THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE: SOCIAL HOUSING, HOMELESSNESS, AND THE 2010 WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES by CAITLIN PENTIFALLO B.A., Middlebury College, 2009 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Kinesiology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) June 2015 © Caitlin Pentifallo, 2015 ii Abstract This dissertation consists of a critical examination of the City of Vancouver’s urban policies during a significant era of urban governance: the lead up to the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. To do so, I will create two embedded case studies: one, featuring the creation of a social housing legacy to be left in the Athletes’ Village in Southeast False Creek, and the other on the enforcement of policies affecting or alleviating homelessness in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. How social housing and homelessness came to be incorporated into the event’s objectives, how the discussions and deliberations around these issues proceeded, and how the 2010 Winter Olympic Games impacted the City of Vancouver’s policy making process in the years leading up to the start of the 2010 Games will all be explored in the chapters to follow. The methodological approach I applied provides insights on how policies, operationalized under the guise of preparing to host a sport mega-event, were able to alter the political and social trajectory of the City of Vancouver. Guided by the overarching theoretical framework offered by critical urban theory, I relied on critical policy studies and critical discourse analysis. By carefully tracing the origins, nature, and intent of these policies as they unfolded in various iterations between 2000 and 2013, it was my ambition to contribute to a broader understanding of how sport mega-events influence urban policies and social outcomes. The 2010 Games, once marketed as a socially inclusive event, instead brought an intense wave of punitive urban measures that functioned to criminalize homelessness. Instead of filling the rooms once occupied by Olympians with those in need of housing, the number of social housing units made available shrunk gradually over time, eventually dwindling to but a handful of units actually constituting social housing. In critically disassembling the policies that bore direct influence on social housing and homelessness, my findings demonstrate the ways in which policy-making processes are altered, abandoned, or exacerbated as the mega-event drew near. iii Preface A version of sections 5.1.1 – 5.2.3 has been published as Pentifallo, C. & VanWynsberge, R. (2015, in press). Mega-Event Impact Assessment and Policy Attribution: Embedded Case Study, Social Housing, and the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events. This work is based on findings that are published as Pentifallo, C. (2014). A case study approach to indicator-based impact assessment: The Olympic Games Impact (OGI) Study and the Vancouver Athletes’ Village in Contextual Perspective. Discussion Paper, IOC Postgraduate Research Grant. Olympic Studies Centre, Lausanne, Switzerland. Retrieved from http://doc.rero.ch/record/209525. In both works I was responsible for document collection, analysis, and findings. A version of sections 7.1 and 7.2 has been published. Pentifallo, C., & VanWynsberghe, R. (2014). ‘Leaving Las Megas’ or Can Sustainability Ever Be Social? Vancouver 2010 in Post-Political Perspective. In J. Grix (Ed.) Leveraging Legacies from Sports Mega-Events: Concepts and Cases, (pp. 73-86). London: Palgrave. I researched, drafted, and edited these portions of the published manuscript. iv Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................... ii Preface .................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... vii List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... viii Glossary of Housing Definitions .......................................................................................... ix Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. xii Dedication ............................................................................................................................. xiii 1 INTRODUCTION: THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE ........................................................ 1 1.1 Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 10 1.2 Theoretical Framework: Critical Urban Theory ......................................................................... 10 1.3 Dissertation Outline .................................................................................................................... 13 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 23 2.1 Defining the Sport Mega-event in Contemporary Scholarship .................................................. 24 2.1.1 The Spectacularization of the Sport Mega-event .............................................................. 27 2.2 The Urban Politics of the Olympic Games ................................................................................. 32 2.2.1 Neoliberal Policy-Making and Sport Mega-Events .......................................................... 40 2.3 The Olympic Games and Urban (re)Development: Regeneration, Renewal, and Reconfiguration .......................................................................................................................... 46 2.3.1 Sport Mega-Events and Urban Development Policy ........................................................ 48 2.3.2 Urban Clearance: Mega-Event Policy and Social Control ................................................ 55 2.4 Sport Mega-Events and the Advent of the Postpolitical ............................................................. 66 3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 71 3.1 On Case Study and Methodology ............................................................................................... 72 3.1.1 Critical Policy Studies ....................................................................................................... 78 3.1.2 Critical Discourse Analysis ............................................................................................... 80 3.2 On Method .................................................................................................................................. 87 3.2.1 Notes from the ‘Field’ ....................................................................................................... 87 3.2.2 Data Collection and Analysis: Process and Policies ......................................................... 90 v 4 THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE ................................................................................. 105 4.1 The City .................................................................................................................................... 105 4.1.1 Site, Space, and Social Intervention: An Empirical Introduction ................................... 105 4.1.2 Vancouver’s Affordable Housing and Mega-Event History ........................................... 109 4.2 The Spectacle ............................................................................................................................ 112 4.2.1 Legacy: The Empty Signifier .......................................................................................... 112 4.2.2 Sustainability: Language Games and Rhetorical Celebration ......................................... 117 5 SOCIAL HOUSING .......................................................................................................... 122 5.1 South East False Creek and the Demise of a Social Housing Legacy: Urban Planning Under Crisis ......................................................................................................................................... 122 5.1.1 Marketing a Promise: Vancouver 2010’s Bid Books ...................................................... 123 5.2 The Demise of a Social Housing Legacy: Policy and Practice ................................................. 127 5.2.1 Negotiating and Negating Social Housing: The Housing Table and Government Relations .......................................................................................................................... 128 5.2.2 Single Room Occupancy: Protecting Affordable Housing as Legacy ............................ 132 5.2.3 Financing Exceptionalism: Miscalculations and Missed Targets ................................... 136 6 HOMELESSNESS ............................................................................................................ 151 6.1 Policy Enforcement, Homelessness, and the Downtown Eastside: Landscapes of Visual Consumption and Social Control .............................................................................................. 151 6.2 Chronic Disorder and Urban Decay: A Critical Review of Vancouver’s Urban Policies ........ 