1
1
Type of submission: News and Views
2
Title: Leveraging Legacies: Will the Toronto 2015 Pan Am Games really benefit public
3
health?
4
Authors:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
*Marc Mitchell1,2, PhD (c)
Email: marc.mitchell@mail.utoronto.ca
Heather Manson2, MD, FRCPC, MHSc
Ken Allison2, PhD
Jennifer Robertson2, PhD
Peter Donnelly1, PhD
Jack Goodman1, PhD
1University
of Toronto, Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, 55 Harbord
Street, Toronto, ON
2Public
Health Ontario, Health Promotion, Chronic Disease, and Injury Prevention, 480
University Avenue, Suite 300, Toronto, ON
2
25
Abstract
26
Toronto and the surrounding area will host the $1.4 billion Pan/Parapan American
27
Games in 2015 (TO2015). TO2015’s 2009 bid document, Your Moment is Here,
28
outlines the anticipated societal benefits, or legacies, of the Games. In this document,
29
TO2015 organizers describe the potential for the Games to create positive ‘public
30
health’ legacies in particular. Public health legacies are operationally defined as all
31
those elements assuring the conditions for populations to be healthy (e.g., employment
32
opportunities, access to affordable housing, public transit, and recreation opportunities).
33
We argue that unless certain mechanisms are in place, TO2015 is unlikely to produce
34
all the purported public health benefits outlined in its bid document. While some
35
mechanisms may be in place to facilitate positive public health legacies from TO2015
36
(e.g., new transit infrastructure), others are notably absent (e.g., access to affordable
37
housing). In view of persisting global economic instability and government austerity,
38
TO2015 legacies should not be considered as an automatic ‘trickle down’ or by-product
39
– rather, they need to be planned for, organized, and funded in the same way as
40
TO2015. While equal investment may be unrealistic, minimizing Games-time spending
41
and shifting resources for enhanced legacy planning/fulfilment is recommended. The
42
2012 Summer Olympic Games in London offer an opportunity to reflect on TO2015 and
43
whether mechanisms are in place to produce long-lasting public health benefits from the
44
Games.
45
MeSH: Anniversaries and special events, Public health, Sports
46
47
3
48
Introduction
49
The 2012 Summer Olympic Games in London are projected to cost more than $30
50
billion (US) – twice the inflation-adjusted price tag of the notoriously costly 1992
51
Summer Olympic Games in Barcelona.(1,2) As the cost of hosting a mega-sporting
52
event (MSE) has increased, the trend has been for host cities to focus on the potential
53
for these events to leverage broader societal benefits, or ‘legacies’. In particular, the
54
legacy focus of MSEs has shifted to the creation of positive ‘public health’ legacies,
55
reflecting the rising concern over high rates of chronic disease in developed nations.
56
Public health legacies, operationally defined as all those elements assuring the
57
conditions for populations to be healthy (e.g., employment opportunities, access to
58
affordable housing, public transit, recreation opportunities), have emerged as a common
59
legacy pledge in MSE bid documents, despite the lack of supporting evidence. Toronto,
60
host of the $1.441 billion 2015 Pan/Parapan American Games (TO2015), provides a
61
case in point. While a stronger tourism industry, more employment opportunities, and
62
economic growth may positively influence public health over the long term, assessing
63
the impact of MSEs on these factors was beyond the scope of this paper. The data that
64
does exist, however, is contradictory, with no clear evidence of MSEs having a positive
65
or negative impact on tourism, employment, or economic growth (3).
66
67
According to the TO2015 bid book, Your Moment is Here, Games-related investments
68
will contribute to the “creation of affordable housing and community sports facilities,
69
(and) enhanced access to public transit”.(4; p.68) Since these outcomes are important
70
socioeconomic determinants of health,(5) TO2015 organizers contend that the short-
4
71
term mega-investment in the Games will also improve the health of Torontonians and
72
Ontarians over the long-term (e.g., that new sports infrastructure will increase public
73
participation in physical activity). This is not the likely scenario, however. Rather, we
74
argue that unless certain mechanisms are in place, TO2015 is unlikely to produce the
75
purported public health benefits outlined in its bid document.
76
77
Affordable Housing
78
The TO2015 Athletes’ Village may technically “create affordable housing” (4; p.61) in
79
Toronto, with 353 units earmarked for affordable ownership/renting in the West Don
80
Lands area.(6) History suggests, however, that bid-time pledges such as this rarely
81
manifest as intended. For example, half of the 252 units set aside for social housing in
82
Vancouver’s 2010 Winter Olympic Games Athletes’ Village are now being rented out at
83
‘market rate’ to essential service workers, and not to low-income Vancouverites as
84
initially promised.(7)
85
In addition, the meagre number of units earmarked as affordable by MSE organizers
86
usually does not offset the predictable rise in house prices following the event. Indeed,
87
evidence from a systematic review of the socioeconomic impacts of major multi-sport
88
events suggests a trend toward higher house prices in Olympic cities following the
89
MSE.(3) The rising cost of a single-family home in Toronto (a nearly 10% increase was
90
observed in the last year alone),(8) along with the anticipated ‘bump’ in house prices
91
from TO2015, may displace more low-income families in Toronto than will be supported
92
by the units earmarked as ‘affordable’ (in 2006, there were 134, 247 low income families
93
in the City of Toronto (9), while only 353 Pan Am Games housing units have been
5
94
reserved for affordable ownership/renting (6)). A more comprehensive plan to fulfill
95
TO2015’s affordable housing legacy pledge is required.
96
97
Such a plan might include securing funding for additional affordable housing units, the
98
introduction of ‘laneway housing’ legislation (e.g., permitting detached dwellings in the
99
typical garage/laneway area of single-family lots, as was enacted in Vancouver in 2009,
100
but considering recommendations from a 2006 City of Toronto Staff Report),(10,11) and
101
seeking innovative cross-sectoral partnerships. The award-winning partnership between
102
BC Housing, the Vancouver Organizing Committee, and building manufacturer WEQ
103
Britco LP (Britco) offers a model from which to work. The Britco-led partnership
104
reconfigured temporary rooms used during the 2010 Games into permanent social
105
housing units that have been relocated across British Columbia.(12) To provide a more
106
meaningful affordable housing legacy, Infrastructure Ontario could re-evaluate its
107
relationship with developer Dundee Kilmer Developments LP to encourage the
108
reconfiguration and relocation of temporary lodging from TO2015’s Athletes’ Village.
109
110
Sports Facilities
111
TO2015 organizers also claim that new and refurbished sports facilities will “increase
112
physical activity within the general population”.(4; p.210) There is little clear evidence,
113
however, that hosting a MSE consistently increases access to sports facilities or
114
produces a ‘trickle down’ effect - the often-cited phenomena where mass physical
115
activity participation is stimulated by exposure to elite sport.(13) Athlete success and
116
increased visibility during MSEs does not necessarily translate into increased public
6
117
participation in sport – other factors, like adequate facility and program infrastructures,
118
need to be in place to meet MSE-induced surges in interest).(13) According to a
119
systematic review, public access to sports facilities and subsequent use is largely
120
contingent on two factors: 1) facility location (e.g., proximity of facilities to target
121
populations) and 2) thoughtful legacy planning (e.g., ensuring user fees, if any, are not
122
prohibitively costly).(14; p.37)
123
124
A recent announcement by TO2015 CEO Ian Troop indicated that TO2015 competition
125
will be ‘clustered’ almost exclusively in Toronto, and not across southern Ontario as
126
originally planned.(15) The move, it is suggested, will save money. The cost-cutting
127
measure is occurring at the expense of populations living outside Toronto, however,
128
who have limited access to recreation opportunities. Some of the very municipalities
129
that supported the TO2015 bid for a chance at a positive sports facilities legacy are now
130
being cut out of the deal (i.e. 11 municipalities, rather than 16 as first announced, will be
131
involved in hosting TO2015 competitions).(15) Sherwood Forest Park will not be
132
retrofitted to host TO2015 soccer matches as previously described, for instance,
133
disrupting the development of a key infrastructural legacy in Burlington, Ontario. The
134
new, centralized venue cluster design may actually undermine community support
135
outside of Toronto, an important pre-condition for the development of positive MSE
136
legacies.(14) It is recommended that monies saved through further cost-saving
137
measures be re-directed to the fulfillment of bid-time facility legacy pledges.
138
7
139
In terms of long-term legacy planning, TO2015 has established a $70 million Facility
140
Operating Trust Fund to support the ongoing operation and maintenance of TO2015
141
facilities (presumably, from interest gained, as is the case with Vancouver’s $110 million
142
Legacy Endowment Fund).(16) Since the annual contribution from the Legacy
143
Endowment Fund is not sufficient to cover current operating costs of 2010 facilities,(16)
144
additional contributions to TO2015’s Operating Trust are likely needed. The strategic
145
additional investment would help optimize facility use over the long-term (e.g., >5yrs).
146
Additional funding could be leveraged through private sector partnerships, or preferably,
147
through minimizing Games-time spending. Currently, less than 5% of TO2015 capital
148
and operating expenses are dedicated to legacy spending.(4; p.195)
149
150
While clustering competition in Toronto may increase efficiency and curb costs,
151
significant changes to venue plans, on top of recent concerns from Ontario Members of
152
Parliament (MPP) including Conservative MPP Rod Jackson, over “explosive”
153
Organizing Committee salaries,(17) make it hard to believe the Games will be delivered
154
as promised, and on budget. Since final MSE budgets usually surpass initial projections
155
by 300-500%,(1) regular and transparent budget updates, as recently promised by Mr.
156
Troop, will be required (and should be mandated) to maintain the accountability
157
Canadian taxpayers deserve.
158
159
Public Transit
160
TO2015 organizers have also promised “enhanced transportation networks” (4; p.212)
161
to increase social inclusion and economic opportunities. Other jurisdictions have
8
162
successfully leveraged MSEs to improve transportation infrastructure and yield a wide-
163
range of public health benefits (e.g., less automobile use, improved air quality).(3) The
164
‘bullet train’ built for the 1998 Winter Olympic Games in Nagano, for example,
165
significantly reduced travel time and increased transit use compared to before the
166
Games.(1) The accelerated development of transport services and pedestrian
167
improvements in Wales and Cardiff leading up to the 1999 Rugby World Cup, were key
168
infrastructural legacies as well, creating opportunities for active transportation and
169
reducing emissions.(18)
170
171
Accelerating the development of transit projects that are in the ‘pipeline’ is a common
172
path through which MSEs create positive infrastructural legacies. Toronto seems to be
173
well-positioned to capitalize on TO2015 as the development of a number of transit
174
projects have been approved and funded far earlier than expected (e.g., new roadways
175
and extensions in the West Don Lands area).(5) As well, while Toronto’s long-overdue
176
Air Rail Link between Union Station and Pearson International Airport will not directly
177
service TO2015 venues, final approval was likely spurred by the successful TO2015 bid
178
(the Link was approved a few months after the successful bid and is planned to be
179
completed in time for the Game in 2015).(20)
180
181
In the run up to the Games, however, several notable opportunities are being missed.
182
For example, while the Link is expected to eliminate 1.2 million car trips annually, it
183
appears that in a hasty effort to complete it by 2015 (a seemingly arbitrary deadline) the
184
project may fall short of expectations. The Link currently plans to construct two stops
9
185
only between the airport and Union Station. City councillors have called for more stops
186
over the concern that the Link will end up better serving those who fly to Toronto for the
187
day, than the communities through which it will pass.(16) It is recommended that
188
Metrolinx, the Government of Ontario agency responsible for Link construction, consider
189
adding stops to the line (but not necessarily by 2015). As well, to maximize ridership, it
190
is recommended that user fees be kept in line with those of other major cities (e.g., $5-
191
10). Leveraging TO2015 to increase access to public transit, reduce emissions and
192
promote active transportation, is a public health legacy worth vigorously pursuing.
193
194
Conclusion
195
MSEs provide unique opportunities for new policies, partnerships and infrastructure
196
investments that may improve public health. The 2012 Summer Olympic Games in
197
London offer an opportunity to reflect on TO2015 and whether mechanisms are in place
198
to produce purported public health benefits. While some mechanisms are in place to
199
facilitate positive public health legacies, others are notably absent. Namely, a lack of a
200
comprehensive plan linked to TO2015 to counteract rising house prices in Toronto; an
201
Operating Trust that may be too small to support facility use over the long-term; and a
202
rapid transit line that may not benefit the local population, may block the development of
203
the public health legacies outlined in TO2015’s bid document. In view of persisting
204
global economic instability and government austerity, MSE legacies should not be
205
considered as an automatic ‘trickle down’ – rather, they need to be planned for,
206
organized, and funded in the same way as MSEs. After all, legacies are the reason
207
cities choose to bid for these events, right?
