My series Go for Gold! focuses on the landscape of the Lower Lea Valley which will host the 2012 Olympic Games. Hosting the Games will bring changes to the scenery, the relocation of people and businesses, as well as the erection of new buildings and the Olympic park.
Lord Coe, chair of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) described the Olympics as both a challenge and an opportunity for East London, the poorest part of the capital (Clark 1996). London’s success in winning the bid was primarily a result of its focus on urban regeneration and renewal in East London, as well as its emphasis on East London’s multicultural character and the need to inspire a new generation. Great promises have been made for regenerating East London, including the creation of 12,000 (temporary) jobs, 9,000 new homes including affordable housing, the creation of a training programme for revitalising the local skills base, better transport, and the improvement of natural conditions (London 2012 2006; London East Research Insitute (LERI) 2005).
Over the past 45 years the Olympic and Paralympic Games have been transformed from a sporting to an economic event, now with the main focus on regeneration driven by the forces of the state and of the market. Since the Atlanta Games in 1996 hosting the Olympics has meant consumption-led economic development and expansion. The model emerged from the USA where through de-industrialisation processes in the 1970s vast sites became derelict, many people were unemployed and the public sector became underfunded. Public-private urban regeneration programmes that focused on post-industrial service based industries were developed (e.g. the rise of arts programs in New York and San Francisco), which were then available for collaboration with Olympic Games developments (Adranovich, Burbank and Heying 2001).
According to Poynter (2006) cities have an increasing interest in taking up the American approach to urban regeneration as demands arise from “domestic economic restructuring and changing patterns of consumption but also by corresponding changes in the international economy and in particular such sectors as the media industries, telecommunications, leisure, travel and tourism“ (Poynter 2006: 5). This is also the case in London, especially East London, where the economy has struggled in recent decades. In response, the Olympic Games are deployed as a catalyst for post-industrial economic expansion, based on the growing service sector and the production industries that serve the event.
According to Chalkley and Essex the Olympics can be seen as a “wider system of hallmark events, exhibitions and fairs through which cities compete for a place on the international stage“ (1999: 389). Indeed, it needs to be emphasised that the Olympic-bid slogan Go for Gold! primarily reflects London’s desire to remain on the stage of the ’Global Cities’ arena, without necessarily giving first consideration to the needs of locals. Regeneration in this case is not about the Lower Lea Valley or East London, but it is about competing with other global cities. My photography poses important questions about these developments.
Through photography it is possible to engage the visible aspects of the changing landscape; through my images people can learn about an urban landscape which they rarely access in person, and therefore gain new critical tools for understanding the Olympic story.
My images show what is currently visible at the future sports venues and service-related sites: empty, run-down, beautiful, fenced-off or uncanny spaces that are hard to imagine as sports venues. Only the title evokes their future status. However, at the moment the juxtaposition of title and image reinforce the awkwardness of the present situation, e.g. ‘Hockey Field II‘ next to a derelict site with a storage building in the background and a chair in the foreground looking quite desperate. Furthermore, when reading the titles of the photos, it seems that the sporting aspect of the Games stands in the foreground, but when looking behind the facades of the ’Olympic circus’, the dominance of economic interests becomes visible and with it the fact that the Games are focused on regeneration.
The photographic images of the future Olympic sites are all images of places awaiting change and economic development; they are images of how things “could be used to elicit people’s response to those changes“ (Byrne/Doyle 2004: 167). Some of the images might even evoke a feeling of estrangement as no people are visible and the places look abandoned. In contrast, other images show the spaces’ beauty.
Moreover, the photos are about spending time and interacting with the landscape; they are about engagement. Engaging with this area over a period of six or more years will make changes even more visible. The photographic approach, a combination of close-ups and medium distance shots, introduces tension into the series and provokes the spectator to raise questions: What are the surroundings like? What will remain? What will be removed? What will the site look like in three, six, nine years? Who has worked there? Who will benefit from the changes, who will not?
