The Olympics as an Urban Experience: Host City Dwellers and the Games
Host Cities and the Debate About Urban Priorities
Analyses of the Olympics from the perspective of the host city seem to be divided into two camps. On the one side, there are those who almost unquestionably accept the Olympics as an urban good to be pursued as though its benefits were self-evident and its costs non-controversial. Such persons are often called “urban boosters” because they minimize costs and negative consequences and over-state benefits and gains. On the other hand, there are those who reject the idea of the Olympics as an urban priority in deference to other projects which would benefit the city much more and in a different way. Central to this position is a critique of the Olympics as elitist sport and the International Olympic Committee as essentially a private organization amassing huge pools of capital with little public accountability. Between these two extremes, and at least partially because of the debate between these two positions, there has emerged a very clear attempt to demonstrate how the Olympics can be a public benefit even beyond the actual Games themselves. Nowhere is this clearer than in the attempt to harness the Olympics for objectives related to the host city. Rather than focusing only on Olympic requirements, cities are now more clearly aware that the Olympics provides an opportunity to take initiatives that might benefit the city over the long-term and make the host city a better place.
Urban Perceptions of the Olympics
As an urban sociologist, the question that I ask is “ How do host city residents perceive the Olympics?” “What visual images of the Olympics do they have as it relates to their own city?” “How does what they hear and learn about the Olympics affect their evaluation and expectations about hosting the Olympics?” At the risk of being too sweeping, allow me to sketch the evolution of host city resident’s perceptions of the Olympics. Six different perceptions will be outlined.
Perhaps the earliest perception of the Olympics was that it was only an athletic event in which the city was important because it was the site of the Games. The Olympics meant elitist athletes, athletic excellence, and above all, facilities to accommodate both the athletes and eventually also spectators. The preparation of Olympic competition sites from stadiums to athletes villages were essentially what the Olympics meant to the host city. This was the origin of the idea that host cities were only containers or platform sites for the Olympics.
The second way that host city residents came to understand the Olympics was as an expression of international relations. Competitors were not just individuals or teams but represented nations. In that sense, the Olympics supported nationalistic feelings and national pride not only for the competitors but also for the host city who began to view hosting the Olympics not only as a representation of national interests and national pride but as a showcase opportunity for the host city as a major player in international affairs. This is the origin of the idea that in hosting the Olympics, the host city is making a political and economic statement about its role on the global stage.
The third theme in urban resident’s perceptions of the Olympics was that it
is a mediated experience. Television meant that it was no longer necessary to be physically present which meant that not only would host city residents have greater access to the Olympics, but the audience would now reach around the world. This made the Olympics more of a spectacle and emphasized the role of pageantry and the Olympics as entertainment. The entertainment role of television has helped to change the role of the host city in that images and experiences people have in the host city are carried throughout the world. Host city issues and controversies become global news (eg. the transportation debacle in Atlanta, or the last minute preparations in Athens), and in a real sense, the eyes of the world are on the host city in a manner previously unimaginable. Thus the city is no longer just the backdrop for Olympic dramas but is an active player in the total Olympic experience.
Closely related to this third point is the fourth theme in which the Olympics is viewed by cities as a marketing device. As the Olympics became more closely allied with the capitalist sports industry and with corporate sponsorships, in many ways the ideals of the Olympics were high-jacked in support of economic objectives- not only by business outside the Olympics but also by athletes themselves. The Los Angeles Olympics (1984) made this point clear when it demonstrated that host cities could even make a profit from hosting the Olympics. This is the origin of the idea that host cities needed to seek all kinds of ways to market themselves and seek economic benefits from this action. The Olympics were not only to be a cost but also a revenue generator through corporate sponsorships or public-private partnerships to create economic benefits for the host city. This was also the beginning of the idea that the Olympics could be very useful in promoting tourism and its economic benefits. The Olympics provided a unique opportunity to market the city as a place for investment and as a place for consumer spending in which business became a partner. Therefore, the economic benefits accruing to the business sector as a result of the Olympics was itself viewed as an urban good.
