UNITED STATES SPORTS ACADEMY Title Page

Olympics and Other Mega-Events As a Tool For Urban Development

A Class Paper Submitted for SAB661H Contemporary Issues in Sport Professor: Dr. Arthur Ogden

by: Wayne Pedranti Daphne, Alabama November, 2012

Table of Contents Title Page.....................................................................................................................................i Table of Contents........................................................................................................................1 Background.................................................................................................................................2 The origins of Olympic urbanism (1896-1904)............................................................................3 The dominance of the Olympic Stadium (1908-1928) .................................................................4 The rise of the Olympic quarter (1932-1956)...............................................................................5 The age of urban transformation (1960-2012) .............................................................................6 The impact of mega-events on a city .........................................................................................12 The legacy ................................................................................................................................14 Conclusion................................................................................................................................16 References ................................................................................................................................16

2 Introduction Since it inception in 1896, the Olympic Games have been criticized, and seen as being somewhat controversial. Beyond the goodwill spread through sport, the opponents of the Olympic Games claim that they are over commercialized, and the money spent on the games would better be used to fund other social programs. Nonetheless, even in the worse economic times, cities continue to invest time and money into bidding to host the Olympic Games. What is it in the Olympics that attract these cities? One reason that cities continue to be interested in hosting the Olympics is the opportunity for urban development and renewal that a successful bid brings. In bidding for the Olympics, a city hopes for a positive association, improved infrastructure, improved economy and an overall better standard of life for its citizens. It is true that that such events increase tourism, increases employment, and renews and develops infrastructure, but are these items legacies that show long-term improvement in the economic and social aspects of the city? Background Mega-Events are large-scale cultural events, which have a dramatic character, mass popular appeal and international significance (Horne & Manzenreiter, 2006). Mega-events in the post-fordist era have been primarily been sporting events such as the Olympics, soccer, rugby, and hockey world cups, motorsports and horse racing grand prix events, and regional events such as The Asian Games, The Pan-American Games, The Commonwealth Games (Malfas, Houlihan, & Theodoraki, 2004). Some would also include Grand Cycling Tours and the Super Bowl as examples of mega-events. However, it is important to remember that mega-events are not limited to sporting events. The Worlds Fair is a good example of a non-sport related cultural mega-

3 event. Mega-events all very in nature, but they have two things in common. They are all global in nature, and they all leave some type of impact on the cities or regions that host them. The lasting effect that a mega-event has on the quality of life of the residents of the host community is often referred to as the legacy. Typically the legacy can be defined the economic, social, and environmental outcomes (Kaplanidou, 2012). Legacies can be typically considered to be either tangible or intangible. The tangible legacies are the buildings, infrastructure and economic benefits left by the event. These are directly observed, and can be measured. On the other hand, the intangible legacies are things like community pride, social cohesion, enthusiasm, increased community interaction, and the community image and awareness (Kaplanidou, 2012). These items are not easily measured and often overlooked in criticisms regarding the legacy of mega-events. The reason that many communities continue to desire to host mega-events despite the popular opinion that the Olympic Games and other Mega-events are not necessary in bad economic times is deeply rooted in the belief that such events can be used as a tool for urban development. To understand this more, we will take a quick look at the history of the Olympics from the point of view of urban development. For the purpose of this part of the discussion, we will divide the Olympic history into the four categories described by Liao and Pitt (2006): The origins of Olympic urbanism (1896-1904), The dominance of the Olympic Stadium (1908-1928), The rise of the Olympic quarter (1932-1956), and The age of urban transformation (1960-2012). The origins of Olympic urbanism (1896-1904) The early Olympics were faced with very small budgets. Urban renewal and development was at a minimum during these early years, and there are very few lasting legacies from this era. These Olympic Games were just too poorly organized and unfunded to leave a lasting urban

