Tonight:
4°c
£230 million 'is not enough' to convert venues after Games
Matthew Beard, Sports News Correspondent22 Jan 2009
A £230million fund for the conversion of Olympic Park venues after the Games is insufficient, it has been claimed.
Officials from the London Development Agency, which is responsible for the transformation of the Park after 2012, are to request extra cash from Olympics minister Tessa Jowell.
They are particularly concerned about a funding shortfall for converting the main stadium and the aquatics centre.
Legacy conversion after the Olympics applies to bridges, roads and landscapes as well as sports venues.
Within the overall £9.3billion budget, planners have allocated £350million for this purpose, with £230million needed for the Park in Stratford. This is in addition to the maximum £10million per year pledged by former mayor Ken Livingstone towards maintenance of the venues. The LDA will now request extra funds from the Government, possibly from the £2billion contingency fund.
Next month Ms Jowell will give her quarterly update in the Olympic budget. Although it will track the cost of individual projects, it will cast no light on the legacy transformation.
A source said: "We have arrived at the view that the current budget is inadequate and we need to have a discussion with the Government about where additional resources can be found, whether it's inside the Olympic budget or outside it."
The LDA's plan to improve the wider area, to include 11,000 new homes, schools and health centres, will be published in the summer. Next month a report on the legacy proposals by consultants Capita Symonds and KSS will be presented to the Regeneration Steering Group.
Reader views (11)
Better not to spend too much. And to fill up the pits after the people have left. Nobody will want to go that far east. It is rough there. What a waste though right?
- Peteo, Islington, London, 26/01/2009 21:32
Report abuse
I think people should look at the sports provision in London at the moment - Especially Roz. THERE ARE NONE! since the anti competitive lot took charge in the 70's there has been no investement in any sport except football (one of the big ones being Ken Livingstone...) Actually, the Olympics should, if anyine has any sense should be a good project in recession. We have a lot of unemployed builders about at the moment - this should be a great opportunity to ge them into work, or is it easier just to employ from overseas?
London needs the facilities that only an olympics can bring to make up for over 50 years of non investment. But, some of the decisions are nonsensical -why wreck greenwich park when there is a great facility in place in Windsor, along with an Iconic british image with the castle. Why put a temporary venue into Woolwich when Bisley needs updating and will offer a real legacy for british shooting.
Lets do this right and this project can be a real boon in the recession - but lets use british firms and workers to do it, not just pull others in from outside.
- John Whitby, Peterborough, Cambs, 24/01/2009 10:55
Report abuse
Maybe they could raise a few quid by getting James Bond to jetski past it, like they did the Dome? Having seen how much money was flushed down the pan at the Dome perhaps, too, it would be cheaper just to cut the losses and let these Olympic Buildings revert to the nature sancturary that was there before they were built . . . Perhaps it could be a monument or theme-park to the folly and waste of the last decade.
Or they could scrap the plan and use perfectly good venues that already exist: or does that line too few pockets?
- Roz, Chamonix, France, 23/01/2009 11:00
Report abuse
Should thid not have all been planned out before going in to bid for these Olympics...of which most of the "sports" very few people care about and the ones we are good at cost too much money for the average person to compete in?
- Mark, Watford, 22/01/2009 14:58
Report abuse
I was in Athens just two years after their games and had the abandoned sporting venues pointed out to me, already covered in grafitti and weeds. They could not afford to run the venues after the games, let alone convert them. (And that after they saved money by using ancient arenas wherever possible). No doubt we will do no better.
I agree with Nobby - we should build for the long term use in mind, not just the Olympics.
- Deborah, London, 22/01/2009 14:54
Report abuse
Yet more evidence that the ODA has in reality cynically pulled a flanker by securing funding only to build hard sporting venues fit only for 2 weeks of games sports and pay oral lip service to "legacy" by including the word frequently in their press releases, but never substantiating what they mean. The ODA's cynicism is well matched by the LDA's incompetence and naivete in only publicly coming to the table now declaring a funding problem for the yet to be defined (to the taxpayer and funder) Olympic legacy.
- Mike, london, 22/01/2009 14:41
Report abuse
Should we not economise a little on this extravaganza?? We can just write a LIMITED cheque to the Stratfort council surely and they can than spend as they see fit. It will be cheaper than open-ended budgets...
- Steveo, London, 22/01/2009 12:49
Report abuse
What a bottomless pit. Useless.
- Georgie, Islington, London, 22/01/2009 12:40
Report abuse
Convert them into what? They are supposed to be built as sporting venues. They should be built for the purpose for which they are intended from Day 1, and we should not be saddled with further costs in September 2012.
Why does our government get away with wasting our money on such a monumental scale?
- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland, 22/01/2009 12:25
Report abuse
Design them differently then! The games only last for a few weeks!
- Ken Joralemon, London, UK, 22/01/2009 11:58
Report abuse
It was clear - even before Brown/Darling brought this once great country to the brink of bankruptcy - that London could not afford to host the 2012 games.
- R.F.York, Yorks, UK, 22/01/2009 11:22
Report abuse
