Advertisement

Introduction

  • Niloufar Vadiati
Chapter
Part of the Mega Event Planning book series (MEGAEP)

Abstract

The ‘actual benefit of Mega-events’ for host cities, called legacy, is a controversial subject in urban studies. I focus particularly on the employment legacy of the London Olympic Games 2012 among local East Londoners. More specifically, I intend to investigate the reality of proclaimed ‘legacies’ about employment boosts for local residents that the London 2012 promised during the bidding process. To meet this goal, the study tries to answer these three questions:

(1) How did the Olympic labour market for professionals carry out its recruitment processes for London 2012? (2) How has the legacy agenda addressed employment provision for local East Londoners? (3) How did local people residing in East London seek their career prospects through the Olympic projects?

Achievement of the research goal requires two sorts of knowledge to be acquired: first, investigation of the employment legacy in terms of agenda and actual outcomes, and second, the analysis of causalities.

Keywords

Research context Legacy agenda Research gap Main enquiry 

References

  1. Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bernstock, P. (2016). Olympic housing: a critical review of London 2012’s legacy. Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Buck, N., Gordon, I., Hall, P., Harloe, M., and Kleinman, M. (2013). Working capital: life and labour in contemporary. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burbank, M. J., et al. (2002). Mega-events, urban development, and public policy. Review of Policy Research, 19(3), pp. 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler, T., and Hamnett, C. (2011). Ethnicity, class and aspiration: understanding London’s new East End. Policy Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cashman, R. (2006). The bitter-sweet awakening: the legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Pan Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, J. (2012). Urbanising the event: how past processes, present politics and future plans shape London’s Olympic legacy. The London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  8. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport. (2007). Our promises for 2012: how the UK will benefit from the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. Retrieved January 8, 2010, from http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/2100/449/Ourpromise2012.pdf?sequence=2
  9. Flyvbjerg, B., et al. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gold, J. R., and Gold, M. M. (2008). Olympic cities: regeneration, city rebranding and changing urban agendas. Geography Compass, 2(1), pp. 300–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greater London Authority. (2008). Before, during and after: making the most of the London 2012 Games. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport.Google Scholar
  12. Hall, S. M. (2015). Super-diverse street: a ‘trans-ethnography’ across migrant localities. Ethnic Racial Studies, 38(1), pp. 22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Imrie, R., et al. (2009). Regenerating London: governance, sustainability and community in a global city. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon and New York, NY, Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kassens-Noor, E., et al. (2015). Towards a mega-event legacy framework. Leisure Studies, 34(6), pp. 665–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lindsay, I. (2014). Living with London’s Olympics: an ethnography. Springer.Google Scholar
  16. London Assembly. (2010). Legacy limited? A review of the Olympic Park legacy Company’s role. London: Greater London Authority.Google Scholar
  17. London’s Growth Boroughs. (2008). Convergence, Strategic Regeneration Framework. Annual Report 2009–2011. London. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/50b4ab77e4b0214dc1f631e9/t/50b4d0dde4b00df0eac07553/1354027229968/SRF-Convergence-progress-report-2011.pdf.
  18. Minnaert, L. (2014) Making the Olympics work: interpreting diversity and inclusivity in employment and skills development pre-London 2012. Contemporary Social Science, 9(2), pp. 196–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Poynter, G., and MacRury, I. (2009). Olympic cities: 2012 and the remaking of London. Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Raco, M., and Tunney, E. (2010). Visibilities and invisibilities in urban development: small business communities and the London Olympics 2012. Urban Studies, 47(10), pp. 2069–2091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Saborio, S. (2013). The pacification of the favelas: mega events, global competitiveness, and the neutralization of marginality. Socialist Studies/Études Socialistes, 9(2), pp. 130–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Siegfried, J., and Zimbalist, A. (2000). The economics of sports facilities and their communities. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), pp. 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Watt, P. (2013). ‘It’s not for us’ regeneration, the 2012 Olympics and the gentrification of East London. City, 17(1), pp. 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niloufar Vadiati
    • 1
  1. 1.HafenCity University HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations