IOC conference in July 2005. To the surprise of many – including a large number of those intimately involved in the bid – London narrowly prevailed over the favourite, Paris.


A settled scheme The success of the bid was a shock to most parties. Elation quickly turned to the sober realisation of the enormity of the task ahead. Within hours of the win being announced, security issues – hardly unknown to London after years of domestic terrorism – had become a greater concern. In terms of the original vision for the Stratford


City masterplan, the greatest impact of the Olympic bid success was one of acceleration rather than fundamental change. The project had to cope with a new dynamic – certainty of programme rather than market forces were the dominant factor. The other big change was one of ownership.


Westfield had taken control of the project after the break-up of Chelsfield and Stuart Lipton’s departure from Stanhope. It was a difficult process, in which multiple parties – Westfield, Multiplex and the Reuben Brothers – battled to divide the assets of the business they had bought. Westfield was always focused on the retail


areas of the project. In collaboration with London and Continental Railways and the newly formed Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) it immediately launched an OJEU process to identify a new development partner that could undertake development on other parts of the masterplan – in particular, the athletes' village. Such a process was not quick. The ODA


was only legally established in January 2006; before that point, while interim arrangements were being made to begin mobilising the Olympic project, English Partnerships became involved in facilitating and coordinating relationships between projects. Many individuals from English Partnerships – including chief executive, David Higgins – moved into senior positions with ODA in due course. Given the bid's success, there was an urgent need to review all aspects of the masterplan. An increased focus on security after the 2007


bombings on London’s transport system was combined with a desire to compress the footprint of the park and make it more efficient, especially for the movement of vehicles and people. Most of the masterplan's strategies remained


unchanged, including the location of the stadium and aquatics centre, and the fundamental relationship between venues and parkland. The essential diagrammatic structure for moving people and organising security proved robust. Most critically for Westfield, the retail areas did not change – albeit with detailed issues to resolve about the timing of completion and vehicle access. The athletes' village moved fully within the


consented residential areas of the Stratford City masterplan. In planning terms, creating the ODA brought with it town-planning powers – as such, responsibility was taken from the local authorities and placed under a newly constituted planning team, led by Vivienne Ramsey, formerly of the London Borough of Newham.


8, 9


29


8. Celebrations in Trafalgar Square as London narrowly beats Paris in its bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games 7 and 9. The Olympic masterplan proposals


showing Games and overlay mode


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142