4 impact. The 1896 Olympics in Athens urban renewal was limited to the renewal of the 2,000 year old Panatheniac Stadium and the refurbishment of Zappeion building and downtown area (Liao & Pitts, 2006). The 1900 edition held in Paris was not better. These events were held au natural. The swimmers swam in the muddy waters of the Siene (Chalkley & Essex, 1999). The 1904 Olympics in St. Louis was held as an addition to the Worlds Fair. Both the Paris and St. Louis events were nothing more than a side-show (Chalkley & Essex, 1999). The first three Olympic competitions may not have had much lasting urban development, but it is important to mention that the concept of urban development and renewal was part of the original Olympic dream. Pierre de Coubertin thought that the Olympic city should be visible to the visitor, The first view should be related towards its role, the shape of the city should fit into the surrounding countryside, and the site should not be spread out too much (Liao & Pitts, 2006). Olympic Urbanism was here to stay. The dominance of the Olympic Stadium (1908-1928) This era of the Olympics saw the formation of the Olympic Stadium. By this time, the games had become more organized and better funded. This set way for the construction of more special purposed facilities, of which the centerpiece was the Olympic Stadium. This Monostadium model would dominate for the next two decades. During this time, aesthetic and symbolic expression became an important of Olympic urbanism. Each Olympic host city added its own style of architectural theme. Whether it was the industrial craftsmanship architecture of Paris and London, the gothic revival architecture of Stockholm, the beaux arts of Antwerp, or the modernism architecture of Amsterdam, it was clear that the athletics stadium had emerged as the Games main architectural and ceremonial arena (Essex & Chalkley, 1998).

5 London began the trend towards Olympic urbanism with creation of the White City Stadium as the first facility built specifically for the 1908 Olympics. It was a large multi-purpose stadium that was designed to host a multitude of events (Liao & Pitts, 2006). Stockholm 1912 built on this, but began building additional special purpose buildings and a Djurgrden, All this was built in a neo-classical style characteristic of Sweden at that time. Antwerp 1920, Paris 1924, and Amsterdam 1928 all followed suit making a single stadium the centerpiece of their Olympics. The rise of the Olympic quarter (1932-1956) Although considered moderate by modern standards, Olympic urbanization continued to increase through the 1950s. The need for an abundance of urban development during this time was limited by several factors including the limited need for transport due to the low private vehicle usage, the rather stable population growth and the amateurism promoted by the Olympic Movement which limited over-commercialism and political interference (Liao & Pitts, 2006). Nonetheless, this period saw the rise of the Olympic Village and the use of permanent sports facilities as part of the urbanization plan. Los Angeles 1932 is often referred to as starting the true move to Olympic urbanization. It was the Los Angeles civic leader and Olympic organizer William Gardner that actually perceived the potential of the Olympics to bring to the host city (Chalkley & Essex, 1999). Under his lead, Los Angeles built a host of facilities including the 105,000-spectator-capacity Memorial Coliseum, a swimming arena, a fencing pavilion, and what has been known as the first ever Olympic Village. Most of these facilities were built on the 160-acre Exposition Park and later became the citys after-hours amusement district (Liao & Pitts, 2006). The Olympic Village was

6 made of 550 prefabricated wooden cottages set up in a 101-hectare compound on Baldwin Hill on the out skirts of the city (Chalkley & Essex, 1999). Berlin wanting to be the pride and show piece of the nationalistic government was not to be outdone in 1936.They took urbanization to the extreme. Berlin built a 130-hectacre site that was to be used as a sporting cultural center for future generations. The site included a new stadium, a swim center, an amphitheater, a sports forum, assembly fields, and service buildings all connected to the city center via a 14-kilometer boulevard. They also built an Olympic village that was completely self contained and included 194 permanent bungalows with training facilities to be used as permanent housing following the Olympics. The Berlin Olympics was one of the most well organized Olympics in history. As Liao and Pitts (2006, p. 1238) writes, Although controversially colored by the Nazi regime, the urban setting of these games were superb and were not surpassed for many years to come. London 1948 was the first games following World War II. As such, there were very little urbanization projects associated with this Olympics, and it primarily used existing facilities. However, Helsinki 1952 and Melbourne 1956 continued the urbanization trends set from earlier Olympics. Liao and Pitts (2006) suggest that Helsinki made two significant contributions: the first pastoral Olympic park with integrated building and landscape and combined the Olympic village with the municipal housing scheme. Both of these would become standard in future Olympic projects. The age of urban transformation (1960-2012) The Rome Olympics in 1960 sparked a new era in Olympic urbanization. From this point on the trend moved from one of adding new buildings and parks to one of a complete

