HIGHLY-controversial plans to hold the Olympic horse events in Greenwich Park are opposed by almost 70 per cent of local residents, the first full-scale survey has found. The survey, by the London Assembly, is a serious blow to the Olympic organisers, who have always claimed – without any apparent evidence – that the horseriding event is popular.
John Fahy, Greenwich Council’s cabinet member for culture and the Olympics, said at a public meeting in March: “The Olympics in the Park have universal support.” Lord Coe, the chair of Locog, described opponents of the use of the Park as “minority voices.”
But nobody has actually known what local people think – until now. And it turns out that, in a less-than surprise development, both Greenwich Council and London 2012 have been talking out of their bottoms.
Almost 12,000 survey forms were posted or emailed to most households in the three Greenwich Council wards around the Park. 1,267 were returned – a very high response given that the respondents had to pay their own postage, and a bigger sample than in most professionally-conducted opinion polls.
Three neutrally-worded questions were asked:
1. Are you in favour of the equestrian event being held in Greenwich Park during the 2012 Olympics?
No – 68% Yes – 31% Don’t know – 1%
2. Have you received any communication from the Mayor or Locog about the possible impacts of the proposed venue within Greenwich Park?
No – 90% Yes- 10%
3. Have you been invited to or attended any public meetings regarding the equestrian competition to be held in Greenwich Park?
No – 78% Yes – 22%
Many respondents made heartfelt comments. “Our park is a rare haven of peace…I am horrified that such a short-term, temporary, status-ridden excitement can threaten the calm and spiritual nature of such a well-needed refuge for Londoners,” wrote one.
“I am fully in support of the Olympics generally, but… the changes required to Greenwich Park…seem disproportionate to the benefit of holding the event in the Park,” said another.
“There is clearly very strong feeling about this,” said Gareth Bacon, the Tory assembly member who co-ordinated the survey. “What it tells me is that Locog have not really attempted to connect at all with the people of Greenwich.”
Lord Coe will be questioned on the survey results by Assembly members today on a day which also sees the opening of London 2012’s temporary “consultation” exhibition in a vacant town centre shop (on College Approach, between Rhodes Bakery and the Admiral Hardy.)
However, the London Assembly survey provides a rather more thorough form of consultation than anything the exhibition could achieve.
The results underline, once again, the futility of Locog’s attempts to “engage” the public through what we can now safely say are unrepresentative pro-Games groups like the Greenwich Society, which yet again finds itself on the wrong end of public opinion.
As Bacon says: “In the eyes of local residents, the public consultation on the equestrian event has been woeful. Locog must understand that holding big public events or giving presentations to local societies is no substitute for trying to build a direct picture of the concerns of the majority of residents.” In an attack on the Greenwich Society, he says: “Chairs of conservation societies don’t necessarily represent the views of the wider populace.”
To be fair, however, Locog has now started direct communication with the public. More detailed plans have been published on its new Greenwich Park microsite and many households, mine included, last week received a duplicated letter from Lord Coe outlining the opportunity to “have your say” on the plans. More on that next week.
This sort of communication, according to Locog’s spokeswoman, Jacqui Brock-Doyle, is how public opinion can be turned round. “I’m not surprised by the survey result,” she said. “What we’ve been finding in our own surveys, which are being carried out at the moment, is a huge amount of misinformation – that trees will be cut down, the park closed for a year, and so on. When we sit down and talk to people, we will get a significant change in what they think.”
I disagree with Brock-Doyle: I think that most people are reacting not to the scare stories but to what the event really involves (a cumulative ten-month closure of most of the lower Park, total closure for at least a month, tree pruning, the risk of serious damage, great disruption to the neighbourhood, no legacy or other benefits whatever for Greenwich.)
It could also, of course, be argued that those who sent back their survey forms are not necessarily representative. Those who are angry with the plans would perhaps take more trouble to respond.
But what it does clearly show is what I have always believed, that active, motivated enthusiasm for the Games in the Park locally is very close to nil. Even those who do want them don’t really want them with much passion.