154 7 CONCLUSION: THE 2010 WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES ................................................ 168 7.1 Depoliticizing the Formation of Social Legacies: The Post-Politics of the Spectacle ............. 174 7.2 Summary of Findings: Taking Stock of Vancouver’s Post-Games Housing Legacy ............... 179 7.3 The Right to the Future City: Implications and Future Research ............................................. 184 7.4 Methodological Reflections: Bringing CDA and Critical Policy Studies Together ................. 189 7.4.1 Implications, Limitations, and the Role of Policy in Olympic Planning ........................ 193 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 196 Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 231 Appendix A: Summary of Documents Analyzed ............................................................................ 231 Appendix B: Documents Analyzed ................................................................................................. 233 Appendix C: Codebook ................................................................................................................... 252 Appendix D: By-law Summary ....................................................................................................... 253 Appendix E: Complete By-law Amendments ................................................................................. 255 Southeast False Creek Official Development Plan By-law ...................................................... 255 Demolition for Social Housing By-law .................................................................................... 269 Single Room Accommodation By-law ..................................................................................... 270 Appendix F: Related Housing and Homelessness Policies ............................................................. 277 vi List of Tables Table 1. Policy Sources ....................................................................................................................... 3 Table 2. Sources by Year and Author ................................................................................................ 97 Table 3. Methodology, Research Techniques, and Software in Embedded Case Study Embedded Case Study ..................................................................................................................... 101 Table 4. Capital Expenditures of Olympic-related and Olympic-induced Infrastructure ............... 108 Table 5. Market and Affordable Units ............................................................................................. 145 Table 6. Housing Unit Breakdown, 2005-2011 ............................................................................... 146 vii List of Figures Figure 1. Policy Sources Timeline ...................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Larger Case Study and Embedded Case Studies .................................................................. 9 Figure 3. Sources by Year and Author .............................................................................................. 96 Figure 4. Map of Vancouver ............................................................................................................ 107 Figure 5. Housing Unit Breakdown, 2005-2011 ............................................................................. 147 Figure 6. Increase in Tickets Issued ................................................................................................ 162 viii List of Abbreviations BC British Columbia DTES Downtown Eastside GoC Government of Canada ICICS Inner-City Inclusive Commitment Statement IOC International Olympic Committee IOCC Impact on Communities Coalition MDG Millennium Development Group OCOG Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games OGI Olympic Games Impact Study RFP Request for Proposal SEFC South East False Creek SRO Single Room Occupancy Hotel TRAC Tenants’ Rights Action Coalition VANOC Vancouver Organizing Committee of the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games ix Glossary of Housing Definitions Affordable Housing “means dwelling units designed to be affordable to persons who make up a core need household where such persons pay more than 30% of their combined gross annual income to rent an adequate and suitable rental unit, including utilities, to meet the basic housing needs of the household at an average market rent” (City of Vancouver, 2007c, p. 5). Affordable housing is a catch-all phrase for housing that is accessible to households with low or moderate incomes. It may be rented or owned. If rented, the landlord may be a market or non-market landlord. (Note: The definition of affordable housing varies greatly and may be more specifically defined through government programs or by local governments) (Housing Table, 2007b, p. 28). Core Housing Need “A household is said to be in core housing need if its housing falls below at least one of the adequacy, affordability or suitability, standards and it would have to spend 30% or more of its total before-tax income to pay the median rent of alternative local housing that is acceptable (meets all three housing standards). Adequate housing are reported by their residents as not requiring any major repairs. Affordable dwellings costs less than 30% of total before-tax household income. Suitable housing has enough bedrooms for the size and make-up of resident households, according to National Occupancy Standard (NOS) requirements” (Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2010). Deep Core Housing Need indicates households who spend over 50 per cent of their gross income on housing (Irwin, 2004, p. 10) Homelessess does not have a single definition in the Canadian or British Columbian context. Policymakers rely on its usage as a broad term than captures a continuum of housing conditions (Echenberg & Jensen, 2012). A person is considered homeless in Vancouver if they do not have a place where they could expect to stay for 30 days without paying rent (Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness, 2014). x Market Housing “means dwelling units designed to be affordable to persons who make up a household, and whose combined gross annual incomes fall within the upper third of income distribution for the Greater Vancouver region published by Statistics Canada, in the then current Canada Census at the time of any applicable CD-1 rezoning” (City of Vancouver, 2007c, p. 5) Modest Market Housing “means dwelling units designed to be affordable to persons who make up a household, and whose combined gross annual incomes fall within the middle third of income distribution” (City of Vancouver, 2007c, p. 5). Non-market housing “refers to government assisted hosing which was built through one of a number of government-funded programs.” It is typically managed by the non-profit or co-op housing sectors, and receives government subsidy (Metro Vancouver, 2007, p. 15). “This housing is a form of housing tenure in which the property is owned by an entity which aims to provide housing at a price that does not include a profit. Non-market housing includes social housing, co-operative housing, and forms of housing that do not require ongoing government subsidies, such as student housing… In Vancouver, non-market housing is for those who cannot afford to pay market rents or who have needs that are not being met by the market. It is designed for independent living and is owned by government or a non-profit/co-op society. The rents are controlled by government through an operating agreement, housing agreement, or land lease, and are therefore not determined by the market” (Housing Table, 2007b, p. 28). Social Housing is defined as “housing for low and moderate income singles and families, usually subsidized through a variety of mechanisms, including senior government support. The current model in Vancouver is a self-contained unit, with private bathroom and kitchen, owned or operated by government or a non-profit. The rents vary to allow a mix of residents having different incomes and can range from the value of the shelter component of income assistance to 30% of a tenant’s income including market rents” (City of Vancouver, 2012c, p. 20). This term is used interchangeably with non-market housing in Vancouver, as both are used to imply some forms of government-subsidized housing (City of Vancouver, 2012c). xi “Social housing is a form of housing tenure where there is an ongoing subsidy provided by government to make units affordable to low-income households. It may be directly managed by a government authority, leased / owned by a non-profit housing society” (Housing Table, 2007b, p. 28). xii Acknowledgements This work would not have been possible without my graduate supervisor, Dr. Robert VanWynsberghe. I am indebted to him for hours of conversation, constant exchange of ideas, and insightful feedback that pushed me to develop as an academic. I started at UBC having never been to the campus, only exchanging emails with Rob a mere six months before I moved to Canada. I did not apply to any other graduate programs and can’t imagine being anywhere else. Thank you Rob for opening up a world of opportunity for me and for always pushing me to explore. Thank you to my committee members Drs. Wendy Frisby, David Black, and Christopher Gaffney. You were brave enough to sign on to my project and proved to be crucial sounding boards, advisors, and supporters. Thank you for pushing me to refine my work and delve deeper into the matter at hand. I only hope you had as much fun as I did. Thank you to my friends and colleagues in the Annex, especially my confidante and office mate Nicolien. This entire cohort was invaluable in my time at UBC and I can’t imagine my time in Annex without any of you. Editors, cheerleaders, therapists, friends, the Annex is a hidden gem on UBC’s campus. And of course, my incredible friends and indomitable family– Lise, Mike, Donna, Mac, Kim, Cari, Char, and Joe – your support, encouragement, and unconditional love I can always count on. Above all else, Tina and Justine, to whom everything I do is dedicated. You have given me enough inspiration to last a lifetime. Last but never least, my number one fan PG. Thank you for making everything worthwhile. xiii Dedication To My Mom and Sister: Now and forever, I’ll remember All the promises still unbroken And think about all the words between us That never needed to be spoken INTRODUCTION 1 1 INTRODUCTION: THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE It is not the place of the alienated and discontented to instruct the deprived and dispossessed as to what they should or should not do. But we, who constitute the alienated and discontented, can and must do is to identify the underlying roots of the problems that confront us all. – David Harvey, The Enigma of Capital (2011, p. 242) This dissertation was designed with the intent of examining what happens to housing and homelessness policies when a city is in the throes of hosting one of the world’s most unique, ephemeral, and unequivocal spectacles: the Olympic Games. What makes the Olympic Games so distinct from other events is, I argue, its ability to influence the urban landscape. This dissertation demonstrates some of the myriad ways in which the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games1 – and more exactly, its organizers, rights holders, lobbyists, and supporters – successfully exerted their influence upon the urban landscape, its formation, and its residents. To accomplish this, the research will entangle with the complexities of Vancouver’s pressing and systemic homelessness issue, as well as attempts to build a social housing legacy in the event’s aftermath. The Olympic Games do not purposefully or explicitly contend with the prospect of addressing social issues within the host city’s jurisdiction, yet, attempts to alleviate homelessness and create a social housing legacy became deeply tied to the 2010 event. In this dissertation, I explore two embedded case studies: one, on the creation of a social housing legacy in the Athletes’ Village in Southeast 1 The official name of the event was the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. However, throughout the text I predominantly refer to a shortened version, the ‘2010 Games.’ 2 The SEFC development is the second neighborhood in the world to meet the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) platinum standard (City of Vancouver, 2014). INTRODUCTION 2 False Creek (SEFC), and the other focusing on the enforcement of policies affecting or alleviating homelessness in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (DTES). Affordable housing is a salient and preeminent policy issue in Vancouver, as it is consistently ranked among the most unaffordable cities not only in Canada or North America, but in the world. Second only to Hong Kong in rankings of international unaffordability, the price of a single family detached home in Vancouver recently eclipsed $1 million dollars (Constantineau, 2015; The Canadian Press, 2015). Thus, the case study I assembled on the housing legacy of the 2010 Games is more than a critical introspection into an Olympic host straying from its commitments. The examples of Olympic hosts failing to live up to its promises or legacy expectations abound in the literature; what is often overlooked is how urban policy-making is deeply and irremovably tied to hosting the event. In the course of pursuing two embedded case studies related to the 2010 Games’ housing legacy, I critically disassemble the policies that bore direct influence on the two policy areas of social housing and homelessness. How these policy areas came to be incorporated into the 2010 Games objectives, how such discussions and deliberations around social housing and homelessness proceeded, and how the 2010 Winter Olympic Games impacted the City of Vancouver’s policy making process in the years leading up to the start of the 2010 Games will all be explored in the chapters that follow. While the Olympic Games officially lasted only seventeen days, and the Paralympic Games only ten days, the processes involved in planning and policy creation at all levels of government as well as Vancouver’s bid and organizing committees extended much further. The policies analyzed for this dissertation originate from government sources, such as the City of Vancouver, Province of British Columbia, and the Government of Canada, and I also drew on INTRODUCTION 3 documents created by the bid and organizing committees as well as the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The policies analyzed for this dissertation were created or revised between the years 2000 and 2013. Table 1 and Figure 1 illustrate the number of policies included in my analysis, their sources, and the years they were enacted. Table 1. Policy Sources AUTHOR YEARS NUMBER OF ITEMS City of Vancouver 2002-2013 81 Government of British Columbia 2004-2008 7 Government of Canada 2007-2010 2 Vancouver Whistler 2010 Bid Corporation 2000-2003 72 VANOC 2006-2010 18 IOC 2001-2012 14 Interest Groups 2002-2011 10 Government Stakeholders 2002-2010 18 ! ! TOTAL 222 Figure 1. Policy Sources Timeline 2000! 2001! 2002! 2003! 2004! 2005! 2006! 2007! 2008! 2009! 2010! 2011! 2012! 2013City of VancouverGoBCGoCIOCVANOCBid CorpInterest GroupsGovernment StakeholdersBid Awarded Event HostedINTRODUCTION 4 There are two contextual phenomena that underpin the social policy analysis of this dissertation: the city (Vancouver) and the spectacle (the 2010 Winter Olympic Games). In the life of a city, spectacles are truly unique urban events in that they offer “a horizon of meaning: a specific or indefinite multiplicity of meanings, a shifting hierarchy in which one, now another meaning comes momentarily to the fore” (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 222). Under the pretense of the spectacle of the sport mega-event, differing and sometimes conflicting ‘horizons of meaning’ are continuously revealed. These horizons of meanings, or socio-political realities of the city, are often well hidden and concealed from the purview of the public. Yet, during the lead-up to the event and during the event itself, these realities are subject to their greatest exposure, thanks in part to an influx of global media attention and compounded by heightened public scrutiny. For example, there were images Vancouver sought to project using the 2010 Winter Games as a vehicle (e.g., a safe, clean, booming, global Pacific Rim metropolis committed to sustainability and social liberalisms), and other more damaging issues the 2010 host wanted to conceal, even though they gained critical visibility throughout the event. For example, there was considerable media attention relating to gender equity in regards to the removal of women’s ski jumping from the Olympic programme (Vertinsky, Jette, & Hoffman, 2009) as well as multiple protests surrounding the marginalization and exploitation of indigenous communities and their involvement and representation in the 2010 Games (O’Bonsawin, 2010). Additionally, a controversy surrounding a prominent and highly visible Olympic sponsor and its relationship with Canada’s colonial past represented another prominent issue that gained significant traction and media coverage around the time of the 2010 Games (Fresco, 2012). The sport mega-event made for a compelling subject of research because no other set of circumstances is as expository in terms of uncovering deep-seated meanings about the city, its social and political life, and its objectives. While the research in this dissertation INTRODUCTION 5 cannot contend with all of the ways in which Vancouver’s urban, social, and political life changed for its residents as a result of the event, it can explicitly convey the ways in which policy making