The Olympic Village is represented by a billboard with an advertisment attached to it which is so old that it is almost totally torn apart by the weather. What has been advertised there? Will the Olympics be advertised there soon? In bright colours? With many promised improvements for that area? The billboard also evokes the emptiness the Games will bring for most of the inhabitants with their communities’ identities deeply embedded in the physical environment of the Lower Lea Valley.
The Basketball Arena as well as the BMX track show nature and how it could develop over the course of several years. At the moment the Lower Lea Valley includes valuable habitats for the nationally-scarce black redstart, the kingfisher, rare orchids, as well as many other plants animals and various forms of wildlife. The Lower Lea Valley river system is a site of Metropolitan Importance for nature conservation and also an important passage for migrating birds. With the erection of the sports sites, the building of new bridges, walkways and streets, most of the habitats will be destroyed (Games Monitor 2006). These images therefore stand as metaphors for the destruction that results from global economic competition.
The Lower Lea Cycle Circuit (LLCC) was due to be closed in September 2006 to make for construction of the Velodrome, and the LLCC will have been allocated a new site further east. This image, as well as the tree on that part of Hackney Marshes that will become the Media and Press Centre, symbolise the loss of common land that has been used for many years by the public for recreation and sports activities. The closure of sports sites is also a metaphor for the lack of funding available for talented young atheletes to compete in the Games, who may now have to quit their training as neither proper sports facilities nor money is available (Lydall 2006; Games Monitor 2006). This is further evidence that sport is no longer in the foreground of the Olmypic Games.
In contrast to the lack of investment in athletes and training facilities, large amounts are available for hosting 20,000 accredited media. from all over the world. The Olympics can be viewed as a media festival: on the one hand for the millions of TV spectators who can follow the event from home; on the other hand millions of pounds can be made through selling the television rights. According to Tomlinson and Whannel, “it is television, above all else, that has enabled the Olympics to grow to their present gigantic scale“ (1984: 42).
As seen in my images, the Olympics will have large effects on the landscape and the urban environment of the host city: “Although this growing impact is partly a response to the increased size of the Games, with more individuals and nations taking part, it also reflects a realisation of the potential of the event to galvanise urban programmes and policies“ (Chalkley/Essex 1999: 374). As such the Games have become a tool for regenerating the East End.
Photographer and urban planner Gesche Wuerfel, having recently graduated in Photography and Urban Studies at Goldsmith’s College, continues to document the Olympic site.
This article is based on the final visual project and dissertation “Go for Gold: From Sports to Economics. A Critique of Olympic-driven Regeneration“ submitted by the author in September 2006 as part of the MA programme “Photography and Urban Cultures“ at the Centre for Urban and Community Research (CUCR), Goldsmiths College. The whole series of photos can be viewed at: www.geschewuerfel.com/photogallery.html
The London Borough of Hackney is one of five designated Olympic boroughs forming part of the 2012 Olympic plan. Approximately 25% of the proposed Olympic development site lies within Hackney’s boundaries. My topic for investigation is East Marsh, an area of 15.6 hectares of common land within Hackney Marshes, bordered on two sides by The Old River Lea, currently offering 9 hectares of playable sporting land. It is proposed to build a temporary coach park on East Marsh with a land bridge connecting the Marsh to the main Olympic site. This will involve covering the whole area with a hard surface, resulting in the loss of 11 full size football pitches (home to successful male/female Sunday football leagues), informal recreation areas and the biodiversity of the marsh. How can this happen when the land is protected by law?
I shall try to answer this question by considering ‘How effective is the Commons Registration Act, 1965, in protecting East Marsh from development under the proposed Olympic bid’? In order to answer to my question I attended two ‘Wick 2012 community meetings’ hosted by Hackney Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Team. These meetings were attended by the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) responsible for building the venues and the London Development Agency (LDA) who are responsible for acquiring the land. I walked around the Olympic development site with members of the Hackney Environment Forum. I searched the internet for definitions of the Common Land Registration Act 1965, and subsequent legislation. I interviewed Anne Woollett (Hackney Environment Forum), Johnnie Walker (Hackney and Leyton Sunday Football League), Guy Nicholson (Olympic Lead Councillor, Hackney Council) and Lucy Webster, (Stakeholder Relations, LDA). I collected information to describe a brief history of Hackney Marshes.