Whatever you think of the survey, it makes the worst possible backdrop for Locog’s planning application, expected within the month. They’d hoped that the opposition was going away. But it isn’t.
darryl853 says
Come on, Andrew, this is crap. This makes Greenwich Time look balanced.
Almost 12,000 survey forms were posted or emailed to most households in the three Greenwich Council wards around the Park. 1,267 were returned – a very high response given that the respondents had to pay their own postage
Seriously – an 11% return rate?
This is worse than an online survey – the participants are self-selecting.
It surely suggests that 89% of people don’t care either way.
Jim says
Plus what short memories people have? Never been invited to a public meeting – what about the one at the O2.
I was a NOGOE supporter until I attended that event and heard the facts from LOCOG. Many others also changed their mind that night as anyone who attended will have seen/heard.
But I believe one Andrew Gilligan didnt attend despite the importance he places on these events. Is that right Andrew?
Political Animal says
Hmm – I think anyone trying to pass this survey off as a serious piece of quantitative research would be laughed out of court.
– It is a self-selecting sample.
– There were financial and time barriers to participation.
– It misses out many areas bordering the Park.
– Whilst the questions are neutral, the survey’s ‘setting’ was not: it came on a letterhead with Mr Bacon’s name and party affiliation on it. I somehow doubt I’m the only person in Greenwich who puts communications from the Tory Party straight in the recycling bin and would be reluctant to provide them with data.
The results may be accurate or they may not (I suspect the latter). However, we can be certain no one would provide any funding for this as an academic proposal.
Andrew Gilligan says
A hearty welcome to all my old friends (or is it, as before, just the one friend? I never realised so many people stay up to read me at this late hour!) who so reliably pop up in the comments whenever I criticise the council.
I fear their problem is not that this survey is worthless – it is by far the best available evidence to date for what the people of Greenwich think, and an 11% return rate is actually very high. Their problem is that the survey’s results do not accord with their own rather dogmatic views of what the people of Greenwich *should* think.
I really can’t take lectures on sourcing or reporting from Darryl 853, a man who writes in his response to this column that “outright opposition to the Games in and around Greenwich itself is at around 30-35%” – a figure sourced solely, as far as I can see, from the inside of his own head.
Of course this survey doesn’t mean as much as a professional opinion poll. As I did say, those who are angry might take more trouble to respond. But , as I also said, it demonstrates a considerable level of anger and a far smaller level of enthusiasm.
Interestingly, although my council friends may dispute that the findings give an accurate picture of public opinion, Locog do not.
Fat Cat says
At the end of the day why should LOCOG care what local residents think? The Olymipics are mainly paid for by national tax payers who are well used to subsidising the capital. If they want to have horses in the park then so be it. The Park is a Royal Park so presumably belongs to the nation.
Having the Olmpic events in the park is clearly bonkers but then so is London hosting the Olympics. I am already looking forward to my increased tax bills.
Michael Goldman says
And don’t forget the 13,000 plus signatures to the NOGOE protest against the Games in the Park. LOCOG have yet to provide any evidence to support their claim that the majority of Greenwich residents support the Games.
Political Animal says
Is Andrew Gilligan accusing Darryl of being pro-Council? The mind boggles.
Not that I see where the Council comes into this. This is about elevating a non-scientific survey conducted by a politician to the status of a scientific opinion poll, and suggesting both here and in a national newspaper that this should be the basis of policy decisions. I wouldn’t be giving much away if I said that all parties run surveys like Gareth Bacon’s on a range of issues. Not so they can trumpet the results (would a party that announced something like ‘99% of the population agree with our policy on x’ have any credibility?) but so they can work out which voters to further target with campaigning material on a specific subject. Which is probably another reason why so few people returned the form – they don’t want to spend the rest of their lives receiving anti-Olympics material from Bacon. I may be impuning Bacon’s motives here, but it is what people expect.
Sure, I have political positions – but more important to me is that policies should be constructed on actual evidence. Or on the false premise that consultation has to mean self-selection.
darryl853 says
“I really can’t take lectures on sourcing or reporting from Darryl 853, a man who writes in his response to this column that “outright opposition to the Games in and around Greenwich itself is at around 30-35%” – a figure sourced solely, as far as I can see, from the inside of his own head.”
