London 2012 – A mega-project-inspired Inclusive Planning Revolution?

“I hope one of the legacies of these (paralympic) Games that planning and development put into increasing accessibility for these Games is continued post London 2012 not just in this great city but across the UK”

- Xavier Gonzales, Chief Executive International Paralympic Committee

Introduction

In the context of the thematics of the 2017 Biennial, this paper seeks to assess the quality of urban integration of the Olympic and Paralympic Games in London 2012 for the Queen Elizabeth II Park, East London and at a national level pre, during and post the event itself.

Analysing the inclusivity of a place is a good measure of its social and economic success, and therefore its planning. After defining inclusive planning the paper will make a case for its increasing importance to planners. It will then examine the link between the evolving aspirations of International Olympic Committee (as representative of the aims of the games) and planning and place-making. Concluding that parallel aspirations exist for both the IOC and local and national governments through commitments to legacy, the paper argues that the catalyzing effect of a mega-projects such as an Olympic Games in terms of delivering regeneration projects can further the social aims of urban planning, through its shared aspirations of inclusiveness. It will argue that barriers which ordinarily exist to achieving inclusive environments can be reduced (but not entirely removed) by the processes and delivery structures put in place to facilitate mega-projects. In particular, a planning and delivery strategy of an Olympic Games can make the most of the social aspirations of the public sector and the delivery power of the private sector through public/private partnerships. The commitment of national resources for local improvements can be increased as the international profile the games are raised. Through briefly tracing the increasing recognition of legacy beyond sports by the IOC, the paper will argue that the winning 2005 Olympic Bid in London served to illustrate further the link between the Olympics and good place-making…..

For planning practice, the Olympics and Paralympic Games arguably changed professional discourse around disability and exclusion generally; mostly allowing such issues to be integrated better at the early stages of planning and visioning, rather than caught by by a safetynet of regulation at the end of the project. It allowed an industry-accepted concept of inclusive design to be translated into planning inclusive planning.

Chapter 1 – The Need for Better Inclusive Planning

What is Inclusive Planning? “Inclusive Design is a process that aims to remove philosophical, attitudional and procedural barriers in how people think and the way they design, build and manage the environment, buildinsg and transport. When something is inclusive, everyone can use it equally, confidently and independently, regardless of age, disability, gender or faith” – London 20102 Inclusive Design strtaegy

The growing case for inclusive planning

People with disabilities

Approximately 15% the world’s population are disabled1. More people generally are living in cities, to the point that in 2014 for the first time the human species is officially now “urban”. With the general population of cities growing, now more than ever is it important for cities to adapt to cater 1 http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/disability/overview

for disabled people. As catalysts for regeneration, Mega-projects have the potential to play a major role in shaping built environments to cater for these demographic changes.

Ageing populations

Between 2015 and 2030, the number of people in the world aged 60 years or over is projected to grow by 56 percent from 901 million to 1.4 billion, and by 2050, the global population of older persons is projected to double its size, reaching nearly 2.1 billion2.

At the global level between 2000 and 2015, the number of people aged 60 years or over increased by 68 per cent in urban areas, compared to a 25 per cent increase in rural areas; older persons are increasingly concentrated in urban areas. In 2015, 58 per cent of the world’s people aged 60 years or over resided in urban areas, up from 51 per cent in 2000. The oldest-old are even more likely to reside in urban areas: the proportion of people aged 80 years or over residing in urban areas increased from 56 per cent in 2000 to 63 per cent in 20153.

Nearly 20 million people in the UK are aged over 50 and over. Half of these are aged over 65, one in seven are over 80. The number of people over State Pension age is set to increase by 14 million by 2030 (ILC)

Economic growth

Whilst it is reasonable to assume that most societies understand the need to meet the needs of disabled, senior citizens, minorities of any section of society purely on a moral basis alone, like many consequences of planning, some economists would find it less justifiable for intervention in the market to meet these needs. Like many “public goods” achieved by the planning system by planning gain (e.g. the provision of open space), some commentators would describe the provision for inclusive design as an externality; i.e. that there is no immediate financial reason to include it. However, by looking at the economic cost of not providing for inclusivity, the rationale for providing it is arguably more tangible.