Hackney Marshes are former Lammas Lands, which meant that parishioners could graze their cattle on the meadows from August 1st (after the hay harvest), until March 25th (old New Year’s Day). These rights date back to before the Norman Conquest. Around 1890 these Lammas Lands were purchased by the settlement of St. Mary Eton to benefit the local poor children. It was at this time that amateur football began to be played on Hackney Marshes. In 1894 Eton Manor gave the marshes to the Parish of Hackney Marsh to benefit the people of Hackney ‘in perpetuity for recreational use as an open space’ (Andrews, page 3, 02/03/06) After the Second World War, rubble from the blitz was dumped on the Marshes, raising their height, making them less susceptible to flooding.
Hackney Marshes were registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965. The Act defined ‘common land’ as ‘land subject to the rights of common’ (DEFRA, 2003a) ie land owned by someone else (ie. Hackney Council) on which another person can exercise rights, (ie grazing), in common with everybody else. The Act was updated in 2006. The two Acts provide for protection of common lands by preventing encroachment and unauthorised development. Alongside this legislation is Section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. This Act states that compulsory purchase of common land must be ‘subject to special parliamentary procedure’ unless ‘suitable exchange land is to be given for the land taken’ (DEFRA, 2003b)
In the case of East Marsh the land will be taken but no exchange land will be provided. How can this happen when the Marshes are so important to the local community? Hackney is a densely populated area, where open space is at a premium. In 2001 the population of Hackney was estimated to be 207,200 (showing an increase of 13% over the previous 10 years). 25 parks and open spaces are in the borough, however four wards have no open space at all. (Audit Commission, page 3, 2002). The borough is ethnically diverse, and is rated the second most deprived borough in the country.
The LDA has the remit to acquire land necessary to build the Olympic Park through private agreements with landowners and occupiers, and to identify relocation sites for businesses and residents. (LDA, 2006) It values East Marsh instrumentally and objectively. The land is required to host the Olympic Games, it therefore must be acquired to realise the promises made in the bid. Their proposal is to relocate the current football pitches on East Marsh to South Marsh .
The LDA recognise the legal requirement of Section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. It conducted a search for suitable replacement open space for East Marsh, but no sites could be identified offering the size that was equally advantageous to users. However, the Olympic Games Act has disapplied the requirements of Section 19 (Fig 5). The LDA is therefore no longer required to meet the statutory requirements of providing exchange land for common land compulsorily acquired. The LDA has the power of the Government (with its ability to change laws to achieve desired outcomes), and the celebrity of the Olympic Games Committee on their side. Their aims are easily achievable with such powerful resources.
Hackney Council is supporting the Olympic bid. The Games will put Hackney on the map as a place to work, live and invest in (PIPE 2006), and will provide the tangible long term benefits of better transport, employment and sports facilities in a socially deprived area. The Games are therefore valued instrumentally by the council as is East Marsh. The Games aim to be the greenest ever and East Marsh will provide a drop off point for a park and ride scheme, and secure storage for cycles. Private cars will not be allowed near the Olympic Park. The LDA and Football Foundation will invest in Hackney in exchange for the use of East Marsh.
Councillor Guy Nicholson informed me that joint funding from LDA, the Football Foundation and London Borough of Hackney (£2.5 million in total) is being invested in the Marshes, predominantly to be used for outdoor sports and improvements to changing facilities. The re-instatement of East Marsh following the Paralympic Games will be funded from the Olympic budget. He has a commitment from the ODA that the work will be delivered in autumn 2012. The surfacing for East Marsh must be layable, unrollable and removable, and active exploration of such a surface is under way. After the Paralympic Games re-instatement works will be completed first He is absolutely confident East Marsh will be re-instated.
East Marsh is valued non-instrumentally by Hackney Environmental Forum. They believe the biodiversity of the Marsh has a right to exist, and that the Marsh should remain undeveloped as was intended when the land was given to the people of Hackney in 1894 by Eton Manor. They also have instrumental values for the Marsh as an open space for recreational use wherein local people can come into contact with nature.