Guess what – there’s a clue in the full sentence I wrote. “I suspect that outright opposition to the Games in and around Greenwich itself is at around 30-35%. I would’t dare promote my own guesswork – informed, I hope, but still guesswork – as fact. But you’re promoting a dodgy poll as fact. Which is more harmful?
Rachel Mawhood says
Darryl, there is a lot of published research about response rates validity. Anything over 10 per cent is a cause for concern. Also, the opinions of a large number – over 1,200 in this instance – of interested persons are important regardless of the response rate. And, if you read Andrew’s article again, you will see that the sample was not “self-selecting”. The London Assembly selected the sample.
What is more, it is recognised that the validity of the outcome of consulting focus groups – a much-loved tool of NuLabour – is likely to be undermined by the focus group (or Greenwich Society, or other local conservation or amenity group) being dominated by one or a few persuasive individuals who can influence a “majority” opinion. In even a limited survey (and 12,000 is not limited in this sense because this size of sample will, it is known, produce a statistically significant result), the opinions will be more honest and better reflect individual preferences.
darryl853 says
The sample was self-selecting because the respondents selected themselves on the basis of posting something back to a non-freepost address. A door-to-door poll would do better than this – 30 seconds’ bother on the doorstep, and done – and you’d hope Gareth Bacon could borrow some Conservative activists to work on that. It just seems an odd way to do it.
I’m trying to work out how an 11% response rate is better than other polls. The Reader’s Digest Prize Draw, perhaps?
Sven Ellis says
“it is by far the best available evidence to date for what the people of Greenwich think”
Agreed. 88% don’t feel strongly enough to invest in a stamp, a small minority are strongly hostile to the events, and an even smaller minority are enthusiastic. I understand the desire to claim the results show widespread hostility, but it’s not justified by this survey.
AdamB says
I was quite interested to see the full results of this survey. I couldn’t find it on the GLA website, so I phoned up and asked why this was. Turns out it’s not a “London Assembly survey” or a “survey, by the London Assembly” as Andrew has spun it, but a survey conducted solely by Conservative Assembly Member Gareth Bacon.
It’s a voodoo poll. It might turn out to reflect reality, or it might be totally off the mark, but it’s certainly completely unreliable.
tom says
“But what it does clearly show is what I have always believed, that active, motivated enthusiasm for the Games in the Park locally is very close to nil.”
Where is the evidence for this?
AG says a (largely meaningless) survey has great meaning because 68% disapprove of the games in the park and 31% approve. But then he asserts that “active, motivated” supporters of the games are “very close to nil”?
Even if you believe in the survey, 31% is not “very close to nil”.
I’m getting the feeling that the desperate and frenzied anti-olympics fervour has well and truly jumped the shark.
PLJAIKJ says
From a professional market research standpoint there was nothing wrong with this survey method. From my experience of presenting survey results people who don’t like a result always criticise the survey method. Criticise the sampling method as much as you like but the result is overwhelming not marginal. I agree the trouble to complete a survey puts some people off but that is not dependent on whether you are for or against. The NOGOE petition was an opportunity to give a spontaneous opinion and on average 9 out of 10 people contacted outside the Park gates signed it. That is what a sample of Greenwich Park users think, so the results of this new survey among residents comes as no surprise. The pattern is the same and now, hopefully, it will stop Seb Coe saying that the whole community is behind these events, and take them somewhere else where there will be no risk of damaging heritage features.
darryl853 says
Gareth Bacon, the Conservative AM who conducted the poll, questioned Lord Coe at the London Assembly a little while ago. He didn’t actually focus on the “huge majority against” line, and seems well acquainted with the shortcomings of his poll.
Instead, he took the line of looking at how the survey pointed to people feeling that LOCOG hadn’t been consulting with them (which is pretty much a consensus view outside of Greenwich Council) adding that this had allowed “Chinese whispers to build up over the past couple of years”.
I wonder who could have been fuelling those?
Canada Guy says
The Olympics are self destructive. With the threat of global warming we cannot afford such flagrant displays of excess and overconsumption. The best way to avoid 300,000 tons of emissions is for people to simply stay at home.
http://selfdestructivebastards.blogspot.com/2009/10/olympics-are-self-destructive.html
Jan Stewer says
I am really grateful to Gareth Bacon for conducting this survey. No one else did. Jackie Brock -Doyle says the public have been misinformed about trees being felled etc – even if no trees are felled it is not worth the risk of damage to such a small, rare, historic Park, the lung and the heart of a densely populated area of South East london. LOCOG’s notion of “Consultation” to date has been a couple of badly publicised booths – one on car free day in the town centre,another weekend in The Park, the ‘Invite only’ meeting at Indigo which was largely orchestrated by Greenwich Council and a meeting called by the local amenity societies when LOCOG thought it good enough to show their PR video and inadequately answer any detailed questions – even in response to a map of the cross country course which blatantly ran through about 30 trees they responded that it was the way it had been drawn (obviously their PR budget doesn’t run to accurate drawing)
Visitors to the new LOCOG shop should ask pertinent questions about the number of construction lorry journeys across The Park;the size and height of the construction lorries, cranes etc; security fencing type and placement; security for residents; floodlighting; the nuisance of 24/7 building works to achieve the arena and other constructions on time as LOCOG are promising shorter Park closure times; irrigation and aeration of the Cross-Country course and how they think this will “Improve” the grassland; how the 40 jumps will be installed in trenches and where; the size and siting of the electricity substation; drainage; the conduits; flies, smell and noise; which trees are going to be “Pruned as part of normal Park management” and to what height; how the boating pond will be excavated and turned into an Olympic standard water jump; the nuisance of helicopters; the possiblity of loss of mobile phone communications for residents around The Park;They should ask to see the budget details and legally binding agreement to ‘repair’ any damage.They should also ask to see all the bat , tree, archaeological and wildlife survey reports. Many LOCOG promises have been broken in Stratford in order to deliver a World Class Games on time – if not to budget. Visitors should also ask why they think it fair that a private limited company such as LOCOG should be handed a treasured public Park over the wishes of the majority of Park users and residents.
tom says
“From a professional market research standpoint there was nothing wrong with this survey method.”
Other than any professional would know you are likely to get OPPONENTS responding much more strongly than supporters, because the opponents have much more to gain from responding.
And the petition … asking people (locals, tourists, whoever) on a sunny day if they want to SAVE the park, then who other than a madman would not sign it?
Of all the desperate arguments I’ve seen, the page-long defence of the park’s alleged bats is probably my favourite. But they keep on coming.
James says
Jan Stewer, you mentioned that only Bacon had done any sort of survey, but then spoke about the shop LOCOG have opened – what do you think the shop’s for?
Andrew Gilligan says
Just to reiterate: this was not presented as an opinon poll, but as “the first full-scale survey.” Which it is. If Locog, John Fahy or anyone else wants to argue that the Olympics in Greenwich are popular, it is up to them to produce evidence – so far I’ve seen none.
Still waiting to see where you got your 35% figure from, Darryl… Send me a postcard when you find out!
Sacha says
It was informed guess work Andrew, bit like the survey your grabbing hold of here.
PS, when you changing your byline to this? “Andrew Gilligan, the champion of the White over 50’s upper middle class of SE10”
tom says
I see the Telegraph version of this story has a sub-head that reads:
“Controversial plans to hold the 2012 Olympic horse events in Greenwich Park are in jeopardy after more than two-thirds of local residents said they were against the idea.”
In jeopardy because of a silly survey? Really?
Is there any evidence for this claim? Or is it an assertion? English grammar students please reply.
Steve says
Wake up Greenwich… this is the greatest thing to come to this part of town. I am a Greenwich resident (living close to the park) and have spoken to a lot of neighbours and NOT one is opposed to the Equestrian event coming to the Park! The amount of nonsense I have heard from LOCOG ranting outside the park every weekend about ALL the trees that are coming down etc is ridiculous… not to mention the fact they’re getting German tourists to sign up! If I only heard the nonsense they were saying and thought it true, I wouldn’t want it either!