According to the World Bank, The global GDP lost annually due to disability is estimated to be between $1.37 trillion and $1.94 trillion. For the world’s high income countries, the range is estimated to be between $891.28 billion and $1.26 trillion, for the medium income countries it is estimated to be between $338.55 billion and $480.21 billion, and for the low income countries it is estimated to be between and $135.36 billion and $192.00 billion4

(UN Sustainable Development Goals?)

Challenges

Despite the overall case for better inclusive environments there are some very real barriers to achieving them. As well as general awareness, financial cost is still often cited a very real barrier for those paying for development.

In the UK, laws, such as the Disabiliy Discrimination Act, the Equalities Act and Building Regulations are traditionally what binds those baring the cost of development to improving inclusive design. Planning policies and guidance also have the role to play, but it is acknowledged by the RTPI, RIBA and RICs amongst others that planning policies do not (and arguably should not) prevent delivery of a project by laying overly buedensome requirements at the door of a developer.

2 http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WPA2015_Report.pdf3 http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WPA2015_Report.pdf4 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DISABILITY/Resources/280658-1172606907476/DisabilityIssuesMetts.pdf

In the UK context, paragraph 173 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires that when making decisions on planning applications, decision makers must ensure they make competitive returns for landowners. This can force decision makers’ hands when trying to secure inclusive design improvements.

Figure 1

Figure 1 shows a basic model of how financial viability for development is worked out by developers. From the development value of a site, a developer will take away the calculated costs of construction, fees and developer profits, the latter an industry-wide accepted figure of approximately 20%. The grey and white area to the right of the black area is what is known as “residual land value”. From here a developer can subtract costs associated with planning gain. A development becomes unviable when the costs associated with planning gain “eat in” to the black area.

Certainly, if physical design measures are thought of at the end of the planning process, cost becomes more difficult to achieve. However, by linking inclusivity to the early stages of the planning process allows more flexibility……

Inclusive Planning As Part of the Olympic “Legacy”

Much of the literature focuses on the importance nature of widespread social change occurring from Olympic projects; the process of land acquisition during the implementation of the projects; the positive and negative impacts of increases in land and property values; economic growth that occurs and the positive and negative consequences of this for people affected by it, such as increased employment opportunities for those who are able to access them, and the negative impacts for those that cannot, such as higher rental prices, overall feeling of social exclusion and displacement (otherwise known as gentrification).

The concept of legacy is broad and examples are challenging to narrow down. Some legacies will be intended, others will not; some will be positive and others will not. How to measure the success of a legacy also depends on over what length of time you assess it.

(examples of inclusive design legacies GREAT WALL of CHINA – lifts ACROPOLIS – lifts )

However, it was not until the year 2000 that the power of the Olympics to affect change beyond that of sporting legacy was considered by the IOC (citation).

But broad planning concepts are as far as the recognition goes, for the IOC to begin to assess or measure these outcomes in any detail is, as any government would testify, extremely challenging. That said, it could be argued that we have begun to breakdown what we mean by social impact, going beyond simply economic grouping, but thinking about age groups and ethnic and faith groups.

These are important, but in examining the synergy between Olympic events and planning outcomes, the case of London 2012 is a significant case study as the commitment to “legacy” and what this actually means. In particular, the winning of the London 2005 bid was representative of the increasing recognition that the IOC affords to planning outcomes as result of its events. To illustrate this point, it is worth examining the circumstances in which London won.

The London Olympic Bid 2005

London was not always tipped to win the bid, it went into the knock out round trailing behind Paris and Madrid, as we can see from the table below:

Many commentators have cited London’s success in the committees final “emotional” presentation in Singapore. Specifically, it stressed the importance of including everyone in a national drive to improve participation in sports and the suitability of the plans for the long term. In other words, a strong legacy.

Part of this case for legacy was the case for regeneration, as highlighted by some powerful images to demonstrate this.

The link between regeneration outcomes and the power to deliver this shone through and strengthened by the fact that the “2012 Olympic Games would be the most accessible Games ever, that the Olympic and Paralympic games would be fully integrated together as one”5.

The success of this bid was widely cited as being down to the commitment to wider regeneration aspirations of the Olympics. A unique selling point which persuaded the judges of the IOC. And so, one can conclude that there is now a stronger link between the aims of the IOC (that go beyond sporting legacy only) and wider city planning outcomes. From the start, from a stakeholder and public perception point of view, the symbolism of this story laid a strong foundation for committing public bodies and private stakeholders to committing the principles of inclusive design during the planning and delivery of the games and ensuring its legacy.