10
208
Declaration of competing interests: None.
209
210
Acknowledgements: We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Scott Thomas for contributing to
211
project conception and collaborations as well as Michelle Brownrigg for critically
212
reviewing the paper. We also acknowledge the key informants who offered content
213
expertise throughout the development of this paper.
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
11
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
References
1. Zimbalist A. Is it worth it? Hosting the Olympic Games and other mega sporting
events is an honour many countries aspire to-but why? Finance Dev March 2010;8-11.
2. Zarnowski, F. A Look at Olympic Costs. International Journal of Olympic History, 1(2),
Spring 1993.
3. McCartney G, Thomas S, Thomson H, Scott, J, Hanlon, P, Morrison, DS, et al. The
health and socioeconomic impacts of major multi-sport events: Systematic review
(1978-2008). BMJ 2010;340:2369-2378.
4. Canadian Olympic Committee and City of Toronto. Toronto 2015: Your Moment is
Here, 2009. Available at: www.toronto2015.org (Accessed August 15, 2011).
5. Dahlgren G, Whitehead M. (1991). Policies and strategies to promote social equity in
health. Institute of Future Studies. Available at: http://www.framtidsstudier.se/wpcontent/uploads/2011/01/20080109110739filmZ8UVQv2wQFShMRF6cuT.pdf
(Accessed May 12, 2012).
6. Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration. West Don Lands Waterfront Project
Accelerates Community's Development and Provides New Infrastructure. Available at:
http://www.panam2015.gov.on.ca/en/news/20120522-factsheet.asp (Accessed May 12,
2012).
7. Williams K. Olympic Village Gets First Low-Income Tenants. Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation. Available at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britishcolumbia/story/2010/12/22/bc-olympic-village-tenants.html.
Accessed May 12, 2012.
8. Living in Canada. Canadian House Prices. Available at: http://www.livingincanada.com/house-prices-canada.html. (Accessed May 12, 2012).
9. City of Toronto, Social Development, Finance and Administration Division. (2011).
Profile of low income in the City of Toronto. Available at:
http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/pdf/poverty_profile_2010.pdf. (Accessed
November 16, 2012)
10. City of Vancouver. Laneway Housing. Available at:
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/lanewayhousing/. (Accessed May 12, 2012).
11. Crowther, W. G. (June 20, 2006). City of Toronto Staff Report on the Construction of
Housing in Laneways. Available at:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2006/agendas/committees/wks/wks060705/it007b.pdf.
(Accessed November 16, 2012).
12
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
12. BC Housing. Olympic Housing Legacy. Available at:
http://www.bchousing.org/Initiatives/Creating/OLH (Accessed May 12, 2012).
13. Donnelly P, Nakamura Y, Kidd B, et al. Sport Participation in Canada: Evaluating
Measurements and Testing Determinants of Increased Participation. 2011. Draft report
of findings of SSHRC standard Research Grant No: 410 2006 2405S.
14. Weed M, Coren E, Fiore, JA, Mansfield L, Wellard I, Chatziefstathiou D, et al.
Systematic review of the evidence base for developing a physical activity, sport and
health legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. 2009.
Department of Health.
15. The Canadian Press. Toronto Pan Am plans to cluster sport venues. Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation. Available at:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/05/11/toronto-panam-venues.html
(Accessed May 28, 2012).
16. Kidd B. The legacies of the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games in
Vancouver. Framework of the International Olympic Committee's OSC Postgraduate
Grant Selection Committee. 2011.
17. Talaga T. High salaries for 2015 Pan Am Games staff face scrutiny. The Toronto
Star 2012 April 5. Available at:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1157472--high-salaries-for-2015pan-am-games-staff-face-scrutiny (Accessed May 12, 2012).
18. Chalkley, B., & Essex, S. (1999). Urban development through hosting international
events: A history of the Olympic Games. Planning Perspective, 14, 369-394.
19. Metrolinx. Government of Ontario Agency. http://www.metrolinx.com.
20. Alcoba N. More stops demanded for Air Rail Link. The National Post 2012 April 7.
Available at:
http://www.nationalpost.com/More+stops+demanded+Rail+Link/6423923/story.html
(Accessed May 12, 2012).