and enforcement surrounding homelessness and social housing issues were decidedly altered as a result of the impending 2010 Games. Spectacles, generally, and sport mega-events, in particular, occupy a unique position in the urban life of cities. As Broudehoux (2001) maintains, sport mega-events lie at the intersection of space, power, and social justice, a statement that undoubtedly resonates with Vancouver’s Olympic experience. The intersection of space, power, and social justice as it relates to Vancouver’s social housing legacy takes place across two diverse settings: SEFC and the DTES. Separated by less than two kilometres, the contrast of these two areas is noteworthy and reflective of Vancouver’s urban trajectory as a whole. SEFC, built with the highest possible environmental standards2 and anchored by Vancouver’s quest to become the most sustainable city in the world3, is a gleaming collection of waterfront luxury condo towers that remain the focal point of Vancouver’s fastest-growing and newest neighborhood. On the other hand, the DTES, which is within walking distance of the Athletes’ Village, is Vancouver’s oldest neighborhood and is undeservedly recognized more for the notorious and sensationalized reputation that precedes it rather than for its complex social network, deep community ties, and historical importance. The DTES is considered by critics to be one of the final frontiers of gentrification in an increasingly affluent urban core. 2 The SEFC development is the second neighborhood in the world to meet the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) platinum standard (City of Vancouver, 2014). 3 The city of Vancouver, independent of its Olympic involvement, has aspired to become the greenest city in the world by the year 2020 (City of Vancouver, 2012b). INTRODUCTION 6 The neighborhood is frequently disregarded in media renderings as an outlier within Vancouver’s otherwise gleaming reputation as one of the world’s most livable cities.4 The interaction of Vancouver’s systemic homelessness issue and social housing policy in connection with hosting the 2010 Winter Olympic Games was brought to the forefront during the Games’ preparation. In its earliest days, Vancouver’s plans to host the 2010 Games were oriented around admonitions of lofty idealism: fomenting a social housing legacy for years to follow in the Athletes’ Village, and hosting a sustainable and socially inclusive event. In particular, an unprecedented set of public commitments intending to mitigate publicly vocalized concerns over the event’s potential negative impacts was agreed upon by bid organizers and its government partners. This document, titled the Inner-City Inclusive Commitment Statement (ICICS), sought “participation and equity for all British Columbians, including low and moderate-income people” (Vancouver Bid Corporation, 2002a, p. 1). Signed in 2002, the ICICS sought to emphasize areas relating to accessibility, affordability, and public safety, among others.5 Organized around the idea of adopting an ‘inclusive’ approach to planning for the Olympic Games that would in turn prevent harm, the ICICS and its creators endeavored to “create a strong foundation for sustainable socio-economic development in Vancouver’s inner-city neighbourhoods, particularly in the Downtown Eastside, Downtown South and Mount Pleasant” (Vancouver Bid Corporation, 2002a, p. 1). The overall intent of the document was to “maximize the opportunities and mitigate potential impacts in Vancouver’s inner-city neighbourhoods from hosting the 2010 Winter Games” (Vancouver Bid 4 Vancouver was named by The Economist as the third most livable city in the world in 2014 and the second best world city by Telegraph Travel Awards (The Economist, 2014; William-Ross, 2014). 5 Thirty-seven commitments were listed across fourteen areas: Accessible Games; Affordable Games Events; Affordable Recreation and Community Sport; Business Development; Civil Liberties and Public Safety; Cultural Activities; Employment and Training; Environment; Financial Guarantees; Health and Social Services; Housing; Input to Decision-Making; Neighborliness; Transportation. INTRODUCTION 7 Corporation, 2002a, p. 1). The Vancouver Bid Corporation included housing as one of its fourteen areas of objective and listed the following goals related to it: a) Protect rental housing stock b) Provide as many alternative forms of temporary accommodation for Winter Games visitors and workers c) Ensure people are not made homeless as a result of the Winter Games d) Ensure residents are not involuntarily displaced, evicted or face unreasonable increases in rent due to the Winter Games e) Provide an affordable housing legacy and start planning now (Vancouver Bid Corporation, 2002a, p. 3). However, at present – and with the benefit of four years passing since the conclusion of the event – it has become evident such well-intended objectives were not met and enthusiasm for social legacies waned dramatically as the Games drew near. Crucially, as I demonstrate in the chapters to follow, this promised housing legacy did not come to fruition and instead these commitments were diminished, declared not binding, and reduced to a rhetorical celebration rather than one grounded in reality. Once pronouncing a lengthy list of social benefits ranging from affordable ticketing to the protection of civil liberties, 2010 organizers were quick to recant promises made in the intervening years between the time the bid was won and the start of the 2010 Games. The event that followed, instead of shining as a beacon of social inclusivity, brought an intense wave of punitive urban measures intended to scrub the inner-city of those individuals most damaging to its outwardly-projected image as a clean and affluent global city. Instead of filling the rooms once occupied by Olympians with those in need of affordable housing, the number of social housing units made available shrunk gradually over time, eventually dwindling to but a handful of units actually constitutive of social housing. Once buoyed by its attempts to bequeath a legacy resplendent with social benefits – and therefore deserving of massive public injections of capital from all levels of INTRODUCTION 8 government – the promised housing legacies of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games have instead dissipated. Missteps in urban governance and financial decision-making made the $1 billion Athletes’ Village a drain on taxpayers’ resources, forcing the slashing of social housing units and leaving the Athletes’ Village as a painful reminder of the Olympic ambitions that were. Case studies take place across eminently social and contextualized settings and can have case studies embedded within a larger case (Heartly, 2004). The larger case being studied here – the housing legacy of the 2010 Games – consists of a deeply intertwined set of overlapping processes and policies and outcomes that shaped a very conflictual, yet dialectical, political and social landscape in Vancouver in the lead-up to the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. I assemble two embedded case studies, nested within the larger case of the housing legacy of the 2010 Games, that are highly interrelated: one surrounding the enforcement of policies directed to affect or alleviate homelessness in Vancouver’s DTES, and the other featuring the creation of a social housing legacy to be left in Athletes’ Village located in SEFC. In an embedded case study, attention is paid to more than one subunit, which refers to a different, salient element of the case (Scholz & Tietje, 2002; Yin, 2009, p. 50). Figure 2 demonstrates how these elements of embedded case study design fit into the larger case and context under investigation in this dissertation. INTRODUCTION 9 Figure 2. Larger Case Study and Embedded Case Studies While the empirical evidence outlined in this dissertation points to a seriously diminished social legacy, these findings are not completely novel and certainly not unique to Vancouver. Sport mega-events have repeatedly, and now routinely, failed to live up to the utopian idealism proselytized in their respective bids. However, what has not been traced in research to date is the nature in which urban social issues – such as a rising homeless population and dwindling social or affordable housing supply – were incorporated into urban policy under the guise of meeting such objectives in connection to hosting a sport mega-event. By carefully tracing the origins, nature, and intent of Vancouver’s urban housing and homelessness policies as they existed in various iterations over time, it is my ambition to contribute to a broader understanding of how sport mega-events influence urban policies and social outcomes. INTRODUCTION 10 1.1 Research Questions The following research questions and sub-questions represent the most pertinent strands explored in the empirical chapters to follow: 1. How did social housing and homelessness policies come to be incorporated into the objectives of the 2010 Games? a. How and why were ideas such as ‘social legacy,’ ‘social housing,’ and ‘sustainability’ promoted through hosting the event? 