From winning Bid to Implementation Strategy

So far, it is argued that the strengthened links between Olympic Events and Inclusive Planning were demonstrated by the IOC’s recognition of legacy as a turning point on which to award a city the status of host for the Olympic games.

The Olympics came with a hard deadline and the potential for national humiliation worldwide if it went wrong6. In this sense, this mega project incentivized the national government to intervene and significantly increase the chances of delivery of regeneration aspirations of local authorities and, in this case, the Greater London Authority (GLA) to an extent not seen since the establishment of the London Docklands Coorporation to regenerate the area now known as Canary Wharf, in the early 1980s7. The most powerful way it could do this was by implementing national legislation, the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006. This allowed for the setting up of the London Organising Committee of the Paralympic Games (LOCOG), incharge of funding and staging the Games, and the establishment of the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA)8 with responsibility for planning and delivering the Olympic Park. The ODA took on planning powers in an area administered by 4 local planning authoirties. This would, in theory, overcome local political barriers and provide a strong base from which to build and see the project through to its conclusion, including any planning strategy put in place. As part of the commitment to legacy, the Olympic Delivery Agency was to continue its powers after the Olympic Games had concluded.

This top-down system of planning, which would not have happened if it were not for the Olympics, is not without its controversies, particularly from those who advocate more bottom-up or horizontal system of planning. However, from a strategic perspective, this arguably opened doors in terms of how the Olympic park was designed and East London could better achieve its potential.

5 Link to www.queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/~/media/lldc/policies/lldcinclusivedesignstrategy2013.pdf

6 Institute for government7 Fanstein

8 Institute for government making the games

Although not the focus of this paper, the ODA was also responsible for acquiring land, achieving stakeholder buy-in, relocating businesses and residences and to do so in consultation with local communities and tailoring legacy plans in line with the concept of convergence; that is creating wealth and reducing poverty, supporting healthier lifestyles and developing successful neigghbourhoods9

LOCOG was a private company limited by guarantee, working in partnership with the Government. The public-private model of regeneration and delivery has been an established concept in English planning practice in various forms, for large-scale projects and these are not without their controversies. Critics would argue that the public-private partnerships necessary for delivering megaprojects required larger guarantee of profit and therefore whilst public benefits can be provided, generally, the projects were skewed towards profit and rather than a landscape that encourage’s urbanity” (Fainstein).

As an example, in the 2012 Olympics . CLM, the private partner for the Olympic,s was estimated to have made £400 million but in fact made £650million10. The public sector funding package was £9.3 billion compared with £4.1billion assumption when bidding. The figure cited to the public was £2.3bn11. The justification is that there would be an overall saving to the public purse of £1 billion.

Such large figures can be challenging to accept when talking about the public benefits of mega projects. However, up until the establishment of this organizational and governacne structure, with special powers of implementation, the mechanisms to implement large scale transformation of this part of East London would arguably never have materialized (citation needed).

With this in mind, the ODA played a vital role in establishing a set of ground rules, in terms of planning, licensing and procurement policies, not least, the Inclusive Design Strategy.

The London 2012 Inclusive Design Strategy

(IMAGE HERE)

In executing its role in delivering legacy, the Olympic Delivery Agency (ODA) published an Inclusive Design Strategy. The strategy acknowledged that it would be a challenge to achieve its inclusive design aims as well as all London 2012 priority themes and that it would have to work hard to achieve the right balance between investment in physical features and operational and management measures, whilst maating inclusive design measures. In doing so its states

“the optimum balance will vary for each ODA project and decisions are likely o be weighed against the longevity of investment and short-term value for money”.

“The ODA will challenege its design teams and the planning, building regulation and licensing authorities to explore innovative sollutions to overcome physical, operational and procedural obstacles”

Its two objectives were to create a “philosophy” and to “deliver inclusive design”.

This wording of this strategy was important and, as will be discussed further down, the idea of creating a “philosophy” of inclusivity rather than a set of minimal technical standards for developers to comply with, was arguably the first step in creating a culture of inclusivity.in planning a created a conversation around national policy and the built environment, arguably another contributing factor of an Olympic project to cities. Physical interventions as a result of the strategy

9 Inclusive design strategy 201310 Building magazine11 Institute for government

With the strategy in place, the following are examples of where the Olympic Park itself was designed with heavy emphasis on Inclusive Design.