The fifth perception of the Olympics that emerged for urban dwellers was somehow that hosting the Olympics was a controversial activity, and at least something to be cautious about if not even something to be shunned. There were internal problems within the IOC and problems of corruption, doping, and drug use which in some ways tainted the Olympics as a social good. But from an urban point of view, perhaps the biggest controversies revolved around whether a city should even bid for the Olympics because it represented a misplaced priority, and deflected energy and expense away from issues of more strategic importance for the city . This is what has produced the descriptive imagery of the Olympics as a “circus” (an entertainment event) in which more basic needs of urban residents (ie.“bread”), especially the poor, is neglected (see Toronto’s “Bread Not Circuses Coalition”). Virtually every OCOG has discovered that hosting the Olympics has put them in the public eye in which urban residents are expecting some degree of accountability in how the Olympics is managed and how it is related to other urban priorities.
It is this sense of controversy that has provoked the sixth theme in which the Olympics has increasingly come to be viewed primarily as an urban issue. From the host cities’ perspective, this is almost the reversal of the first point in which the Games themselves are the focus and the city is just the container. Here the Olympics is the justification or the occasion, and the relevance of the Games for broader urban objectives is the real text. There are five issues here that have to be addressed.
The Olympics as an Urban Issue
The first issue is the fiscal issue. Ever since the Mayor of Montreal (1976) declared that it was as impossible for the Olympics to have a deficit as it was for a man to have a baby, and instead Montreal incurred a huge debt, there has been repeated attention to the issue of long-term debt created by the Olympics. The imagery appearing in the literature which reflects this is that of the Olympics being a huge party which leaves urban residents with a “hangover” of economic troubles from which it cannot be easily extricated.
The second issue is that of urban design and urban planning in which cities have directly asked how the Olympics can be used to improve the city. Since the Olympics almost always provides a rationale for the inflow of public funds from national governments, means are always sought to marshal such funds to improve the city in some way. The example of Barcelona (1992) that used the Olympics as an opportunity for the urban renewal of a deteriorating waterfront area provides a significant illustration of how the Olympics can further the process of urban rehabilitation. Another typical example are improvements to urban transportation systems. (Capetown)
A third issue is that of fostering the attainment of urban social goals. Cape Town’s unsuccessful 2004 bid represents an interesting example of this because organizers wanted to use the Olympics to help transform the apartheid city which separated wealthy whites from poor blacks. In a somewhat different way, the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City was used by American athletes themselves to engage in social protest that emerged from the urban civil rights movement.
A fourth urban issue is that of post-event use of Olympic facilities and long-term impact of the Olympics on urban morphology. Any Organizing Committee that does not address issues of how athlete’s villages and competition sites are to be used after the Games is now considered to be seriously irresponsible. Another related matter is how Olympic-related infrastructural transformations alters the use of urban space.
The fifth urban issue that is gaining in importance is how urban residents can be incorporated into Olympics. In some ways this matter is addressed by the schools program of the Olympics or by the cultural program which is a standard part of the Olympics. But in other ways, these activities only touch a small segment of the urban population. What I am suggesting here is participation at the grass-roots that truly enhances urban life.
I discovered the importance of this factor during the Winter Olympics in 1988 in the Canadian city of Calgary when city residents almost spontaneously transformed the Olympics from an elitist event into an urban festival. People flocked to the downtown streets creating large crowds during the Olympics like they had never done before, not to protest anything but to use the occasion for spontaneous celebration. Pin trading and buskers, street music and vendors, and at night a laser light show created a celebratory spirit not typical of urban life. Hot air balloons, exterior home decoration, and an openness to strangers changed the whole mood of the city. If there was any doubt about how people at the grass-roots took over the event, you might recall that the heroes of the Calgary Olympics were not medal winners but otherwise obscure losers. Coming from a country where snow does not even exist, it was the woeful Bobsled Team from Jamaica that became so popular that a Hollywood movie was even made about them. The other hero of the people during these Olympics was the British ski jumper “Eddie the Eagle” who had no experience with the winter sport and finished last but was made a local folk hero. A song was even composed to honour him with the refrain “He made us see the Olympics for what they really are, that everyone can play the game and everyone’s a star”. Now that is not what the Olympics are all about- that everyone is a star- but it reveals how city residents used the opportunity of the Games to transform city life and to enjoy the atmosphere of the city.