2. How did discussion and deliberation around these policy issues proceed? a. Which actors (at the federal, provincial, or urban levels of government) were responsible for the reification of discourses surrounding social housing and homelessness and in what ways were they successful in delivering upon their stated objectives? 3. How did the 2010 Games impact the City of Vancouver’s social housing and homelessness policy-making process? a. In what ways do the urban processes associated with sport mega-events influence the policy-making processes of host cities? 1.2 Theoretical Framework: Critical Urban Theory Critical urban theory is ideally suited as a theoretical framework for this dissertation. Brenner (2009) explains that critical urban theory “emphasizes the politically and ideologically mediated, socially contested and therefore malleable character of urban space – that is, its continual (re)construction as a site, medium and outcome of historically specific relations of social power” (p. 198). Critical urban theory has “determinate social-theoretical content” that derives from post-enlightenment thought and can be located within the Western Marxian tradition derived from the Frankfurt school (Brenner, 2009, p. 199). Most crucially for application in this dissertation, as Brenner, Madden, and Wachsmuth (2009) explain, there is a definitive need for ambitious and wide-reaching theoretical and practical engagements in the application of critical urban theory. Further, Brenner et al. (2009) maintain that theoretical ambition should not be applied as a INTRODUCTION 11 reductionist, simplifying framework: “the task, rather, is to create concepts and methods that open up new questions and horizons” (p. 227, italics in original text). Gotham (2005) relates critical urban theory to the study of urban spectacles, which he defines as “spectacular public displays, including festivals and mega-events, that involve capitalist markets, sets of social relations, and flows of commodities, capital, technology, cultural forms and people across borders” (p. 225-227). In this application, branding efforts to enhance consumer demand drive the production of urban space (Gotham, 2005). Gotham (2005) implores researchers to analyze spectacles as both conflictual and contradictory, examined “as a set of activities that are situated within and express the conflicts, struggles and contradictions of capitalism” (p. 228). Understanding power, hegemony, and discourse are central motivations underlying the theoretical framework applied over the course of this dissertation. Other scholars have followed a similar path, coming to interpret the spectacle as “a theatric form of technology that camouflages, rationalizes, and legitimates power” (Broudehoux, 2010, p. 52). Sport mega-events are considered spectacles that successfully, and usually effectively, utilize hegemonic ideologies to manipulate the built environment of the city. According to Broudehoux (2010) the spectacle exerts a “new, uniquely specialized form of power” on the contemporary urban landscape (p. 55). Marcuse (2009) claims the ultimate purpose of critical urban theory is to uphold the ‘Right to the City,’ a notion coined by Lefebvre in 1967 in the midst of widespread social and political upheaval (Fernandes, 2007). Since the notion was first conceived, the right to the city has been eagerly taken up as a slogan and political idea, explained by Lefebvre (1967) as “a transformed and renewed right to urban life” and both a rallying cry and a demand (p. 158). As a slogan, it does little to INTRODUCTION 12 challenge the hegemonic liberal and neoliberal logics of the marketplace (Harvey, 2008); yet, it remains an immediately understandable and intuitively compelling mantra (Marcuse, 2009). While, as Purcell (2002) points out, Lefebvre’s (1967) original rendering was a much more radical, problematic, and indeterminate prescription, the notion of the right to the city is considered a widespread and well-recognized formula for pursuing a set of demands related to issues surrounding how the city ought to be governed and those who should benefit. Marcuse (2009) explains that the demand for such a city emanates from those excluded from urban politics, those who are directly oppressed, and inhabitants of the city whose material necessities remain unfulfilled. As for the form that such a city should take, Lefebvre made clear: it is not the right to an existing city that is being demanded, but the right to a future city (Marcuse, 2009). The ‘Right to the City’ is an interesting frame for researching and critiquing policy issues related to sport mega-events as the event bidding and planning processes require a distinct vision for what the future city ought to become. Yet, who decides what that city should look like, who should benefit, and who should be a part of the city are questions no Olympic bid book can answer. Instead, social and political elites who are planning for the future city through the vehicle of the sport mega-event (including through its bid book) create a vision that is suitable for the maintenance of a brand, for the cleansing of urban spaces, and for the construction of an image that privileges capital accumulation above the rights and needs of its residents. This approach to critical urban theory follows the description of Brenner et al. (2009), who describe it as “a spiral movement involving a combination of theoretical reflection, methodological experimentation and concrete research forays” (p. 237). INTRODUCTION 13 1.3 Dissertation Outline This dissertation, in the chapters to follow, explores how hosting a sport mega-event is unlike any other urban process, made even more unique for how little scrutiny the project actually receives despite the large sums invested. As I progress through a brief outline of the chapters that lie ahead, I also note the most important questions that you, the reader, should have answered in progressing through each section. First, in chapter 2, I produce a brief review of literature bearing relevance to this investigation. Its overall intent is to relay the ways in which mega-events have been explored previously and how such findings relate to the concepts, theories, and empirical subject matter put forward in this dissertation. The organization and urban governance of the sport mega-event exist in an extemporaneous set of political conditions, and crucially, pre-conditions such as a willingness to engage in budgetary carte blanche and contractual obligation to finish Games’ preparation no matter the cost. The extraordinary nature of the sport mega-event context has been explored through several theoretical applications, including Agamben’s (2005) concept of the state of exception, the advent of regulatory capitalism (Braithwaite, 2008), and the role of crisis theory and disaster capitalism (Hayes & Horne, 2011; Klein, 2008), making the mega-event marked as much by exceptionalism as it is authoritarianism (Sanchez & Broudehoux, 2013). In chapter 2 I argue what is most extraordinary about the mega-event is that it exists beyond normative spatio-temporal structures of governance, of oversight, of juridical rule, and public consultation that would exist in the context of the ordinary. These exigencies are made all the more Chapter 2: Literature Review • What is a mega-event, and why does it matter? • What are the theoretical insights and interpretations that have been applied to sport mega-events and urban social issues previously? • How have policy issues such as homelessness and housing been analyzed in other sport mega-event hosts? INTRODUCTION 14 potent by the redefinition of the state apparatus under an increasingly globalized world order (Harvey, 2005; Jessop, 2002) and tendencies of neoliberal restructuring strategies that reshape the urban landscape at the behest of capital (Brenner & Theodore, 2002a; Peck, Theodore, & Brenner, 2009). Commercial exploitation, documented corruption and tendencies for cronyism, controversial Olympic sponsors, and careful attention to protection of the Olympic brand represent a few of the multi-faceted interests at the core of hosting the world’s most significant sport mega-event (Milton-Smith, 2002). The demands placed by the disciplining forces of capitalist criteria, the balance to be struck between the needs of urban growth regimes and the requirements of extra-territorial actors (Surborg, VanWynsberghe, & Wyly, 2008), and the neoliberalizing role of enterprising urban governments all feature prominently in terms of rationalizing and understanding the motivations and realities of Olympic host city policy-making. The reconfiguration of urban spaces through the vehicle of Olympic-induced large-scale regeneration projects, their attendant