Topography

Good practice indicates that good inclusive design should not be visible or obvious. Inclusivity should seem a natural part of the public realm. A good example of this was that, despite the uneven landscaping of the original site, the Inclusive Design Strategy ensured that nowhere within the park or the surrounding area would their be inaccessible gradients. The maximum gradient allowed was, approximately 1:60. This principle carried through from the 2012 Games to the post-Games design of the parklands and the public realm.

(IMAGE)

The plans for the park also addressed

Transport and parking Concourse and public realm Way finding and signage Entrances Street Furniture Sanitary provision Information points Spectator services Emergency egress and emergency services Regular resting places

The design was also sensitive to the needs of faith groups, allowing areas for prayer and indicating clear on maps, the direction of Mecca.

Spillover effect

As well as the tangible policies, the public discourse around the philosophy of inclusivity and its connection with the Olympic games, spilled over into wider linked policy decision in London. The GLA claimed that since 2005 bid it had commited to making London as accessible as possible, promising that:

10 % of new homes on park will be wheelchair accessible All buses (8500) and 22000 licensed taxis would be wheelchair accessible 66 London Underground stations (1/4) would be step free Dockland’s Light Railway would be fully accessible London Overground would be fully accesible Transport For London would make improvements to its audio and visual info There woule be a £4m revamp of London’s southbank Lecister Square and Oxford Circus would be improved There would be improvements to a 4km stricth of street between Westminster and Tower

bridge - relaying of cobble stones etc Lift on tower bridge (Like lift at Acropolis and Great Wall of China)

(IMAGE)

Post Games – The legacy

At the closing of the Olympic Games, the ODA became the LLDC. The LLDC took responsibility for planning. The Inclusive Design Strategy remained in place. In terms for how decisions are made, we can identify a number of planning policies that now form the basis for

Olympic Legacy supplementary planning guidance

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-london-plan/supplementary-planning-guidance/olympic-legacy

Replaced lower lea valley oppurunity area SPG

Enabling local authorities to require more through conditions and s106 agreements:

Examples of improvements post games achieved through legacy of Inclusive Design Strategy

Wider legacy

Change in legislation

Women and Equalities select committee Inquiry into disability and the built environment

Conclusion

Plans to regenerate of East London and the Lower Lea Valley were in place regardless of the outcome of the successful Olympic bid. However, as the IOC concluded, the Olympics would accelerate the process and ensure that sport would be the major focus of the project12

. From being an important local project to an event of national importance, arguably this increased the incentive for national government to establish a development corporation to ensure that the regeneration aspirations of the area were realised. Whilst such models are not without their criticisms, a clear success as a result was for a comprehensive strategy of inclusive design, to run throughout the project and continue post games in all planning and development decisions.

Whilst inclusive planning was not born at the Olympic Games, the association with the wider accessibility agenda as part of the Olympic bid Process vastly raised its profile and made it more of a consideration for those delivering than they otherwise would be. The physical features of the park are self evident, and public opinion in this sense seems to have supported the games as an overall success13. The emphasis on the inclusive design strategy as a philosophy rather than set of minimum standards was an innovative way of framing planning discussions.

In terms of the ongoing legacy, the examples given where inclusive design requirements have come into conflict with issues of developer viability demonstrate where the Inclusive Design Strategy has allowed planners leverage to secure better outcomes to the built environment.

This aspect of the project is also having an ongoing effect in national policy making for the Built Environment and Built Environment Education nationally. This is demonstrated by the setting up of the Built Environment Professional Education (BEPE) group by central Government, and a recent in depth inquiry by the Women and Equalities select committee into disability and the built environment.

It is hard to say if the Inclusive Design Strategy would have carried as much weight or been in the shape it was had the regeneration of East London happened at a lesser momentum and without the commitment to legacy that came with its association with the Olympic Bid. There is therefore a strong case to say the Olympics had a positive impact on place making and urbanity in London and in terms of shaping how planning is executed in England.

12 IOC Olympic bid evaluation report13 IOC report

Bibliography

Peter Lansley, Claudine McCreadie, Anthea Tinker

Can adapting the homes of older people and providing assistive technology pay its way? (Age Ageing (2004) 33 (6): 571-576)

Juliet Davis, Andy Thornley

Urban regeneration for the London 2012 Olympics: Issues of land acquisition and legacy (City, Culture and Society)