what Olympic legacy will remain after the Games?

Will we be ready for the Olympic Games? The Grand Paris Express will not be completed for the Games as the President of the Republic had promised and we have known this since at least 2021 but the equipment necessary for holding the events has been completed or will be completed soon even if certain events, such as those planned in the Seine are currently the subject of controversy.

The biggest doubts and debates concern subjects which vaguely relate to the daily concerns of Ile-de-France residents.

Will we be able to get around – and at what cost – in a city invaded by tourists? Live normally if you live near the Seine? Will the insecurity of petty crime and that of terrorism create hellish and possibly dangerous situations for democracy? And what about the hotel industry (700,000 rooms in Paris), the rise in prices in services and catering, air transport and their carbon footprint, the dubious profits of accommodation rental companies on Airbnb ( 145,000 accommodations rented compared to 65,000 usually, students ordered to give up their rooms?

The subject is much less the preparation than the impact of the event itself: in the short term, on the scale of the duration of the games and the daily experience, but also in the much longer term. Olympic equipment or equipment created during the games, if they do not become sad “white elephants” with which we no longer know what to do with, can last for decades, and the games become the event which establishes or reveals a new cycle like that of the renewal of Barcelona in 1992 after the city recovered from the stagnation imposed on it by the Franco regime.

The logic of inheritance

All this calls for another logic, that of heritage, which increasingly enters into a narrative legitimized, desired, even carried by the Olympic environment as justification for the event.

The notion of Olympic heritage appeared in 1965 during the Melbourne games but its definition evolved over time and remained very open, if not vague. In 2017 a document from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reminds us:

“The Olympic legacy is the result of a vision. It encompasses all the long-term tangible and intangible benefits initiated or accelerated by hosting the Olympic Games/sporting events, for people, cities/territories and the Olympic movement. »

In the recent period, things are becoming clearer with the strong association between sustainable development objectives and heritage, which led the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to break away (in 2014 as part of the “Olympic Agenda 2020 “) with the principle of a single site to recommend “maximum use of existing equipment and temporary and demountable installations”. This is the case in Paris, where 95% of the long-term equipment used for the Games already existed.

Now all applications have two important components, on the environment and heritage, and most often they try to combine the two.

A tool for transforming the peripheral city

Paris and London (2020), partly rediscovering the spirit of Barcelona, ​​went further and made Olympic equipment a tool for transforming the peripheral city (more than the central city), the one which corresponds to Paris at the “first ring” of suburbs and was formerly the “red suburbs”.

Paris does not completely escape the vagueness of the definition of material or intangible heritage and the different actors each have their own, which could lead to conflicts. Despite everything, a sort of consensus is established around the development objective (economic, social, urban and environmental) of the host territories. This mainly concerns Seine Saint-Denis, the poorest department in France with 26.7% of the population below the poverty line. The Arena at Porte de la Chapelle in Paris, built for the occasion, also meets the objective of restructuring and social transformation of its district.

Indeed, for around forty years, the north of the Parisian metropolitan area which was the Paris factory (at least) has been experiencing strong change and a social crisis, consequences of its deindustrialization.

Elected officials, in more or less strong collaboration with the State, have endeavored to develop strategies based in particular on the tertiary sector and on activities that were still new at the end of the 20th century.^e century like the image, with for example a Cinema school inaugurated in 2012 in a building which is now part of the Olympic village.

The political commitment of many elected officials in welcoming Olympic equipment is part of this long-term process to give a new future to a territory which was at risk of decline.

The Saint-Denis-Pleyel station is envisaged as a hub of Parisian transport at least as important as Châtelet-Les-Halles and on June 10 a luxury hotel opens in the Pleyel Tower to which will be added a conference and shows center.

Develop sporting activity

It is a strong centrality of the Parisian conurbation that is being built. But this does not commit the future of the entire department of Seine-Saint-Denis, certain territories of which remain deprived, in particular because they have benefited less from the major projects already carried out and from the distribution of Olympic equipment (certain municipalities do not have none).

Hence more clearly social policies such as action in favor of swimming: noting that a considerable proportion of children in 6^e do not know how to swim (60% or more depending on whether we consider entry into 6^e or outing), communities wanted to develop learning to swim.

[Déjà plus de 120 000 abonnements aux newsletters The Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous aujourd’hui pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux du monde.]

This results in the multiplication of training pools for the games: in Seine-Saint-Denis we have built or renovated 18 pools (including those for competition).

The other Olympic sites, in Île-de-France or elsewhere, follow a more traditional logic of heritage: ensuring that the facilities which have been renovated or enlarged – the Yves-du-Manoir stadium, Roland- Garros, the Marseille marina, etc. – host as many activities as possible and contribute as strongly as possible to sporting development.

What can Ile-de-France residents hope for?

What will the future be? The absence from the meeting of the Grand Paris Express which irrigates landlocked communities and would have helped to bring them into a logic of social development during the games is a bad omen.

But the enthusiasm is real and the hopes are very high, yet there are concerns about the future of the most vulnerable populations.

How to move forward? London has chosen to create a unique structure – the London Legacy Corporation – to manage inheritance. She is responsible for organizing the financing and implementation of urban projects developing from the Stratford Olympic Park in the traditionally poor neighborhoods of East London.

Read more: Grand Paris Metro: what are the challenges on the eve of the Olympics?

In Paris, as things are planned, everything will depend on the interaction between communities and with the State. Will we see a major player like the Greater Paris Metropolis impose itself in this game, the State take matters in hand, a consensus be established or everyone return to the management of affairs as if nothing had happened? pass ?

In any case, as in Barcelona, ​​the games can inaugurate a new cycle for the Paris metropolitan area. The adventure, which is based on the long story, has only just begun.