prospects for gentrification and revanchism6, and advent of mechanisms of social control and security have all featured prominently in attempts by scholars to theorize the role of mega-events in contemporary urban governance. In addition to shaping the physical urban landscape, spectacles such as sport mega-events also serve to exploit the constitutive processes involved in reshaping ideological visions of the city. Stated more simply, the Olympic Games are among those handful of globally mediated events in the world that significantly influence on how a host city is outwardly perceived. Policy is significant in this regard as it is the foremost mechanism through which urban governments seek 6 Revanchism is a descriptor used to explain the advent of anti-poverty legislation that takes ‘revenge’ on behalf of social and political elites against the most marginalized urban inhabitants. It is thought to materialize in the absence of formerly liberal policies providing social services (N. Smith, 1996; Slater, 2010). INTRODUCTION 15 to alter outwardly projected images of the city. These theorizations are important for understanding what motivates cities to pursue hosting sport mega-events such as the Olympic Games and are definitively linked to shaping the future city. For example, Vancouver is a relatively small, but crucial Canadian city, that is not yet recognized as a major world city within even the North American context.7 Changing how the city is perceived, gaining international recognition, attracting foreign investment, and spurring job growth are a few of the most frequently cited rationales behind hosting that also likely factored into Vancouver’s pursuit of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games (McCallum, Spencer, & Wyly, 2005; Preuss & Alfs, 2011; A. Smith, 2005). Yet critiques of the spectacle, such as those offered by Benjamin (1999) and Debord (1995), are helpful in exploring the processes beneath those capital-oriented objectives, delving deeper into how sport mega-events not only achieve the aforementioned objectives, but do so through the use and manipulation of symbols, rhetoric, and communicative devices. Vancouver arguably used the 2010 Games to cement its position not only as a city on the rise, but as a significantly advanced, economically important, west coast hub. In essence, the sport mega-event is one such vehicle through which the city is effectively transformed into a “performance centered on commodity display and symbolic consumption” (Broudehoux, 2007, p. 384). Sport mega-event host cities therefore cultivate manufactured landscapes of consumption epitomizing the ultimate commoditized and spectacularized form of urban space (Goss, 2006; Ley & Olds, 1988; Zukin, 1992). Policy-making represents the foremost avenue through which governments and other image-makers seek to reconfigure urban spaces and populations, making the city more attractive 7 For example, in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s ranking of global city competitiveness, Vancouver ranks 18th in the world and 7th in North America behind New York, Washington, Chicago, Boston, Toronto, and San Francisco. Rankings where Vancouver falls short – such as 43rd in terms of global appeal – could be addressed by securing and hosting the world’s foremost sporting event (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2012). INTRODUCTION 16 for the purposes of capital accumulation. Thus, by focusing on policy as the object of my analysis, I am able to engage more deeply with the mechanisms through which these urban desires were realized. The prospect of the modern mega-event as a mega-project incorporates several threads worth exploring. Over-optimistic budgetary forecasts, a lack of realism in planning, and an accompanying sense of delusion combine under a burgeoning politics of mistrust (Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius, & Rothengatter, 2003). Yet, mega-events continue largely unfettered, with an increased appetite for hosting seen even in countries once thought to be improbable hosts for reasons pertaining to a dearth of supporting infrastructure, a lack of participation, or those countries being seen as politically unsavory governing regimes.8 Compounded by a definitive and unforgiving timeline as well as significant media attention as the event approaches, mega-events give rise to an insidious combination of publicly funded and highly visible projects, lofty if not incredible expectations, and an immovable deadline fast approaching as the date of the opening ceremony draws near. These factors all contribute to a unique laboratory for the unrolling of specific policies tied to the mega-event and its objectives. Gaffney (2011) explores the metaphor of the city as a laboratory for new forms of urban governance, with policy representing the foremost method through which city governments conduct such experiments. Finally, I touch on a relatively nascent concept that is seldom applied to understanding sport mega-events: the concept of the post-political. Sport mega-events can exemplify elements of the post- 8 For a few examples, India’s lack of infrastructure required extensive construction for the 2010 Commonwealth Games, Qatar will host the 2022 FIFA World Cup despite never qualifying for the tournament, and Russia hosted the 2014 Winter Olympic Games despite recently enacting openly homophobic policies. INTRODUCTION 17 political condition, wherein the politiciziation of particulars is eschewed in favor of a more consensual politics (Swyngedouw, 2007; Zizek, 1998). Traditional forms of democratic input and solicitation – in the form of responsive elected officials or public referendums – are passed over in favor of programs and policies that generate minimal dissent and limit public participation. Sport mega-events are used to successfully generate forms of dominant consensus, relying on the event to “stifle effective opposition to programmes in the name of a wider, uncontestable political good” (Raco & Tunney, 2010, p. 2087). After reviewing these insights from the literature pertinent to sport mega-events and urban policy issues, I then describe the methodological approach adopted in this dissertation. In Chapter 3, I describe the research methods used, why they were selected, and what the document selection, data collection, and analysis phases entailed. The methodological approach is intended to provide insight on how policies, operationalized under the guise of preparing to host a sport mega-event, altered the political and social trajectory of the City of Vancouver. I used a hybridized methodological approach featuring critical policy studies and critical discourse analysis as a way of disassembling power, discourse, and their ensuing effect on policy-making. Along the way, I discuss the utility of research techniques such as content analysis and emergent coding, adapting components from an array of methods to best suit the materials and subject matter at hand. The larger and broader case being studied here is the housing legacy of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, with two embedded case studies developed around two central policy areas: social housing and homelessness. Embedded case study design permits subunits of data to be synthesized for the purposes of Chapter 3: Methodology • What am I doing, why I am doing it, and how am I going to do it? • What are the methods invoked throughout phases of document selection, data collection, and analysis, and why were they chosen? INTRODUCTION 18 knowledge integration, incorporating multiple units of analysis within the larger case (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). As Howarth (2009) explains, discourse is not merely about linguistic representations and meaning-making; it refers to particular systems of “articulatory practice which constitutes and organizes social relations” (Laclau & Mouffe, 2001, p. 96). In moving between a focus on the structuring of social practice, semiotic difference, and social agents and their manifestations within texts, I assemble an cohesive analysis of relevant housing and homelessness policies (Fairclough, 2013). Paul (2009) elaborates on the utility of such a process and its value, writing that “… we need to identify the discourses that dominate in them, how they come to do so, and which discourses are excluded or marginalized in that process” (p. 243). One way to understand the ‘field of discursivity’ (Laclau & Mouffe, 2001) surrounding policy creation is through the use of Gale’s (2001) interpretation of policy genealogy that permits insight and introspection into policy ‘realizations’ that are invariably molded by the course of their formation (Foucault, 1972). When using policy genealogy, the researcher asks: “(1) how policies change over time, but also seeks to determine (2) how the rationality and consensus of policy production might be problematized, and (3) how temporary alliances are