The Olympic cities (2006)

Extraits de l'exposé

[...] Atlanta's immediate dismantling of its principal temporary structures is a flagrant case of the absence and failure of sustainable strategies Even though environmentalism has become one of the IOC's priorities and a new paradigm , and London officially aspire to hold the ?greenest game ever? with energy-saving schemes, the sustainability of urban Olympic projects is remains an extremely burning issue. Once again, it reminds us of the necessity of integrating citizens in democratic decision-making processes, since they are the first affected by the economic, social and environmental negative consequences of the competition. In this line, insiders of Olympic cities increasingly tend to organize themselves into coalitions to combat the preparations of the Games. [...]

[...] And luckily enough, the sociological basis of Olympic travellers is extremely heterogeneous, which confers sportive events their peculiarity compared to the others forms of manifestations Retrospectively, figures demonstrate that the Games incredibly boost tourism: in 1995, one year before the games, the city of Atlanta increased the number of its visitors of roughly which amounts to a total effect of 4,2 billion dollars. And besides, it was one of London city council's main argument to gain public support for 2012. So, undeniably, there's a purposeful short-term growth strategy and an immediate profit expectation for the city. Needless to say, however, that hosting the games is not reducible to this short-lived intensification of activities. [...]

[...] The fact is, first, that over the last three decades, the change of economic context has urged world cities to reconsider growth and to compete at the worldwide scale rather than at the regional or even national. Moreover, in post-industrial societies, urban development tends to focus on consumption activities rather than on manufacturing production. This paradigm perfectly suits with Games-related growth. Historically, the awakening of Olympics as a financial opportunity is linked to the outstanding economic success of Los Angeles games in 1984. After Montreal disappointment in 1976 and the astounding debt contracted, the economic sustainability of the event was greatly questioned. [...]

[...] Whose city is it? High-profile events raise questions about the very essence of the city, and debates over the legitimacy of it's derive towards privatization the success of bid processes is closely linked to a public-private partnership, even though the formal candidacy has to be presented by the official municipality. This cooperating mechanism may create tensions between conflicting goals, and private interests tend to prevail in these fragile alliances, for the benefit of business executives and consuming tourists at the expense of residents. [...]

[...] flagrant violation of Olympic ideals experienced by many cities such as Toronto, Sydney, Atlanta and of course, the notorious Salt Lake city scandal broken out in 1998 Not only are Olympiads not a linear path towards growth (contrary to private and public elite's assertions), but they also open up a host of very pragmatic problems by damaging resident's quality life without a corresponding compensation. Which concrete benefits and costs remain for city-dwellers in the Games' venture? As we already suggested, the face of their city is suddenly and radically changed: in a short-term perspective, their daily life is subjected to many transformations during the sportive competition itself, like restrictions of freedom of movement and of civic liberties. Unsurprisingly, the mainly targeted categories are the least powerful and in particular poor classes who are confronted with a sudden repression and criminalization of poverty. [...]