With the Sammy Ofer Wing now under way, the new school of Architecture, the pier and the Cutty Sark all to be ready for the big event, it will and should be a proud moment for all whom live here…
Come on, this will be a memorable moment for Greenwich… a catalyst for this area to be one truly deserving of a World Heritage site status!
Steve says
Wake up Greenwich… this is the greatest thing to come to this part of town. I am a Greenwich resident (living close to the park) and have spoken to a lot of neighbours and NOT one is opposed to the Equestrian event coming to the Park! The amount of nonsense I have heard from NOCOG ranting outside the park every weekend about ALL the trees that are coming down etc is ridiculous… not to mention the fact they’re getting German tourists to sign up! If I only heard the nonsense they were saying and thought it true, I wouldn’t want it either!
With the Sammy Ofer Wing now under way, the new school of Architecture, the pier and the Cutty Sark all to be ready for the big event, it will and should be a proud moment for all whom live here…
Come on, this will be a memorable moment for Greenwich… a catalyst for this area to be one truly deserving of a World Heritage site status!
Dermot Glynn says
I spent some time asking people entering the park to support the NOGOE protest. The information I gave about LOCOG’s plans – which parts of the park would be closed, for how long, whether trees would be cut down, etc. – was all exactly as LOCOG had stated.
The great majority of people to whom I spoke and who were at all interested (e.g. excluding people in a huge hurry, or who spoke no English) were strongly against LOCOG’s proposals, and wanted to sign the protest. Many also asked what more they could do to help bring LOCOG to its senses.
There is an article in today’s Times reporting that the British Olympic Association (BOA) is not expecting to be able to “afford a full team at the first Olympics on home soil for more than half a century unless officials raise another £4 million, it emerged last night….” If LOCOG were to shift the equestrian events to another site, where equestrian facilities are already in place and where improvements could be left as a legact, it would save far more than that, and could hand over the money to pay for a full team.
(The taxpayer is underwriting any losses made by LOCOG, and any surplus would go partly to UK sport).
Moving the equestrian events out of Greenwich Park would also provide a far better equestrian event, which more people could watch, as well as avoiding the risk of damage to the park and the certainty of excluding people from being able to use it .
darryl853 says
If that’s so, Dermot, what are your observations on Gareth Bacon telling the London Assembly that there’d been “Chinese whispers” about the effects of the Games in Greenwich Park?
Andrew Gilligan says
“Champion of the white over-50s upper middle class”??
Now I know you’re losing the argument.
James says
Wouldn’t the Nimbys of Windsor mount a similar campaign against their park being taken from them if the games were to be moved?
Fat Cat says
“Wouldn’t the Nimbys of Windsor mount a similar campaign against their park being taken from them if the games were to be moved?”
Nimbys probably would be definition, but most residents dont seem to mind the Cartier Polo or other horesy based events held in Windsor Great Park as it is about 100 times larger than Greenwich Park.
“With the Sammy Ofer Wing now under way, the new school of Architecture, the pier and the Cutty Sark all to be ready for the big event, it will and should be a proud moment for all whom live here…”
Seriously would anyone employ an architect from the Uni of Greenwich. What will the entry requirements be? An E grade in A Level breathing?
Andrew Gilligan says
No, because they already have a ready-made equestrian arena in their park and have done for years. That is the true madness of all this. If you want an “iconic” backdrop, how about Windsor Castle?
steve says
No, because it isn’t London… this a London Olympics. How many South East Londoners from Lewisham/Deptford/Woolwich etc (whom have probably never had any exposure to an equestrian event like this) be tootling up to Windsor… ?
Not many me thinks…
Citizen says
How many residents will make the effort to go Greenwich park to see the show jumping Steve? I bet not very many. The rowing is incidently taking place in an exisiting purpose built arena (pond whatever) In Windsor as is the canoeing. The London games will also be having football in Manchester, Newcastle, Cardiff, Glasgow and Birmingham and the sailing will be on the South Coast.
steve says
I will, my wife, as our neighbours I know whom live around us… I will be first in line for tickets when the Council approves the plans… (hopefully!)
