The first promise states that there would be a significant sporting legacy from grassroots to elite sport based on a ‘trickle down’ effect from the success and inspiration of international superstars (Veal, Toohey and Frawley, 2012; Misener et al., 2015). As legacy has played an increasingly important role in host nation bids, the notion of enhancing physical activity has been a constant aspiration. However, increasing participation through events has been labelled illusive and evidence suggests that this is a complex issue (Girginov and Hills, 2008). Gameplan, a publication by the DCMS (2002), supports the notion that the success of mega events and athletes do not have a long-term impact on participation. However, there is the suggestion that those who already partake in physical activity increase their frequency or engage in new leisure activities as a result of being ‘inspired’
(Ramchandani and Coleman, 2012) The governmental policy around the improvement of physical activity and the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park are suggestive given the remaining facilities from the Games. There was clearly an attempt in the planning for the London Gamesto offer a “new generation of world- class sports facilities, serving communities [emphasis authors own] and elite
athletes” (DCMS, 2012, p.26). The planning literature suggests that such plans must be of high quality if they are tobe a determinant of implementation (Dalton and Burby, 1994). The idea of serving community sport was a common narrative
throughout plans that hoped to promote “sport and healthy living legacy in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park – via community sports participation” (Mayor of London, 2013, p.31).
However, the planning for the provision of how to increase community sports participation was not only increasingly vague, with shifting political participation targets (Woodhouse, 2015), but also the Park Boroughs’ leisure needs were
seemingly ignored by the shifting plans for the legacy of the sports buildings. In the context of the eventual privatisation of sports facilities and the treatment of the legacy space itself as a quasi-public space, the public consumption by the local community must be considered. In the following paragraphs it is intended to unravel the shifting priorities of privatisation through the emergent London Stadium (formerly the Olympic Stadium). This is the largest material sports legacy of the London 2012, and its
reopening in 2016 has been framed by controversy and tensions.
Brown and Massey (2001) suggested in relation to the 2002 Commonwealth Games that if facilities were built correctly, they can exert a positive, localised influence on the community. More broadly, Roult et al. (2014) suggest that proximity to facilities can lead to greater participation which is dependent on spatial appropriation by a mixed community group. In regard to London 2012, the emphasis on sports participation is apparent throughout the multiple policy documents. Perhaps the greatest material shift in the planning process of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park relates to the commercially unviable Olympic Stadium (Stewart and Rayner, 2015). Initially, this stadium was envisoned to provide for a reduced capacity of 25,000 seats, to be the home for both the National Skills Academy and a secondary school with sporting status (DCMS, 2008), and serve as a community space. Instead, the stadium has retained its 60,000 seats to become the domain of an elite football team (West Ham United) and is managed by an events company.
It has been previously noted that sporting spaces have vast significance as sites of memory collections and are key for the formation of identities (Bale and Vertinsky, 2004). The London 2012 memories were meant to inspire but were soon to be replaced by those of musical performances and renewed elite competition, whereas the necessary physical shifts in the iconic architectural structure of the towering floodlights led to increasing financial costs. Originally, the London mayor Ken Livingstone did not want an iconic stadium to be a part of the legacy due to its perception as a burden. However, after the 2007 mayoral election the incumbent right wing mayor Boris Johnson, with his own penchant for iconicity over function,
prioritized prestige and commercial privatisation over the needs of the local community.
These shifts in planning policy throughout the development process clearly impacted on the viability of the promised athletics’ legacy (London 2012, 2005). It also led to further expenditure with the construction of an IAAF regulated and community sports facility to meet the track and field legacy stipulation present in this bid book. By studying white elephants, it has been noted that the privatisation of stadia and facilities in the aftermath of mega events has a higher rate of utilisation than those remaining under public care (Alm et al., 2014). Yet, the privatisation of a publicly funded stadium suggests lack of public input and control over use. This has recently been underlined by the further commercialisation of the Olympic Stadium through corporate branding.
Critiqued as state sponsorship (Hearn, 2007), concerns were raised by a House of Lords Select Committee about the potential negatives of two sporting clubs in the local area (West Ham United and Arsenal), particularly in terms of their educational benefits to the community. It would appear that the role of the concessionary club or the anchor tenant will be vital for ensuring a positive legacy from the material
infrastructure that they have inherited. This has been undoubtedly complicated by the deals being carried out in the public arena (Gibson, 2016). Whilst community
meaning was unenrolled from the stadium’s network as a public leisure space, the memories and heritage of the space remain and can recruit local populations. This means that the passing of the legacy torch from a ‘public’ company in the LLDC to a private entity is a cause for concern around access to heritage and memory for embodying community legacy.