7 transformation of the urban environment. Like the Olympic games before it, Rome produced the necessary sporting facilities. However, they took the opportunity to make vast improvements to the overall urban infrastructure. These improvements included a road to connect the two Olympic centers, new municipal water supply, a new airport, improved public transport, street lighting, monument illumination, and other decorative improvements. So much was done on urban improvement that people began calling for the Olympics to be cancelled (Liao & Pitts, 2006). Tokyo 1964 took urbanization even further. To them, the Olympics symbolized the political rehabilitation of Japan (Liao & Pitts, 2006). Tokyo took the opportunity to bring forward their 10 year development plan. Over $2.7 billion USD was spent on development related to staging these games despite the fact that a lot of sporting facilities were already built. Developments for this Olympics included a new road and highway network consisting of 22 highways, two new underground railroad lines, eight new subway lines, a new shipping port, a new city water supply system, new sewage disposal plants, and improved standard of public health including garbage removal, cleaning of public toilets, streets, rivers, and streams. Because of the high cost and standard of urbanization set in the Tokyo and Rome Games, bids for the Olympic were on the decline. Mexico ,a poor economy nation, was eventually awarded the 1968 Games. Because of the countries financial situation, it was decided to use many existing facilities that decentralized the games. This approach led to the games referred to commonly as games of long walks (Liao & Pitts, 2006). Mexico City invested in few new structures including a sports palace, swimming and gymnastic compounds, a few open air stadiums, a self sufficient Olympic Village consisting of 24 new multi-story buildings (Chalkley & Essex, 1999) consisting of 8,500 apartments.

8 Because of the financial situation, the planning commission focused its urban development strategically in areas that were already targeted for future growth. Despite this, there was extensive protests from the general public that saw the Games as an unnecessary expenditure. Some protests led to a violent protest between students and police that resulted in around 250 student deaths. For the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, the role of the Games as a catalyst for urban renewal re-emerged (Chalkley & Essex, 1999). In contrast to Mexico City, Munich took a centralized approach to their development (Liao & Essex, 2006). The site picked was an old World War II airstrip that had been turned into a waste dump. Like many other successful examples of Olympic Urbanization, the chosen site had already been earmarked for development of a sport complex. The successful bid for the Olympics only fast tracked the project. Through these Olympic urbanization projects, Munich was able to successfully convert its economy to a service based economy associated with high consumption and high income. The design of the Olympic Park and Village was given to the winner of an architectural contest. The goal was a site that was built into the landscape and characterized by openness and simplicity (Chalkley & Essex, 1999). The site combined existing landscape with other man made landscapes such as new trees and an artificial lake. The village blended into the landscape and provided accommodations for 10,000 athletes. These were later turned into lower and middle class housing following the event. Munich made several municipal improvements as well. The historic district was restored and made pedestrian friendly. Public transportation systems were improved. Underground parking facilities were built in the city. New shopping centers and hotels were built. Three new expressways totaling 145km were built to provide transportation routes in and out of the Olympic site.

9 Montreal was awarded the 1976 Olympics. Mayor Drapeau saw advantages in the use of grand projects as a means of redeveloping the city (Chalkley & Essex, 1999). He had already seen the success that came with 1967 World Exposition. His goal for the Olympic project was long-term community benefits such as new sport venues, improved awareness of sport and physical fitness and increased sporting tourist spending. Ironically, this is similar to the objectives of London in 2012 (Coalter, 2012). Like Munich, the main development site was already earmarked for sport-complex development. Many of the facilities already existed, but some new facilities such as Maisonnueve Sport Centre, athletic fields, swimming facilities, the Olympic park, as the architectural centerpiece, the Olympic Stadium. The village consisted of two pyramid shaped apartment buildings with terraces. These provide 98 apartments that later became very desirable public housing (Chalkley & Essex, 1999). Many municipal improvements were made as well. These included extending the subway, constructing a new airport, building new roads, and new hotels. Montreal made history in being the first city to privately finance their Olympic urbanization project. This was done primarily by the creation of an Olympic Lottery. Unfortunately during the middle of construction, there was a worsening in economy that led to global inflation. This caused the projects to be over-budget and left the city with long-term indebtedness. The stadium was used for a long time by the Montreal Expos baseball team, but now many of the facilities are widely unused. Moscow had already planned enough facilities to host the Games prior to their successful bid for the 1980 games. They excellerated 12 new sport facilities and renovate 13 existing facilities (Chalkley & Essex, 1999). New hotels and communication centers were built.