Andrew Gilligan says
Steve,
You won’t get in mate – and nor will anyone from “Lewisham/ Deptford/ Woolwich.” There won’t be room for even most of the existing followers of the sport, let alone locals. Badminton gets 100,000 in a single day – Greenwich Park can only accommodate 23,000.
Citizen says
Good for you Steve, I wont and neither will anyone I know. Maybe our friends are self sampling. Football, or field hockey at the Valley – now that would have been a better idea for me. I guess Floyd Road doesn’t have the iconic back drop mind.
Pete says
Make that 75,000
Pete says
Mugs!
Indigo says
The capacity of the stadium is meant to be 23,000. Incidentally, in the original bid, the “stadium” bit was north of the Queen’s House but they can’t put it there because of the railway and archaeological remains. So the stadium is to go south of the Queen’s House where they were planning to put the warm up area and a training area.
So now the planners realise that the map of the Park that accompanied the original bid to the IOC was drawn to the wrong scale – making the Park appear nearly twice as large as it is – the cross-country route dominates every part of the Park, and it is hard to see where 75,000 spectators are to be fitted in – there are rules about how far away spectators have to be kept from the thundering hooves.
Unofficially, as Tim Hadaway has been saying privately for the past year, the Greenwich Park cross country spectator numbers will have to be capped at about 30,000 people. That tells you that the Park is too small. Unless some tickets are ear-marked for Greenwich residents, they will all be sold easily and quickly to the usual international crowd who follow competitive equestrian events.
croomshill says
steve – you’ve been reading too much Greenwich Time. Out of the School of Architecture, Cutty Sark, pier and Sammy Ofer wing, I’d count ourselves very lucky if two are ready by 2012.
Tony says
I am very disappointed about the negative comments concerning this planned event. I live in central Greenwich and the thought of the equestrian event taking place in the park makes me very proud.
We should be embracing this event rather than being critical. I feel the committee have been honest by confirming parts of the park will be inaccessible for a few months. So what? This will be a great event in a great location and the concept of bringing sport to the capital rather than the ‘established’ locations such as Windsor or Badminton is to be lauded, not lamented.
Greenwich is on the move with lots of good things happening: I am proud to live here.
YES says
the park has survived us (the tourists and locals) all many times over and the back drop is fantastic – WE SHOULD share it with the world and lift the areas profile.
its very simple… let Greenwich PROGRESS. It wont happen without the right incentive and that incentive might very well be the equestrian.
Nothing comes for free – and a few months of no park is a small price for what it might bring to the area in other ways.
I SAY YES to the Equestrian, and if I had the chance would pull even more events into the area.
PG
Andrew Gilligan says
I do think that, with respect, the last two comments show the difficulty the pro-Games forces have.
What I have been struck by all along is the complete lack of serious and specific arguments for bringing the Olympics to the Park. Supporters, like the commenters above, always find themselves falling back on vague and empty phrases about it being a “great event” which will “put Greenwich on the map,” ensure that it “progresses” and is “on the move.” But it would, of course, be a much greater event somewhere else, where they could actually fit in a proper course and all those who wanted to watch.
There are, by contrast, a large number of serious and specific arguments against the Games in Greenwich: the lengthy closure of much of the park; the economic and amenity damage this will cause; the traffic; the risk to a unique and precious place. None of which has yet been satisfactorily addressed.