The construction of the car park will mean the felling of all trees (some native black poplars were planted in 1894) and shrubs, and replacing the grassland with a hard surface. The new surface will lead to increased run off. Instead of water being absorbed by grassland, it will instead be channelled into the river. In times of heavy rainfall this could lead to flash flooding, which is not a problem for the Marshes, but could affect land further along the river.
Anne Woollett of Hackney Environment Forum explained her concerns. ‘How can the Games claim to be green or sustainable when they steal common land, open space and sports pitches for an Olympic car park?’ The land will be taken in 2010, open space will take years to return to current levels of biodiversity after the hard surface is removed. A whole human generation will be without contact with their open space. How many generations of kingfisher will be affected? (Wollett, page 4, 2006)
I also interviewed Johnnie Walker, Chair of Hackney and Leyton Sunday Football League. He values East Marsh instrumentally, as a place where working class men and women can meet and enjoy sport. He told me he has been ‘involved’ for some time in the proposed change in land use for East Marsh. However, he has always been told what will happen, and has no been allowed input himself. The proposed re-siting of the pitches will cause major disruption to the football league. He believes the pitches on East Marsh are perfection, the best not only in London, but in the country.
If there is a heavy downpour one day, the pitches are quite playable the next because of their excellent drainage. The new pitches on South Marsh will be of an inferior quality. The siting of the land bridge means the removal of a memorial bench dedicated to their late secretary placed on his favourite spot. Walker has no confidence that the pitches will be restored after the Games. He knows of no other site in the country that has been concreted over and then restored. He says the Mayor of London promised Hackney Marshes would not be used for Olympic development, but has reneged on his promise. He has had a meeting with the Football Association but feels they have turned their backs on grass roots football in favour of the Olympic Games.
The power resources of Hackney Environment Forum and Hackney and Leyton Sunday League are small compared with those available to the LDA and Hackney Council. They have few financial and human resources (although presumably the league has a fair number of footballers). However, the two groups have allied as their objectives are the same, albeit from different angles. They are using power as a discourse. They write letters regularly to the Hackney Gazette (so much so that the editor offered them a weekly column). The Environment Forum have a website with details of the Olympic development and the effect on East Marsh, and have a mailing list. Leaflets are produced and regular events are held. Walks around the development site are conducted, making visual comparisons of the Marsh now, with computer images of the developed site. Council meetings are attended, and a vocal presence made. This has ensured East Marsh is rarely out of the news and is talked about passionately.
The Olympic Games will come to London in 2012, and East Marsh will become a temporary coach drop off point. The Commons Registration act 1965 has been effective at protecting East Marsh from development/encroachment until now. However, the New Olympic Games act has superseded it. This is hopefully because the Olympic Games are a special circumstance, and it not seen as entitlement for further development of common land.
The issue now is one of trust. Do the public and environment groups trust the ODA to reinstate East Marsh. Funding for the restoration of East Marsh forms part of the Olympic bid. However, recent history has shown that major sporting venues generally exceed their budgets. Will there be money left after the Olympics to reinstate East Marsh? Lucy Webster (Stakeholder Relations, LDA) assured me that the ODA have a commitment to restore East Marsh. She understood that emotions were running high, but asked to be trusted.
In the meantime the Environment Forum and Football League will ensure that East Marsh remains in the news, lobbying for the reinstatement of East Marsh.
Christine Jackson is a student at the Open University.
Click on an image to enlarge:
The enlarged image will open in a new window, click on the X at the top corner of the browser window to close it.
© 2004·06
I wasn’t aware until recently that I was living in a district that is set to be part of the Thames Gateway build-up. In my experience, the Thames is not so much a gateway but more of a dividing line:
Welcome to this issue
Contents of this issue
Editor’s letter
Academic
Debate
Entertainment
Essays
Journalism
Feedback
This page has been archived.
For a general description of these pages and an explanation of how they should work with screenreading equipment please follow this link: Link to general description
For further information on this web site's accessibility features please follow this link: Link to accessibility information
The following message does not apply to screenreader users:
You will still be able to access all the essential content of this web site, but it will not look, or function, exactly as intended.