10 Politicians saw the Olympics as a chance to bolster an underdeveloped tourist industry, attract foreign currency, and promote the city as a cosmopolitan fun-loving capital (Chalkley & Essex, 1999, p. 384). Like many Olympics before, the Olympic village is now a housing project that houses thousands of residents. Los Angeles 1984 did not change the urban fabricate of the city. Weary of the results of Montreal, Los Angeles opted to be 100% privately financed through corporate donations. They used existing buildings including the stadium built for the 1932 Olympics and dormitories and facilities at local universities. The result was $215m dollar surplus and a renewed interest in the Games (Chalkley & Essex, 1999). Seoul 1988 used its bid to renovate a flood prone slum area (Chalkley & Essex, 1999) and extend the urban fabric south of Han River (Liao & Pitts, 2006). Like nearly all Olympics prior, Seoul built new sporting facilities and an Olympic Village. They also improved their traffic management system by adding new subway lines, extending bus routes renovating the airport, and adding new traffic lanes. The beautified the environment of the city by building parks, repairing historic monuments removing physical pollution. What set Seoul apart from previous Olympic urbanization projects is that they chose to enhance and show case the Korean culture. The built several art museums and a classical music institute. Barcelona extended the role of the Olympics as a catalyst for redevelopment. The city used the Olympics to bring forward already planned urban development that was long overdue because of the minimal development done in the Franco period. The Games was therefore used to bring forward many schemes which might otherwise been delayed or even canceled (Chalkley & Essex, 1999, p. 387). Urban projects included a restructured railway, a coastal ring road, a new Olympic Village, a new marina, and sporting facilities. The sewage system was

11 restructured, and the coastline renewed. However one of the main projects was the renewal of Poblenou, an area of abandoned warehouses and railroad facilities that separated the city from the water front (Liao & Pitts, 2006). Barcelona followed Seouls lead and also enriched the cultural aspects of the city by building new cultural centers and a new botanical garden. Barcelona is often cited as being one of the most successful urban initiatives. The city was transformed from a decaying industrial port to a popular tourist terminal putting the city on the world urban map (Liao & Pitts, 2006, p. 1243). Munoz (2006) suggest that teh success of the Barcelona project stems from the fact that it began with clear objectives and desired results of the development. The 1996 Olympics in Atlanta was hardly the model of Olympic Urbanism. Most of the development was in the construction of the required sporting facilities. Atlanta used university residence halls for its Olympic Village. The centerpiece was the Olympic Stadium now used by the Atlanta Braves. However, Atlanta neglected to renew or extend any transportation infrastructure that led to many problems. By far the biggest legacy was the Olympic park that continues to this day to enhance the community. Unfortunately, Atlanta never saw the revival of the downtown districts that was expected from the sporting venues. However, recent studies show a decline in the poorest communities (Liao & Pitts, 2006). Sydney 2000 was billed as the green Olympics. Environmental clean up, solar power, recycling and passive heating and cooling were characteristic of this eco friendly Olympics. New roads, motorways, hotels and rail links were built. The sporting facilities, including the Olympic Stadium, have already shown a decline in usage (Liao 7 Pitts, 2006) suggesting that the

12 Millennium park with its divers landscapes and topography may be the best legacy of these Games. Athens used its 2004 bid to renovate the city and reinvent Athens as a post modern city (Liao & Pitts, 2006) Olympic projects were carried out in nearly every part of the city. An obsolete airport was converted into Europes larges park for sport and recreation. A 2300 unit Olympic Village was built. The coastline was rebuilt. A new air terminal was built, and new metro and tram links installed. They built new plazas and hotels. They restored archeological remains. All this was criticized for running 4 times over the budget. Like Sydney, the reuse of the facilities is becoming a concern. Beijing 2008 used primarily existing structures from the 1990 Asian Games. Most of the urban projects were limited to the creation of the Olympic Park, beautification of the city, and light rail development. It is too early to tell about the legacy of 2012 London games. Their development pan fit into the cities already existing long-term plan to regenerate its degraded eastern boroughs. The fact that London justifies and centers its development on the enhancement of the governments physical activity and health agenda (Coalter, 2012) is reminiscent of the goals of Montreals white elephant. It is yet to be seen if the Olympics can serve as a catalyst to help people of all ages lead more active lives. Time will tell. The impact of mega-events on a city By now, it should be clear that urbanization has been a part of the Olympics from the beginning. Some cities have handled it well, others, not so well. Nonetheless, cities, especially those in need of rejuvenation, continue to bid to host mega-events like the Olympics. Some argue that in the past, mega-events such as the Olympics have not necessarily always lived up to the

