games in 1978, Los Angeles got given the concession unopposed. The Olympics had become so debased, so wasteful and so dull that no city wanted them. By default, Los Angeles became the host of the 1984 Games.

   Organisation fell into the hands of Peter Uberroth. He had a clear idea what he wanted for these Games, meaning Olympic culture would never be the same again. He wanted American razzmatazz on amateur finances, and introduced revolutionary fiscal methods to achieve it.

   Only two venues were built for the LA Games; the rest renovated or rented. Advertising space was sold piecemeal instead of complete, meaning companies were paying more for the premium events. Official partners were kept to a minimum, increasing competition and of course, money. There were 70,000 volunteers recruited to help out; a huge source of free labour. Uberroth himself even helped out. The Olympic torch was run across America, bringing the Olympics to those small towns and communities who didn’t care for Los Angeles. Nobody seemed to mind that the privilege cost $3,000 for a mile; they were part of the Olympic dream. The thriftiness even stretched to complementary tickets; only three were issued – to the head of the IOC and the mayor of Los Angeles, and to Ronald Reagan.

   Added to this, the Games were an unqualified success. The Communist states banned their athletes from attending after the American no-show at the 1980 Moscow Olympics, but it hardly mattered. Americans became household names – Ed Moses, Carl Lewis, Flo-Jo. Lionel Richie danced to a rapturous LA beat. Uberroth ensured attendance by the smaller IOC nations by dropping fees for prestige events and offering more places. LA was a party, and everyone was invited, even if they didn’t attend.

   Afterwards, the Olympics were hot stuff again, not least because Los Angeles ’84 became the first Olympics to make a profit (over $200 million, in fact). Critics sniped that they were Games of style and not substance, charges which would be levelled at Atlanta twelve years later, but LA 84 achieved its aim, which was to bring back the crowds. London would do well to remember that its primary concern is bums on seats and kids in sport; everything else is window dressing.

   The Olympics should always be concerned with the long-term benefits the Games can bring, rather than the get-rich-quick scheme that many hosts imagine it will be. The price for London isn’t yet known, although it’s imagined it will cost in excess of £10 billion. Small change, compared to the $23 billion budget of the 2008 Beijing Games. The price for a Games has fluctuated in the low billions, meaning that a successful bid relies on speculative finance rather than a cast iron guarantee of success.

   There is nasty talk that London’s Olympic bid wasn’t meant to be taken seriously at all; an opinion given slight substance when you consider the late entrance of Tony Blair and the Royal Family to proceedings. The critique levelled at the bid is that it was meant as a bit of cheap publicity for London, that Paris was always going to win. When the bid started getting taken seriously, London was caught on the back foot somewhat.

   Regardless of London’s original intentions, the fact is that the country has a marvellous opportunity to renovate the sporting organisation of the Great Britain. It’s notable that any slight sporting success is met by wildly optimistic expectations. The 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester showed there was athletic life outside of London, leading to much grumbling when the capital got the Olympic nod.

   One lesson London would do well to learn is how Barcelona regenerated itself after its 1992 Games. The ultimate compliment it has been paid is through the ‘Barcelona model,’ officially the preferred framework to run an Olympic Games. It may be a decade and a half since Barcelona’s Olympic triumph, but the steps it took remain with the city today.

   The key aim for the city was to minimise infrastructure costs – that is, organisation of the Olympics that couldn’t be of use after the Games had finished – but maximise the potential for a legacy. As mentioned earlier, the Games are just a page in history, but they can bring untold benefit to a city if used in the right way.

   Barcelona’s Olympics cost $8.1 billion to stage. But of that money, which was put forward by the Barcelona organising committee, from advertising and private investment, only 9% centred around building new sports facilities. In fact, according to the Centre for Olympic Studies, only 35% of Olympic investment centred around Barcelona itself, meaning that the region as a whole benefited. The region of Catalonia gained 15% more roads, 17% more waste disposal and 78% more green-belt land.

   The city itself got a revamp, with better traffic control, public transport, and a new harbour. The ‘Olympic Ring,’ an area on the hill of Montjuic overlooking the city, was where the village was located. It contained a renovated stadium and swimming pool complex among other things, all set in a modern Catalan style.

   It took a few years for the benefits of Barcelona ’92 to be seen. Critics now snipe that the Olympic complex looks shabby and empty, but the truth is that Barcelona gained so much more than a crumbling stadium. Aside from the social benefits, the city doubled its tourist trade in 12 months, rocketed up the list of Europe’s most popular cities, and house prices and the construction industry grew in the years leading up to it. Not bad for a city permanently in the shadow of the capital, Madrid.

