Brisbane 2032 Legacy : Brisbane needs to look beyond its facilities for its Legacy

Link to full report here

This REDO and PRD research outlines how investment in the games could be better focused where it can achieve more impact and move the city forward in ways beyond sport and perception.

Games of the past, which have a strong economic and social vision for their legacy, have focused on the areas that need it the most, building early strategies for legacy which persist way beyond the 10-year period around a games. London is the obvious example. Its legacy objective from the very start was to support uplift in East London, bringing the area up to the London average. Its strategy for economic and social ‘convergence’ began in 2008 and essentially lasted for 15 years.  

In 2032 all the sporting facilities and investment will be concentrated within the wealthier areas of Brisbane. If Brisbane wants to deliver an economic and social legacy it can’t rely on its facilities to reach those who need it most. Whichever stadium option goes ahead, questions will remain over the value of investing large sums for short term sporting events where there isn’t an obvious vision for legacy. To respond appropriately Brisbane should think beyond its facilities and consider an alternative and less capital-intensive approach.

Consultants REDO and PRD, who have been advising the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) on legacy for many years, have written a report that identifies five lessons from London which could be applied in Brisbane. These include changing tack on climate change, how to gain a better understanding of what would make a good legacy for those who would benefit from it most, and a new approach that Brisbane could take to urban development.  

It should be noted that, whilst London achieved convergence on many indicators (employment growth, business, investment, housing), many areas surrounding the Olympic Park are as poor or poorer in relative terms, and the benefits from what was built during the Olympics have not trickled down to all. By having strong institutions (most notably LLDC and the Growth Borough Partnership), London has been able to respond to this and plan for a second 10-year phase of economic and social legacy. 

As part of this second phase partners have been working to rectify this imbalance by shifting away from the top-down development focused legacy of the past.  The LLDC, working with University College London (UCL), who have recently moved to the area, and PRD, have developed a new inclusive economy strategy which is more directly focussed on the needs of those excluded communities near the park.  It focussed on the idea of a Secure Livelihood, a foundation for a life well lived, enabled by facilities and institutions which have grown up in the area following the games.

Ideas from London such as local climate change targets, a ‘good growth hub’ for local people, creative enterprise zones, community ownership of spaces, re-use of buildings and affordable spaces for innovation could all be spread across the Greater Brisbane and South East Queensland areas that need it the most. Brisbane 2032 would be the catalyst for their implementation.

Arguably, hosting the Olympic Games is not the conduit for inward investment and city profile it was often perceived to be (ask Athens and Montreal), but it can create a moment in time and focussed investment which can move a city forward in ways which go way beyond sport and perception. Hosting the games creates the space to think about a much more locally focused, regenerative approach to working and collaborating which is enabled by the focus of hosting. London has shown that this is a more impactful and less risky approach than some of the cities who have tried and failed to lever benefit from the games. 

Brisbane has the potential to redefine the experience of hosting, using the games as an opportunity to have a much broader discussion about the city, its neighbourhoods and its future. As we saw in London, good evidence and relationships are critical for this, as well as the provision of affordable and flexible spaces for people to think differently and experiment. London has adapted to its context, worked through a recession and now a period of stagnation which is driving huge inequality in East London. Because the games happened, East London has the partnerships, facilities and knowledge to respond to this better than if 2012 has been awarded to another city.

Starting early, means more momentum and planning in the long term (like London) and a consistency and credibility in legacy, which is more deliberate than the more laissez faire approaches of Sydney, Athens, Atlanta and others. London 2012 was a benchmark for the city, with an impact that is still tangible and evolving to this day; indeed, by the time London reflects on its new strategy for inclusive economy and legacy, the Brisbane’s games will have been and gone. Brisbane can and should seek to better London, creating the new standard for a good Olympic Games – it can be greener, fairer and more equitable than London and you never know, if it focuses and gets it right, the perception and investment may just look after itself? It is the Olympics after all!