Why the Olympics Tends to Transform Urban Life in the Host City
In fact, as an urbanist, what I am proposing is that the Olympics has the potential of transforming urban life because of three factors:
1. Because of its visibility and international stature, the Olympics can create a special sense of significance that is unparalleled in urban life. In that sense, it unifies people and creates a sense of excitement that is beyond most regularized urban festivals. This feeling begins with the bid process, and the idea of “winning the bid” in a global competitive process, thereby creating a sense of validation or honour among city residents. It is promoted by the media and is sustained through the actual event itself.
2. Because the Olympics requires the mobilization of resources and people such as volunteers, and requires preparation and staging that even changes the way the city looks, the actual event changes the mood and the rhythm of normal urban life. Work and travel patterns are often altered for the Games and the large number of volunteers needed creates involvement that changes the way people normally do things. The Games interrupts normal patterns of urban life thereby lending an aura of specialness to the Olympic experience.
3. Because hosting the Olympics is essentially a matter of hospitality for a city, preparing for guests and welcoming them affects the way people perceive the Olympics. If there was any opposition to the Olympics during the bid process, it tends to melt away as the inevitable is accepted and the idea of presenting a positive and welcoming image to the world is adopted. City dwellers want visitors to have a positive experience in a manner that reflect favorably on the city and its image. Making people feel welcome is intimately related to the sense of collective urban pride.
Assessing the Relationship between Urban Dwellers and the Olympics
There is a tendency among some Olympic analysts to minimize or explain away the role of urban residents in the host Olympic city. Urban dwellers are either viewed as pawns in a larger process of the maneuvering of elites who want to use the Olympics for their own objectives, or urban dwellers are considered to be duped into accepting the Olympics as an extravaganza which ignores the subtexts and hidden objectives of the Olympics as an industry with its own interests of acquisition and power. And yet the evidence is unequivocal in pre-event and post-event surveys which indicate that most urban residents have a high degree of acceptance and satisfaction with hosting the Olympics. In spite of the fact that this mood transformation is short-term and may artificially cover over other problems in the city, there is no reason to be cynical about this kind of role which the Olympics can play for cities. In fact, it may be something that urban dwellers are indeed eager to embrace as a way of humanizing their environment. In this way, the Olympics may make an important contribution to urban living and that can be an unrecognized positive outcome of the Olympics.
Here are five ways that enable the Olympics to become a meaningful populist urban experience:
1. when urban residents are released from normal routines during the Olympics
2. when people in a host city can celebrate with each other in public such as in the central core and local neighborhoods
3. when locals interact with visitors- not just with each other
4. when OCOG’s plan or encourage grass-roots involvement as opposed to token participation
5. when locals can experience the internationality of the Olympics and thereby celebrate global humanity
For many cities, the Olympics often become a defining moment in their urban history. One of the ways in which it can play that role is through being a significant urban experience for all city dwellers, and not just elites and visitors. In that sense, the Olympics can provide a unique opportunity for urban residents to think about themselves, their city, and their world in a new way.
Select Bibliography of Harry H. Hiller
“Toward a Science Of Olympic Outcomes: The Urban Legacy.” Pp. 102-109 in Miquel de Moragas, Christopher Kennett, Nuria Puig (eds.), The Legacy of The Olympic Games 1984-2000 (Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, 2003).
"Mega-Events, Urban Boosterism, and Growth Strategies: An Analysis of the Objectives and Legitimations of the Cape Town 2004 Olympic Bid", International Journal of Urban and Regional Research . 24 (2000): 439-458.
"Towards An Urban Sociology of Mega-Events", Research in Urban Sociology (Research Annual) 5 (2000): 181-205.
"Mega-Events And Urban Social Transformation: Human Development And The 2004 Cape Town Olympic Bid" in T.D. Anderson, Christer Persson, Bengt Sahlberg, Lars-Inge Strom, The Impact of Mega Events (Ostersund, Sweden: Mid-Sweden University European Tourism Research Institute, 1999), p. 109-120.
"Mega-Events and Community Obsolescence: Redevelopment and Rehabilitation in Victoria Park East", Canadian Journal of Urban Research 8 (1999): 47-81 (with Denise Moylan)
"Assessing the Impact of Mega-Events: A Linkage Model", Current Issues in Tourism 1(1998): 45-57.
"And If Cape Town Loses? Mega-Events And the Olympic Candidature" Indicator South Africa 14(1997): 63-67.
"The Urban Transformation of a Landmark Event: The 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics," Urban Affairs Quarterly, 26(1990):118-137.
-