We need to be brave – and scale back the 2012 Games

Chris Blackhurst
9 Sep 2008

While swimming with my youngest son on Sunday morning I was aware of two girls, no more than eight years old, racing each other.

Every sinew was stretched as they went for it, head to head, over two lengths — “like in the Olympics” one of them said, beaming, when they'd finished.

That is what the Olympics are about. That is how Beijing captured the public imagination — and how London must in four years' time.

London has got the Games and that is fantastic. But alarm bells are ringing. There seem to be too many leaders, too many consultants, too many competing interests, for a clear, settled plan to emerge — one that is within budget and will deliver a stunning, memorable fortnight.

In Beijing, we all admired the Bird's Nest. The stadium was an instant icon. Here, rows continue about our stadium. Having decided to scale it back from 80,000 to 25,000 capacity, once the athletes have gone, there is now talk among Boris Johnson's people of even knocking it down completely and building a new stadium — one where track and field is not at the core and is capable of housing Premiership football.

Daft as that may seem, at least that way we would not be left with an empty athletics stadium that may play host to a minor football team or a rugby side, as is presently envisaged. That will still create a white elephant — albeit not as substantial a beast as an athletics venue for 80,000.

The possible Boris approach sees the site, with its new road and rail links and accompanying village, providing a base for a large stadium — one that could be the home of a local team, West Ham United. For a large part of the year, the area will be heavily used — something that will not occur if track and field, lower-ranked football and less popular rugby are invited in.
But logic suggests that the better, more cost-effective, line would be to design a stadium that can be cut back to 60,000 or 40,000 — or whatever size the football club thinks it can fill — and one where once the last 2012 race is run, athletics can be made to play second fiddle to what is, after all, the dominant national game (in Paris, at the Stade de France, the running track is covered with seats for football and rugby matches) and to negotiate a hard but fair price with West Ham. How can it not be too late to change, to avoid the drastic “two for one” Boris option?

Also causing worry is the athletes' village. Intended to generate housing for 4,200, it's been scaled back to 3,000 (still at a projected cost that baffles the property industry of £1 billion, or £300,000 per apartment). However, Lend Lease, the developer, has failed to come up with the private-sector funding. There is a growing case for the whole complex to be turned over to affordable housing for public-service workers — and guarantee a lasting legacy.

Controversy, too, surrounds the media centre. Attempts to find a possible permanent tenant, in the shape of one of our broadcasting companies, have come to nought. Stop searching for them and make the entire facility temporary.

The equestrian events should be moved from the unsuitable Greenwich Park to Windsor, Hickstead or Badminton. Likewise, the shooting should be switched away from Woolwich, which the competitors themselves don't rate. And building a temporary structure for the early rounds of the basketball ,with the finals moving to the Dome, seems crazy — hold all the basketball in the Dome.
None of this is rocket science. It would be bold but it would alleviate concerns over the final budget. Neither is it too late to switch tack — the Chinese had no compunction about altering their plans and moving sports to different locations from those originally trailed.

In Beijing, of course, the totalitarian regime could behave as it pleased. In London we could also do with a bit of Chinese-style authoritarianism where 2012 is concerned. It's impossible to say for sure who is in charge of our Games. There's a government minister, Tessa Jowell, but she has been demoted from the rank of Secretary of State. There's the Mayor: first Ken, and now Boris. And there's Lord Coe, who chairs the London organising committee.

While they all have the same goal — the staging of a spectacular in four years' time — individual sub-agendas are at work. Jowell's interest is national political and in particular, Labour.

When he was Mayor, Ken saw the Olympics as affording a passport to social regeneration of a swathe of the East End. His successor is more concerned, rightly, about the cost of holding the Games. Meanwhile, Coe is the keenest advocate of their sporting legacy (he wants the stadium to be used for track and field after 2012).

If we're not careful, the ingredients exist — and these are just the three heads at the top, beneath them are a host of different organisations — for a disastrous mishmash.

Our recent experience of events where differing interests hold sway and committees rule the roost is not a happy one. The Dome was a brilliant structure — still is, now it's the O2 — but inside, the content of the Millennium exhibition was dreadful. Likewise, on Millennium night itself, while Sydney and Paris had their superbly choreographed fireworks displays, our “River of Fire” was a monumental flop.

That's what provokes nervousness — a feeling that was not relieved by the eight minutes London was given during the Beijing closing ceremony in which to impress. The sight of a lollipop lady, a double-decker bus, a veteran rock star and the winner of a recent TV talent contest, when put alongside the Chinese, looked decidedly lame. The eight-minute show appeared more like a hastily put together end-of-term school revue than an eye-popping, compelling sales pitch to the world.
Of course, it can be argued that this will be the charm of London, that unlike China, ours is a nation of free spirits. It's true, there was a certain toe-warming amateurism to it. The very real danger is that this same claim will be allowed to excuse failings in other areas.
That must not occur. There is less than four years to go: we must be brave and act now. We need an Olympic site where the big components — the stadium, the village — are built with conviction. We should be realistic about what can and cannot be achieved in terms of legacy and cut our cloth accordingly. If that means revising the vision as laid out to the International Olympic Committee then so be it. For our children's sake, they cannot fail.