From :
For :

The Olympics during the crisis

As expected, the crisis brought along the question of wouldn’t it be wiser for London to back out of the 2012 Olympics as the host and thereby help save some billion pounds by not spending them on the games.

The Minister for the Games, Tessa Jowell, herself had to admit that she would have thought differently back in 2005 had she known what the future had in store.

For the time being, the Cabinet might stick to the official story of everything going smoothly and remaining within the budget of £ 9.3 billion (the original budget of £2.4 billion is being kept quiet and is not mentioned very much these days). However, in case the economy grows too weak, the entire project could be turned down. This would not be an unusual occurrence; in 1918, the hosting of the Olympics was passed to London after the Mount Vesuvius eruption in Italy caused the local Government to redirect the funds, needed for the Olympics, to fix the resulting damage. Likewise, Innsbruck won a bid in winter 1976 after Denver, in the US, had backed out.

ADVERTISING

Finding other sites to fill in for London should not be a problem. Beijing would positively be an eager candidate to replay the recent propagandistic show-off it performed last time. Given the current state of affairs, Athens is probably out of question. Sidney, however, would be up to the job, and could repeat its success from 2000. Otherwise, some of the previously rejected candidates could step in and try it out now. Well, all of this is nothing but guesswork. More importantly, the question here is whether or not there is some kind of benefit for London for organising the Olympics.

Funnily enough, common sense suggests the current crisis is the major reason as to why the British metropolis should not back out; the Olympics is a golden opportunity for small construction companies that are appallingly jobless at the present time. According to the Daily Telegraph, out of 800 contracted companies, 98 are British and 63 are small or medium-sized firms, many of which have been banking on the Olympics happening, putting their long-term strategies at stake. Should they lose the Olympics business, it would trigger a disaster on their side of things. They would not be alone though; the Cabinet would also feel the devastating impacts for having to pay enormous fines that would arise from terminated contracts.

Ever since winning the bid, there has been discussion as to what kind of long-term assets the city can gain from the Games. From the outset, the main emphasis was placed on the renewal of the uncared-for city quarters in East London, the opportunity to create new jobs for thousands of the long-term unemployed and the future turning of the Olympic Village into a housing development. More flats, a total of 35,000, are to be built later on in the Olympic park as well as on the bank of River Lea. However, up to now the fact is that out of all the workers joining the current construction works only twenty per cent are originally from East London and, more importantly, only one tenth of them had been unemployed before the works started. In addition to that, the British press has not left unnoticed the fact that there are up to 20,000 foreigners applying for a job with Olympic projects.

On the other hand, it is necessary to state that the outflow of emigrants from Central and Eastern Europe (for instance, the increasing number of Poles leaving home to help build their own stadiums for the upcoming EURO 2012) can paradoxically result in a lack of qualified labour and cause the well-known problems that British construction is famous for – poor quality, late deadlines, and inappropriately arisen costs. The Committee of organisers has already lowered their requirements for the Olympic village and is now faced with voices calling for the rejection of the building of a new media centre, suggesting in turn to make use of the existing one instead.

Whether obviously or not, the Olympics are lined with some other projects that are aimed at a higher quality infrastructure. In 2007, a new Eurostar fast train connection was introduced. Along with that, the number of some metro and train sets has been increased. The metro network is also expanding and there is a new system of shuttle trains to be launched connecting the City of London to the Olympic fields, with a capacity of up to 25,000 passengers per hour.

Some of these projects would eventually be realised without London being the Olympic site. Nevertheless, having strict deadlines puts pressure on the modernisation process of public transport to be accelerated. In total, the amount spent on modernisation should reach £7 billion, which is not included in the official Olympic budget, as the funds are to be directed formally towards independent projects.

All of the optimists, who believe the Olympics can be beneficial for London, might slow their enthusiasm upon reading the official report from 2002, as released by the Government’s experts before making the actual bid. It states that the Olympics are great. However, they can only serve as a fortnight nationwide party to cheer things up, in turn having no significant impact on the economy. It is no wonder that this tough analysis was able to surfaced no sooner than six years later.

Although I believe London should retain its hosting position, if anything it might give a helping hand to the above-mentioned small construction firms and keep the hopes up for Eastern London, I am afraid that the future will show just how much the whole happening is reminiscent of a jobless parent shopping for an exclusive, over-priced toy for their child; something that won’t hurt having, but that you can absolutely do without.

Author: Tomáš Mrva
Photo: London2012.com