Steve says
I agree with Tony and Yes… ANYTHING that can improve Greenwich and change it from being a weekend Blackpool by the sea and into a seriously beautiful place, then I’m all for it! I think TOO many people in Greenwich never want it to change, slowly letting it become more decreped and more more tired…
We should be putting all our efforts into getting rid of the terrible greasy spoons and chinese takeaways and have some decent food establishments and shops for us all! NOT to mention all the drunks that walk past my house every weekend, regularly trying to get over the gates into the Park or trying to smash the lights! But two examples…
Seriously, can anyone really imagine Greenwich council turning down having the Olympics in the Park… I mean really??? Bring on the games, the new pier, the new wing to the museum, the new school of architecture, the Cutty Sark (and hopefully) the Cutty Sark gardens… these games WILLl really be a great catalyst!!!!! (we can already see the results…).
croomshill says
I think Andrew’s latest comment is spot on – and steve’s non-reply (just a repetition of his non-sequiturs) proves the point further. What have the pier, the school of architecture and the weekend drunks got to do with the games? how do you expect the games to improve the quality of nightlife in greenwich that you care about, both in the run-up and especially once they’re over?
I’ve lived through two big events in other cities and it’s the same – people support them in the vague hope that it will improve everyday life for residents, but they don’t. These events have a completely different set of priorities.
The only real argument I’d accept in favour the games is for the sake of the event itself, if you think it’s something so amazing and you’d love to have it on your doorstep. But please don’t try to tie it up to permanent improvements for residents. If you want those, campaign for them directly.
Blissett says
Right I’ve held off replying to this thread for fear of boring everyone with a lengthy reply but I think it’s time to weigh in.
I found Andrew’s last post interest and ironic because exactly the same case could be made by those in favour of the Olympics at those who are against. I think the anti camp have failed to make a compelling, coherent and concise argument against the event and that the arguments in favour have not been satisfactorily addressed. I think now is time to expand this argument here as noone on the pro side has the benefit of a substantial column in which to counter Andrew’s arguments.
The case in favour
– It is the LONDON Olympics and therefore wherever possible the events should be held in London. This is not just some spurious branding argument but has practical implications. It should feel like one big event , both for fans and competitors and the closer the events are held, the less travelling for all concerned.
– The Olympics should be about bringing new sports to a wider audience. Shipping equestrianism off to Badminton would ensure that noone outside of the usual horsey scene would get in the slightest bit involved. It’s easy to mock the idea of getting inner city kids interested in horse riding (where on earth will they keep a horse in Deptford?) but there’s a reason why city farms, outward bounds centres and the like are hugely popular with kids and are regularly run by charities looking to wider their horizons. I went to see an American Football match as a kid, when everyone in my town though it wasn’t “proper football” but seeing it up close started an interest in me that lasts to this day.
– Greenwich will provide a stunning backdrop for the event and will represent London fantastically to millions of television viewers around the world. The Olympics is special and iconic. It should leave behind an image of an event and a city that people will remember for years to come. A field in Gloucestershire, though no doubt picturesque, just doesn’t quite cut it.
– The modern pentathlon required the equestrianism to be held in essentially the same place as shooting, swimming, fencing and running. I don’t think Badminton is really an appropriate venue for those.
– Because we can. Why hold football matches at Wembley and not some out of town retail park with convenient transport links? Why is a marathon allowed to shut down half of London? Why are other parks allowed to be closed off for music events? Why is a boat race held on the Thames? A carnival in Notting Hill? Some things transcend narrow self interest. They are the things that make life worth living and they are worth making sacrifices for. I like living in a City that is defined by it’s grand gestures and iconic events. There is a romanticism associated with the Olympic Games that is far from rational but is still hugely important. We in Greenwich should be grateful for being able to be so involved not moaning about what a lot of bother it will be.
The arguments against (and why I don’t think they cut it)
– The closure of the park to local resident. I really don’t think that a few weeks is that big a deal for the vast majority of people. I’ve no doubt that there are signficant number of people who use the park on a regular basis for whom it will be an inconvenience. But it has to be kept in perspective. Parts of the park will remain open at all times. There is a very big open space right next door. But most of all, this is the only time in your lifetime that you will have to make this sacrifice. A few weeks in a single year might seem a lot but a few weeks once every 70? By my reckoning, the London marathon has closed half of Greenwich for a total ofabout 3 weeks so far but there’s not too much of an outcry about that.
