Search

Mega-event strategies and their impact on the development of host cities have drawn increasing interest as they have become part of wider city development strategies. However, many city leaders are challenged by a gigantic and complex task after the events: how to deal with the post-use of large event venues and facilities? How to use the events as a catalyst to facilitate urban development? Mega-event strategies may provide a stimulus for wider urban investments and change. They help to provide host cities an engine for economic growth, facilitating city revitalisation and even urban physical restructuring, enhancing city image, and transforming a city into a globally competitive city. Whereas every host city expects to experience some form of short- and long term impact, the so-called ‘legacy’, it is however difficult for most host city organisers to think beyond the Games in any systematic fashion due to the pressing nature and planning complexities involved. Therefore, although the post-Games period is by far the longest period that stretches for decades after the Games to affect a host city, it is “clearly the least-planned period”. Due to time pressure, poor consideration of the long-term impact may make Olympic venues ‘white elephants’ after the Games have taken place, isolated in their city landscapes. These possible negative impacts raise the following questions: 1) how can a host city improve post-event usage of event-related facilities? 2) What strategy should a host city follow to facilitate post-event development in a more sustainable way? Based on the examination of legacy creation strategy of a number of Olympic host cities, the research aims to identify what urban strategies lead to the improvement of the post-event usage of event-related facilities and long-term benefits for the city development of host city.

Mega-event strategies and their impact on the development of host cities have drawn increasing interest as they have become part of wider city development strategies. However, many city leaders are challenged by a gigantic and complex task after the events: how to deal with the post-use of large event venues and facilities, and how to use the events as a catalyst to facilitate urban development. Mega-event strategies may provide a stimulus for wider urban investments and change. They help to provide host cities an engine for economic growth, facilitating city revitalisation and even urban physical restructuring, enhancing city image, and transforming a city into a globally competitive city. Where every host city expects to experience some form of short and long term impacts, the so-called ‘legacy’, it is, however, difficult for most host city organisers to think beyond the Games in any systematic fashion due to the pressing nature and planning complexities involved. Therefore, although the post-Games period is by far the longest period that stretches for decades after the Games to affect a host city, it is “clearly the least-planned for period”. Due to time pressure, poor consideration of the long-term impact may make Olympic venues ‘white elephants’ after the Games have taken place, isolated in their city landscapes. These possible negative impacts raise the following questions: 1) What strategies can help a host city improve post-event usage of event-related facilities? 2) What strategies should a host city follow to facilitate post-event development in a more sustainable way? Based on the examination of legacy creation strategies of a number of Olympic host cities, with Beijing and London in particular, the research aims to identify what urban strategies lead to the improvement of the post-event usage of event-related facilities and long-term benefits for the city development of host cities.

The last two decades have seen more and more cities joining the competitions for hosting the Olympic Games, resulting in soaring investments, both public and private, in Olympic-related projects. The Olympic Games have become a two-week gigantic event with tremendous costs burdening host cities. Meanwhile, the last three decades have witnessed underused facilities and lack of financial support for maintenance of the Olympic venues after the Games. Based on previous literature, the “white elephant” effect has happened in every Olympic city during the last twenty years. In terms of Beijing, scholars have yet to substantially investigate the post-Games utilization of the Olympic venues in the city. This study made an effort to address this concern. This study investigated Beijing’s post-Games utilization of Olympic venues and examined what cultural, social, economic, political, and historical reasons underscore their current status. To achieve the goal, the researcher interviewed venue managers, municipal officials, scholars and sport administration officials in Beijing. By describing the various conditions of the venues and analyzing the interviews, the study indicated that post-Games utilization of Beijing’s Olympic venues varied significantly. Use of venues differed depending on their ownership, administration system, management and operational mode, sports/event functions, locations, structural scale and complexity, and even their reputation and popularity throughout the city. In general, a brief summary in terms of utilization can be concluded. During three and a half years after the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games: (1) venues built on campuses were well utilized; (2) pre-existing venues were largely well utilized such as the Workers’ Stadium, the NOSC Stadium, the NOSC Gymnasium, the Ying Tung Natatorium, and the Lao Shan Mountain Bike Course; (3) multifunction venues were largely better utilized than those with mono functions such as the Beijing Shooting Range Hall and the Clay Target Field, the Olympic Archery Field, and the Shun Yi Olympic Aquatic Park; (4) medium scale venues were better utilized than the large scale ones such as the Bird’s Nest and the Shun Yi Olympic Aquatic Park; (5) those owned by the governments, especially the five district governments, were underused, which included the Feng Tai Sport Center Softball Field, the Chao Yang Park Beach Volleyball Ground, the Olympic Tennis Court, the Ming Tomb Reservoir Triathlon Course, and the Olympic Hockey Field; and (6), in contrast, those owned by the universities, GASC, and private enterprise, largely showed better utilization conditions than their government-owned (district governments) counterparts. Because of the co-existence of both well-used and underused venues in Beijing, the study contends that the status of Olympic venues in Beijing cannot be simply evaluated as either positive or negative, due to the complicated socio-cultural environments and historical and traditional background. However, some practical experiences in Beijing can be recommended, while certain lessons should be learned for the future.