   The 2012 Games are obviously heading for the capital, but London is making the right signals as far as a countrywide Olympics is concerned. The football tournament in particular, will utilise Manchester and Birmingham, and the rowing and sailing will utilise Weymouth. The Village designed for the Games is designed to be as spread out as possible, to take the focus off sport once the Games depart. It’s imperative that the regeneration the East end of London undergoes is of benefit to a wider population, or the rest of the country won’t bother to support the Games.

   If London is to benefit from an Olympic legacy at all, the facilities it is building need to have some purpose after the Games other than something interesting to look at. Already, this is where London is showing signs of weakness. The Olympic Stadium at Stratford is becoming a bone of contention between different authorities, which sounds reminiscent of that other dictionary definition of waste, the Millennium Dome.

   The plans look fine enough; a design to reflect the muscles used by performance athletes spiralling round the walls of the stadium. But it’s afterwards that counts. The man that designed the ultimate Olympic venue says that’s the most important factor in any Olympic project.

   Frei Otto was the structural engineer on the Munich project. Along with architect Gunther Behnisch, Otto created a beautiful, tent-like roof over the complex to reflect the Alps to the south. They were helped in their success by the fact that it was Munich’s first top-class sports venue, although the 1972 Games ran at a loss.

   London has many top class sports venues already, including an imminently ready Wembley. It’s hard to shake the feeling that the Olympic Stadium is redundant before it’s even built. A top club will only move there if it can hold 80,000 or more. They won’t move there if it’s got a permanent track, but nobody can decide if it’ll have one or not. If so, it’ll be reduced in capacity to 25,000. Tottenham Hotspur have said no. West Ham United will, if there can be retractable seating over the track. Leyton Orient have said yes, whatever. It’ll cost £100 million to buy, but the organisers say it’s not for sale anyway, and it’s going to hold athletics and athletics only.

   This is incredibly foolish after the naiveties of previous hosts. Athens spent $9 billion building over thirty new venues, but they’re hardly used. It costs money to pay for security which none of the venues make. Montreal’s Olympic stadium has housed baseball and football franchises, which have since moved. Now its biggest money-spinner is as an exhibition hall.

   Sydney highlights the problem most sharply. Its Olympic Stadium, renamed the Telstra Stadium in 2002, could hold 80,000. It was reduced post-Olympics, with every day a sell-out during the 2000 Games. But then it fell victim to the same problem London will have – it’s in a city of excellent stadia. The Sydney Cricket Ground, Aussie Stadium…there’s simply no need of it. Sure, it’s held big games like the 2003 Rugby World Cup Final, but it cannot hold onto a real golden franchise. Currently, it hosts Aussie Rules Football, much like its neighbours in the city.

   Sydney illustrates one other lesson of major importance for London to learn, and fast. It’s the hardest one of all for this Labour government, but it’s never too late to start. It’s simply this – whatever you do, be open about it.

   The 2000 Olympics were trumpeted as the ‘Green Games,’ and to all appearances they were. The Olympic village, built in a Sydney suburb called Homebush Bay, had recycled water for sewerage purposes, and a solar panel on every roof. The builders claimed that private owners who bought them might even get negative electricity bills, as excess power would be transferred back to the National Grid.

   But before long the stink of corruption began to envelope Sydney. Firstly, it was admitted that the Aussie delegates had attempted to bribe IOC members for votes. Then, right on the site of the Olympic accommodation at Homebush, higher than normal levels of the chemical dioxin were discovered. Formerly home to a Union Carbide chemical plant, the soil had higher than normal concentrations of heavy metals and chemicals. But somehow the site had easily passed its environmental checks.

   These two scandals passed the world by almost unnoticed. Sydney 2000 was successful by sporting standards. But it would be different in Britain. If there is a major scandal or any kind of cover-up, the tabloids will have a field day. Too much sleaze, and it will kill countrywide support, who will see it as just another Labour PR trick.

   Already there are dangers for London. The Olympic site at Stratford has not been cleared of contaminants. The construction budget, projected at £2.4 billion, had risen unofficially to £3.3 billion, and this is before an official budget is announced. The governmental figurehead of the Olympics, Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell, has been one of the faces of Labour cronyism ever since her husband got involved with Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi and a mortgage. Every day she works, she saps the credibility of the project. To cap it all, the head of the project, Jack Lemley, quit in October 2006. The architect of Montreal’s failure, Roger Tallibert, has claimed London’s Olympics will be a disaster. When a harbinger of doom like that appears, you need to take notice.

   So what’s the betting that London succeeds? If passionate, able people are involved, fairly high. But the lessons given in this article hardly scratch the surface. London needs to be whiter-than-white, ready on time, have a clear idea of its aims and legacy, and have confident but realistic people in charge. They do the groundwork, but it’s the public’s duty to make 2012 the best Olympics ever. But at the moment, London’s bid is in chaos, and it needs to relearn the basic rules before it can progress.