Tensions and contradictions in London’s inclusive housing legacy

Abstract

The success of London’s bid is often explained in terms of its uniqueness in promising to deliver a lasting and inclusive legacy to a deprived part of East London. This paper focuses on two dimensions of housing legacy, displacement and legacy housing and argues that there is nothing particularly unique about London’s strategy in this regard and questions whether mega events such as the Olympic Games are the best vehicle for securing long-term housing benefits for deprived populations. The paper explores the changing trajectory of London’s housing legacy plans from 2005 to 2012 arguing that original plans overstated the potential housing legacy using this as a trump card to displace existing populations and win support for the bid. Over time there has been a weakening commitment to the provision of affordable housing legacy and social transformation for existing communities. The shifting political, economic and policy terrain accounts in part for this however, it is argued that housing legacy plans (beyond the Athletes Village) were essentially without foundation and based on the likelihood that private developers would develop schemes and affordable housing would be extracted through planning gain. However, planning gain has become increasingly inadequate in this regard and this paper raises more general questions about the inadequacy of existing tools in realising value from large-scale regeneration projects.