Failed Mega Events As Urban Development Engines?


Published on

A case study of the construction of Hammarby Sjöstad, a planned Olympic village in Stockholm, Sweden. Why was this \'green\' district built even though the 2004 Games went to Athens? I focus on public management and urban planning lessons.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Failed Mega Events As Urban Development Engines?

  1. 1. FailedMega-Events as Urban Development Engines?<br />Paul T. Levin, Ph.D., Program Director, Governance and Management Training at the Centre for Regional and Educational Development<br />
  2. 2. My talk<br />Part 1: Background and the puzzle<br />Part 2: Solving the puzzle?<br />Part 3: Lessons<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  3. 3. Background and the puzzle<br />Part 1<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  4. 4. Global cities and mega-events<br />“One of the main strategies adopted by cities that want to become part of the ‘global network’ is to stage a mega-event.”<br />“Hosting high-profile events … boosts global visibility by promoting the image of the city as a vital and dynamic place, …”<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  5. 5. Mega-events and urban development (MUD)<br />“… but it also acts, locally, as a catalyst for development and a way to legitimize large-scale transformations, giving local governments the license to reprioritize the urban agenda without the public scrutiny theynormallyreceive.”<br />Barcelona 1992 first successful MUD example<br />Sydney 2000 first ”green” event<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  6. 6. Failedmega-events and UD<br />No ME  no UD<br />E.g. Berlin 2000, Madrid 2016<br />No support for hypothesis that ”even an unsuccessful Olympic bid can provide a major impetus for urban development”<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  7. 7. The puzzle<br />September 1997: 2004 Olympics to Athens<br />Unlikemostfailedbidders, Stockholm builtits Olympic Village anyway<br />Why?<br />Whatlessons, ifany, canwelearn from this?<br />Why is this interesting?<br />Likelyhood of failure<br />Increasedbiddingcosts<br />Public management/city planninglessons<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  8. 8. Counting on failure<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  9. 9. Biddingcosts<br />Vancouver 2010: 35 $m CAD<br />Madrid 2016: 37.8 €m<br />Chicago 2016: 100 $m<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  10. 10. Hammarby Sjöstad ”Olympic village”<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  11. 11. Hammarby Sjöstad<br />Stockholm city<br />Hammarby Sjöstad<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  12. 12. Before construction<br />Brownfieldindustrial area<br />Lack of coherentplanning<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  13. 13. A pleasant and green city<br />Storm water canalrunsthroughtown<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  14. 14. Green commuting<br />Bicyclelanes and walkingpaths<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  15. 15. Energy<br />Solar panels, thermal power plant, biogas, experimental wastewatertreatment .<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  16. 16. Solving the puzzle?<br />Part 2<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  17. 17. Pre-existing plans<br />Pre-Olympic plan 1991<br />Olympic plan 1995<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />Post-Olympic plan 2002<br />
  18. 18. The Olympic ”push”<br />Got the city leadershipinvolved<br />Local business eliteinvolved<br />Fast-tracked plans<br />Introduced Green dimension<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  19. 19. Institutionalfactors<br />A localunified HS projectorganization<br />Localentity for dispension of national governmentfunds<br />Plans wereadoptedbefore the rejection, someevenbefore the bid<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  20. 20. Compelling vision<br />The Environmental Program for HS<br />”Twice as good” on green technology (E.T.)<br />”Cuttingedge” on E.T.<br />”Made it easy to communicate the vision”<br />Actorscoalescedaround vision<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  21. 21. An emerging urban regime?<br />Multitude of stakeholders<br />Different motivesbutshared ambition<br />Expressive (symbolic) and instrumental<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  22. 22. LESSONS<br />Part 3<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />
  23. 23. Public management lessons<br />Count on (and prepare for) failure<br />Useexisting plans<br />Political support important in earlystages<br />Compelling(green?) vision<br />Vision ”anchored” early on<br />Range of stake-holders (coalescedaround vision)<br />Institutionalizeproject (and vision)<br />22/05/2010<br />/ Paul T. Levin, GOVMAT<br />