formed and reformed around conflicting interests in the policy production process” (Gale, 2001, pp. 389–390). In chapter 4, I analyze several key topics that are necessary to understand how the interaction of Vancouver’s systemic homelessness issue and attempt at a social housing legacy unfolded. First, I begin by exploring parts of Vancouver’s mega-event history prior to the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, divulging certain details that frame and contextualize the forthcoming embedded case INTRODUCTION 19 studies found in chapters 5 and 6. Next, I review and discuss the evolution of two seminal concepts – legacy and sustainability – that were extremely prevalent in the policy and governing documents produced by the international organizing body of the Olympic Games, the IOC, and the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Winter and Paralympic Games (VANOC). In the course of my research, it became apparent that these two terms carried significant weight in the policy production process. Delving into the details of their creation, the discourse surrounding the usage of the terms, and their evolution in the Olympic Movement will provide a backdrop for the materials presented in the two embedded case studies. I then move into two chapters featuring two different, yet not entirely disparate embedded case studies concerning how the City of Vancouver approached interrelated policy issues pertaining to social housing and homelessness during the lead-up to the 2010 Games. In chapter 5, I trace the development of the social housing legacy promised for the Athletes’ Village. Built on the shores of SEFC, originals plans to establish a ‘mix’ of market and affordable housing9 along with social housing fell 9 Affordable housing means ‘dwelling units designed to be affordable to persons who make up a core need household where such persons pay more than 30% of their combined gross annual income to rent an adequate and suitable rental Chapter 4: The City and the Spectacle • What were the factors that led 2010 Games organizers to incorporate a housing legacy into hosting objectives? • How did concepts such as ‘legacy,’ sustainability, and ‘inclusivity’ become so prominent in the discourse surrounding sport mega-event bidding and organizing? • What institutional pressures (from the IOC, from the organizing committee, bid organizing committee, etc.) were responsible in determining such a formation? Chapter 5: SOCIAL HOUSING South East False Creek and the Demise of a Social Housing Legacy: Urban Planning Under Crisis • How did social housing policies come to be incorporated into the objectives of the 2010 Games? • How did discussion and deliberation around these issues proceed? • How did the 2010 Games impact the City of Vancouver’s policy-making process? INTRODUCTION 20 drastically short of original pledges, as serious budgetary issues and negotiations prevented such a legacy from ever being realized. I draw upon theoretical contributions of scholars contributing to the idea of the state and city of exception to deepen the analysis and understanding of regenerative projects in Olympic host cities (Agamben, 2005; Braathen, 2013). In this chapter I also analyze several policy areas that significantly impacted the creation of social housing in the Athletes’ Village such as government negotiations with a stakeholder entity called the Housing Table and the installation of by-law legislation attempting to protect an unofficial form of affordable housing, Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotels. Lastly, I examine how financial arrangements for the Athletes’ Village development progressed through the analysis of City Vancouver policy documents and memoranda. I demonstrate how different threads of Vancouver’s policy-making process attempted to secure a social housing legacy, but ultimately, how such efforts were eventually stymied by overwhelming and grossly miscalculated financial shortfalls. In chapter 6, which features the embedded case study on the treatment of Vancouver’s predominately homeless population in the lead up to the 2010 Games, I explore the role that the event had on the creation and enforcement of urban policies focused on the DTES. This chapter consists primarily of a critical examination of key urban policies 10 enacted and enforced by the City of Vancouver outlawing ‘aggressive panhandling,’ criminalizing ‘nuisance behaviors,’ and curbing ‘street disorder’ and unit, including utilities, to meet the basic housing needs of the household at an average market rent’ (City of Vancouver, 2007c). 10 See Appendix A: Summary of Sources Consulted for a list of the policies included in both embedded case studies. Chapter 6: Policy Enforcement, Homelessness, and the Downtown East Side: Landscapes of Visual Consumption and Social Control • How did homelessness policies come to be incorporated into the objectives of the 2010 Games? • How did discussion and deliberation around these issues proceed? • How did the 2010 Games impact the City of Vancouver’s policy-making process? INTRODUCTION 21 ‘urban decay.’ In this chapter, I extend several theoretical critiques of the spectacle to the analysis of modern sport mega-event hosts. This section moves towards a broader understanding of the commodification of urban spaces by incorporating several key theoretical contributions on the spectacle such as Benjamin’s (1999) concept of the commodity phantasmagoria and Debord’s (1995) critique of mediated expressions of spectacularization. In this chapter, I show how this set of punitive urban policies, all invoked in the period leading up to the 2010 Games, were explicitly intended as a means of social control, criminalizing homelessness and poverty thereby validating the removal of those identified by the City of Vancouver as ‘public disorder problems’ (City of Vancouver, 2007b, p. 3). By scrubbing the DTES of those individuals deemed to be a detriment to its desired image, Vancouver could be upheld as a clean, safe, and sanitized city for both visitors and investors. In chapter 7, I conclude by taking stock of Vancouver’s Olympic legacy and contributing to discussion on how mega-event objectives are operationalized through policy in this current era of urban governance. Legacy objectives are presented as a common and laudable interest shared by all host city residents. While these notions continue unchallenged, scant attention is paid to how objectives will be realized or how residents will be consulted. This assumption of a shared and unified interest in the pursuit of mega-event legacy objectives is indicative of what Swyngedow (2007, 2009b) and others (Mouffe, 2005; Zizek, 1998, 2008) have described as a postpolitical condition. Sport mega-events are able to generate dominating forms of consensus through many means, such as their global popularity, celebration of universally acclaimed ideals pertaining to sport, and minimally addressed critiques. Event organizers can rely on the generation of mediated consensus to stifle opposition and replace political debate and consultation with hyperbole and INTRODUCTION 22 dissimulation. The loosely iterated and obtusely defined concepts of sustainability, legacy, and inclusivity are all ideas that, on their surface, are not objectionable, and could even be considered to be desirable. Yet, the processes of determining what is being sustained, what will constitute a legacy, and who is being included and how are scarcely considered. Despite many obvious setbacks in achieving the promised legacy of social housing, Vancouver 2010 has been memorialized by its organizers as “sustainable games with lasting legacies” (Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2010c, p. 80). Vancouver’s urban trajectory was forever and permanently changed thanks to hosting the 2010 Games, regardless of whether such promised social benefits were or ever will be realized. While the chapters to follow point towards a substantially diminished legacy in regards to alleviating homelessness or providing much needed social housing, the examination of this sport mega-event provides further insight into what motivates cities to pursue such events, what benefits cities seek to gain, and how urban ambition can be distinctively compromised under malign circumstance. The city, under the pretense of the spectacle of the Olympic Games, offers a unique and incomparable vantage point for understanding how urban policies are developed, formed, and implemented. This critical insight is significant in determining how sport mega-events shape the urban landscape, its formations, and its residents. In untangling the complexities of Vancouver’s pressing homelessness issue as well as the social housing legacy attempted in conjunction with hosting the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, I demonstrate how, and it what ways, the sport mega-event is successful in extorting influence on the formation and development of urban