13 promises of long-term employment, social housing, increased sports participation or even increased number of tourists (Hartwell, 2007, p. 98). So, what is it that appeals to these cities? How does hosting an event like the Olympics impact the city? According to Malfas, Theodoraki, and Houlihan (2004), mega events impact the city in four different ways: socio-economic, socio-culture, physical, and political. It can be argued that in order to have a legacy in urban renewal, it is necessary to have a lasting legacy in all these areas. Socio-economic impacts are simply the net economic change in the host community that is a result of spending attributed to the event (Malfas, Houlihan, & Theodoraki, 2004). It is important to note that this does not include income from event ticket sales because that usually goes to the event organizers, not the host city. However, it does include job creation and changes in the regions unemployment rate, increases in the tourism industry, and changes in the social standards of the region. Socio-culture legacies are hard to measure. They include increase in sport activities in the community. A good example of this is that Barcelona had 46,000 new users of their community sport facilities following the 1992 Olympics. Socio-culture impact also includes things like national and civic pride. Physical impacts are changes to the infrastructure of the city. New parks, new sporting facilities, new roads are all lasting changes to the city that can continue to enhance the city long after the event leaves. By far, the biggest impact left by the Olympics is the facilities that are built for the housing and sporting events. Many of the Olympics since the Second World War have left housing and stadiums. Although, there have been several arguments that stadiums left behind have a lasting legacy on the community (Searle, 2002). Stadiums built in communities tend have both positive and negative economical and social impact on a community (Jones,

14 2002). One overlooked physical impact is that of the parks. Although sporting facilities are needed for nearly all sports, but history as shown that the Olympic park has had the most positive, lasting impact of any of the structures built. It is even argued that people prefer jogging in green areas rather than jogging through the streets of the city. Thus, green areas can also be seen as a part of a sport infrastructure (Wicker, Breuer, & Pawlowski, 2009, p. 104). The last form of impacts is political. In hosting a mega-event, a relationship between government and corporations is formed that tends to boost local construction, retail, and tourist industries, and generate funding for infrastructure. Furthermore, these relationships at the political level are able to often bring forward long-term community development plans (Chalkley & Essex, 1999). Olympics have sufficient momentum to intervene in the host citys short- and long-term development activities, placing unparalleled challenges and opportunities in the sphere of urbanization during the process of preparation (Liao & Pitts, 2006, p. 1232). Events like the Olympics also bring with it exposure to the local government and creates a link between the Olympic image an the local government (Andranovich, Burbank, & Heying, 2001). It is clear that mega-events such as the Olympics can have, and has had, a large impact on the community hosting the games. Urban renewal has become the cornerstone of the Olympic bid. One of the decision requirements to award the games is the legacy for the host city and its influence on the quality of life for its residents (Kaplanidou, 2012). The legacy The Legacy left behind by the Olympics is designed to exceed well beyond the 17 days of the events. As urban renewal becomes an important reason for a community to host a mega-event like the Olympics, it is important to understand if the legacy argument is valid. Very little research has been done in this area. Kaplanidou (2012) was one of the first to look at how the

15 residents of a community view the legacy of the Olympics. When evaluating the legacy of the Atlanta, Sydney, Athens, and Beijing Olympics, it was found that the further away from the event, the more important that the intangible legacies were. There is more research required on the intangible legacies, however, the tangible legacies can easily be evaluated looking at the expectations and outcomes of the community after the Olympics. More research is needed. Hiller (2006) suggests that that in order for an Olympics to have a long lasting legacy, one must consider five characteristics of the post Olympic facilities use related to the postmodern shift in urban transformation. The first is that there needs to be a globalization of capital, culture and information flow. The city must take its place as a global entrepreneurial city. The second is that there must be an economic restructuring of the city from a manufacturer producer economy to one of information technologies and service economy. Part of this is finding uses for old industrial buildings or replacing them with new buildings more appropriate to the new service economy. Third, the city must realign itself as a leisure consumption city. The focus is on consumerism, culture, and entertainment. Remember on e of the goals of hosting the Olympic is to increase tourism. There needs to be a continued reason for tourist to come after the Olympics end. The fourth characteristic is growth into a polycentric mega-city. The city needs to become a de-centered urban region. It is not only the urban infrastructure and services that are required to support the Olympics but the Olympic sites themselves (e.g. arenas and stadiums) that require large populations to make them viable on a long-term basis (Hiller, 2007, p. 323). The fifth characteristic is called the fortified city. The Olympics contributes to the trend of higher security and surveillance. It takes pre planning to design a lasting legacy. Thornly (2002, p. 118) writes regarding the decision for a city to build a stadium, Stadia developments should not be regarded as isolated projects but integrated into broader visions of