– The potential impact on local businesses. In the recent NOGOE videos, the focus seemed to be on local businesses such as butchers that rely on local day to day trade. I guess it’s possible that there will be some impact on these businesses but I can’t imagine it being that great and will only last for a couple of weeks. But there will be a vast number of other types of businesses – pubs, restaurants, taxi firms, hotels etc. that will surely see a significant benefit. Are these not as important?
– The impact on traffic in the area. This will likely be significant. However, if you commute by car or just generally drive on the streets of London, you always do so in the knowledge that the traffic can be horrendous. Most of the time the worst problems appear unexpectedly but people deal with it. In this case, people will have plenty of warning and will be able to manage their plans accordingly. If they don’t, then more fool them. And again, the worst of it will only last a couple of weeks. We’ve put up with pretty horrific roadworks for much longer than that.
– The risk of fatalities from ground collapses or damage to archaeological sites. I’m not going to pretend to know enough about these to be able to comment in detail. However, I’m pretty sure if there was a serious risk of people falling into holes in the park, the organisers would probably want to avoid that happening in front of billions of TV viewers around the world and something should probably have been done about it before now. As for the archaeology, I’m going to guess that the amount of punishment the ground will take will not be so far in advance of a busy summer that it’s a significant risk but as I know nothing, I’ll wait until a serious, qualified person voices major concerns before I worry too much.
– The risk of damage to the environment. I found the point that LOCOG made about the cross country being 50 odd horses going around the course one at a time, and not being like the Grand National pretty compelling. Grass is pretty hard wearing and the park takes a lot of punishment through general wear and tear but always comes back just fine. The question of damaging the trees is very important and the fact that none will be cut down is essential. If this was not the case my opinion would be different. As for pruning, as long as it is not too drastic, I don’t really see the problem. Trees get pruned and change through weather and other effects all the time. It is vital that NOGOE keep a close eye on thos work to make sure it’s done properly. But as long as the assurances are in place, I believe NOGOE should concentrate on monitoring not obstructing.
– The park is not suitable and the course will not be good enough for spectators and competitors. I must say, I find this argument particularly amusing. I like the idea that NOGOE are genuinely concerned about how the course rides for the competitors. At the end of the day, if the organisers are happy it will work, that is good enough for me. They are the experts, not anyone here, and it is in their best interest for it to be done properly.
– The lack of any legacy for the local area. Why should there be? Personally, I see the hosting of the Games as reward enough. We shouldn’t have to be bought off. Would anyone care to put a price on their inconvenience? Exactly how much would it take to make NOGOE “disappear”? If anyone would change their mind if a big enough project was undertaken to provide a legacy, then theirs is not a principled stance. But if no price is high enough, then the lack of a legacy is not a valid argument.
That’ll do for now. There’s more to be said but I don’t want to waffle too long.
steve says
Spot on Blisset! Couldn’t have said it better myself… as you say to have the games in our own backyard is so impressive and exciting its not funny! This will truly be talked about for a long time to come…
Croomshill, it goes without saying it’s amazing to have the games on our doorstep… even if that was the only legacy, then that’s legacy enough!
For goodness sake, we live in a World Heritage area, we have Hollywood movies regularly made down the road in the naval college and now we’re getting the (once in a lifetime) Olympics on our doorstep!!!!
Come on, it doesn’t get any better than that… nuff said!
YES says
Blissett – THANK YOU for taking the time to write your very well written and very much supported email.
You give me hope that not everyone in Greenwich is blind to how FANTASTIC it is that the ‘Olympics’ will be at our door step. (Although I know more supporters than not)
GO! THE OLYMPICS IN GREENWICH
maybe I start my own petition 🙂
PG
Fat Cat says
“The lack of any legacy for the local area. Why should there be?” How many BILLIONS of OUR money is this costing?? Persoanlly I want something tangible in return (aside from a bigger tax bill) than a glorified 2 week sports day for minority sports?
Andrew Gilligan says
“Having the Games on our doorstep” is not a “legacy enough” in itself. It’s not a legacy at all. The meaning of the word legacy is something which comes after the Games and as a direct consequence of it.
Phrases like “it doesn’t get any better than that” are PR language which signal
the essential emptiness of the proposition.