Legacy?

It is at least good to see a proper, claws-out debate in BD about the Olympic legacy question.  Oppidan Design's response (a property developer) is a little more sophisticated than simple PR, but it is disappointing to see the first developments being designed by the usual suspects, in the usual style.  Originally panned by CABE, the Chobham Manor scheme is now supported after changes, but it hardly sets the bar high (to borrow a sporting metaphor).

Michael Edwards is right to draw attention to the other side of the picture and his metaphor is more to the point: "We lay on our backs with our legs apart for the IOC and sponsors".

Generally in this debate there is more heat than light, however; of course there will be some positive benefits and of course a £10bn global, commercial festival will have its downsides; but to hope that a project even on this scale will affect the long-term economic trends that have driven wedges between different parts of society in London and between the southeast and the rest of the country is of course ridiculous.  The problem with the debate about the legacy is that the PR surrounding the Olympic bid and the preparations was utterly fantastic (in the unreal sense of the word) and anyone who really believed that such a project would 'regenerate' East London was surely credulous.  The problem for the politicians involved is that its hard to backtrack from this position and so pointing out individual pieces of legacy as examples of this fantasy merely highlights the gap with reality.  We have been trying to 'regenerate'  London since the 1890's when Booth's amazing social survey maps first made the geographic effects of poverty evident.  120 years later, it still hasn't sunk in that whilst the effects of poverty may be geographic, the causes are not and after the same period of 'regeneration' programmes, today's deprivation maps of London look remarkably similar to Booth's.  Suddenly £10bn no longer sounds like a lot of money.  

This is not to say that there won't be a positive legacy.  The London Legacy Development Corporation has a unique opportunity as both landowner and planning authority to create a park, surrounded by modern development.  They have no option but to use the market to do this and the trick for them is in how they can bring a sense of coherence to what would otherwise be a free-for-all.  The land is going to be developed, so the challenge is to manage that process to create a place that is attractive and inclusive.  That will mean changes in the population of the area: pretending otherwise is disingenuous, but these new people will bring money and will be followed by jobs and services.  The trick is in spreading these as widely as possible, but that can't be achieved through urban design alone, which is the LLDC's remit.  

Next year we're going to be working with the LLDC as part of our ongoing LEED ND research work on the MAASD course.  The intention is to provide some additional metrics to help them do their job better.  The bigger 'legacy' debate is simply a proxy for a much older and longer debate about inequality, as has become apparent in Brazil.  This is a real and increasing problem in this country, but we've had the Olympics and they didn't and won't fix it.  Let's just hope for a nice park and a more integrated urban area in East London.