16 local regeneration and strategic city policy, over issues such as social inclusion, sustainability and public transport. The planning of the required urbanization needed to host an Olympic Games is no different. Planners must consider how the urbanization fits into the citys plans for the future. Failure to accurately plan can reduce the legacy of the Olympics. A good example of improper planning is the Sydney Olympic Stadium. Although the stadium met the needs of the Olympic games, it is too large to meet the post-Olympic needs, thus the utilization of the stadium is low (Searle, 2002). Conclusion There is a belief that hosting a mega-event like the Olympic Games can be a catalyst for urban change and renewal. The idea of Olympic Urbanization has been around since the formation of the first Olympic Games. However history shows that such change is not always long lived. Good planning like that of Barcelona and Munich has left long lasting positive changes to the urban landscape. Poor planning as seen with Montreal and Atlanta results in the legacy as being seen as a white elephant. Despite the risks associated with Olympic Urbanization, fordist cities such as Manchester and Chicago, poor cities such a Rio, Istanbul, Madrid, and Johannesburg, and even disaster struck cities such as Tokyo, continue to bid for the Olympics with hopes to renew their urban landscape and transform their cities to match the post-modern world. It is clear that cites can bring change to their city by enhancing the life of local residents, creating jobs, and creating tourism. What is unclear is how long lived such changes can be. References Andranovich, G., Burbank, M. J., & Heying, C. H. (2001). Olympic Cities: Lessons Learned from Mega-Event Politics. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(2), 113-131. doi: 10.1111/0735-

17 2166.00079 Chalkley, B., & Essex, S. (1999). Urban development through hosting international events: A history of the Olympic Games. Planning Perspectives, 14(4), 369-394. doi: 10.1080/026654399364184 Coalter, F. (2007). London Olympics 2012: `the catalyst that inspires people to lead more active lives'? The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 127(3), 109-110. doi: 10.1177/1466424007077342 Essex, S., & Chalkley, B. (1998). Olympic Games: Catalyst of urban change. Leisure Studies, 17(3), 187-206. doi: 10.1080/026143698375123 Hartwell, D. H. (2007). The Olympic Games has emerged as an important tool of urban and regional renewal. The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 127(3), 9898. doi: 10.1177/14664240071270030101 Hiller, H. (2006). Post-event Outcomes and the Postmodern Turn: The Olympics and Urban Transformations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 6(4), 317-332. doi: 10.1080/16184740601154458 Horne, J., & Manzenreiter, W. (2006). An introduction to the sociology of sports mega-events1. The Sociological Review, 54(S2), 1-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00650.x Kaplanidou, K. (2012). The importance of legacy outcomes for Olympic Games four summer host cities residents' quality of life: 19962008. European Sport Management Quarterly, 12(4), 397-433. doi: 10.1080/16184742.2012.693118 Liao, H., & Pitts, A. (2006). A brief historical review of Olympic urbanization. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 23(7), 1232-1252. doi: 10.1080/09523360600832502

18 Malfas, M., Houlihan, B., & Theodoraki, E. (2004). Impacts of the Olympic Games as megaevents. Proceedings of the ICE - Municipal Engineer, 157(3), 209-220. doi: 10.1680/muen.2004.157.3.209 Munoz, F. (2006). Olympic urbanism and Olympic Villages: Planning strategies in Olympic host cities, London 1908 to London 20121. The Sociological Review, 54(S2), 175-187. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00660.x Searle, G. (2002). Uncertain Legacy: Sydneys Olympic Stadiums. Uncertain Legacy: Sydneys Olympic Stadiums, 10(7), 845-860. Thornley, A. (2002). Urban regeneration and sports stadia. European Planning Studies, 10(7), 813-818. doi: 10.1080/0965431022000013220 Wicker, P., Breuer, C., & Pawlowski, T. (2009). Promoting Sport for All to Age-specific Target Groups: The Impact of Sport Infrastructure. European Sport Management Quarterly, 9(2), 103-118. doi: 10.1080/16184740802571377