policies. LITERATURE REVIEW 23 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this literature review is to explore the range of empirical and theoretical insights that have contributed to the understanding of sport mega-events and related urban policies. Its overall intent is to relay the ways in which mega-events have been researched and critiqued in the literature and how such findings relate to the concepts, theories, and empirical investigations I put forward over the course of this dissertation. The ideas outlined in this literature review speak to the most pertinent and pressing areas of investigation as they relate to the two embedded case studies on the treatment of homelessness and delivery of a housing legacy in the lead up to the 2010 Games. In aligning with the theoretical framework of critical urban theory, the areas of literature explored have a shared thread of addressing relations of social power (Brenner, 2009). While the 2010 Games’ housing legacy faced major challenges to its realization, if there ever was an Olympic host primed to maximize legacy benefits and ensure that social objectives would come to fruition, it was in fact Vancouver. It’s politically liberal reputation, robust history of social lobbying, and its history of activist urban governance makes it uniquely primed for success in achieving social legacy objectives. As I suggest over the course of this examination of the 2010 Games’ housing legacy, there are more systemic effects at work in sport mega-event hosts. To understand the effects and forces at work in sport mega-even host cities, I will explore key areas necessary for understanding how such events gain such power and influence over the urban landscape, LITERATURE REVIEW 24 its formation, and its residents. Researching and critiquing urban changes taking place in the context of the sport mega-event is not a new or emerging area of study; in fact, the study of mega-events is emerging as a popular area of contemporary scholarship. However, what is seldom explored, and what I assess across the two embedded case studies assembled in this dissertation, are the ways in which urban policies are created, transformed, and operationalized in the name of preparing to host a sport mega-event. 2.1 Defining the Sport Mega-event in Contemporary Scholarship As an object of inquiry, the modern sport mega-event is a diverse and complex phenomenon offering a range of potential disciplinary approaches and connecting a vast array of applicable theoretical frames. Discussion in the academic literature uses the term mega-event to invoke events such as the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) Summer Olympic Games and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)’s World Cup. Mega-event terminology is also used in relation to smaller events such as the IOC’s Winter Olympic Games, single sporting events (such as the International Rugby Board’s (IRB) Rugby World Cup), events distinguished by region (such as the Pan American Games), and events distinguished by historical connection (such as the Commonwealth Games). While scholars tend to agree on what events qualify as mega-events, there is less agreement in defining what a mega-event is. Instead, defining the mega-event has been a rather disjointed project whereby scholars identify commonalities and observed characteristics (Müller, 2015). Mega-events are touted as unique, one-time high profile events (Hiller, 2000) that hold short-term events but bear long-term consequences (Roche, 1994) delivered amidst considerable international media LITERATURE REVIEW 25 coverage (Horne & Manzenreiter, 2006). However, such qualifications do not speak to the mega-event as a vehicle of, and for, urban hegemony. Gramsci’s (1971) hegemony is exercised through hegemonic blocs, defined by as a “a durable alliance of class forces organized by a class (or class fraction) which can exercise political, intellectual, and moral leadership over the dominant classes and popular masses” (Jessop, 1997, p. 567). Mol’s (2010) definition tends to some of the most important traits of sport mega-events as related to the analysis of policies, claiming that such events offer “crystallization points for a cluster of major developments at and between different levels of social life” (p. 511). I will supplement these definitions by highlighting that the most extraordinary feature of the sport mega-event is that it exists beyond normative spatio-temporal structures of governance, of oversight, of juridical rule, and public consultation that would exist in the context of the ordinary. Mega-events, in relation to this dissertation, can be understood as a discontinuous temporal moment of socio-spatial interaction whereby customary political processes and interventions tend to be neglected, altered, or temporarily abandoned. This extemporaneous occasion of political, social, and economic processes is one distinguished from other political opportunities via its uncharacteristic ephemerality. Seldom to return to the same city twice in a lifetime11, yet bearing a distinctive seven-year preparation period from the time the bid is won until the Games take place, the modern sport mega-event offers an unequivocal opportunity for introspection into the desires, expressions, and manifestations of contemporary urbanism. 11 There are exceptions; for example, London hosted the Olympic Games three times (1908, 1948, and 2012), Los Angeles hosted twice (1932 and 1984), and Tokyo will host for a second time (1964 and 2020). LITERATURE REVIEW 26 Olympic Games hosts, shortly following their selection as host city, typically embark on not just one, but several mega-projects in preparation as they are suddenly tasked with meeting the promises and pledges of their candidature files. Such mega-projects frequently include building and renovating stadia and competition venues, developing the Athletes’ Villages, engaging in the wholesale regeneration or redevelopment schemes in urban areas, and upgrading major airport or transportation infrastructures (Gold, 2010). Under the auspices of a globally mediated event, the Olympic Movement’s “longstanding if often blemished idealism” foments a unique (and dangerous) combination of optimism and escalating commitments (Roche, 2006, p. 28). In a form of ‘legacy gigantism’ (Bloyce & Smith, 2012), Olympic organizers are motivated to not only match, but to exceed their predecessors and competitors in terms of the scale, number, and size of new development undertakings (Pentifallo & VanWynsberghe, 2012). Flyvbjerg et al. (2003) extend Beck (1992) and Giddens’ (1991, 2011) theoretical construction of risk society, applying it as a frame and guide for decision-making analysis in their discussion of risk and mega-projects. Mega-projects, including sport mega-events, have an overwhelming tendency towards budgetary overrun, further compounded by unrealistic forecasts of viability (Flyvbjerg et al., 2003, p. 1). The resulting development projects, rather than grounded in realistic approaches to planning, are instead comprised of a ‘fantasy world’ of underestimated costs, overstated benefits, and overvalued local development projections (Flyvbjerg et al., 2003). Flyvbjerg and Stewart (2012) highlight a glaring statistic of the Olympic Games as a mega-project. Not only do the Games overrun with 100 per cent consistency, but also no other type of modern LITERATURE REVIEW 27 mega-project is as consistent in terms of its cost overrun (Flyvbjerg and Stewart, 2012, p. 3). A consistent failure on behalf of Olympic bid organizers to accurately amass budget projections can be attributed, in some ways, to the nature of the bid process itself. The bid process, from its inception, is engaged with a wildly imaginative form of planning as cities are preparing to stake their futures (and future spending) on a prospect that may or may not be realized. 2.1.1 The Spectacularization of the Sport Mega-event The sport mega-event literature, in addition to exploring the tendencies and typical characteristics of such events, has also expanded to include the critique and analysis of its attendant spectacularization. Gotham and Krier (2008) define spectacularization as “a conflictual and contested process by which the major institutions of society are adopting the logic and principles of entertainment and spectacle to their basic operations and organization” (p. 161). Applying this logic to the analysis of the sport mega-event is helpful in determining the ways in which host cities are commoditized. Broudehoux (2010), in relationship to sport mega-events, defines spectacles as “a palliative mode of distraction and a theatric technology that camouflages, rationalizes, and legitimates power” (p. 52). Spectacles serve to exploit the constitutive processes involved in reshaping ideological visions of place, manipulating the use of symbols, rhetoric, and communicative devices. Policy-making factors into such analysis as it is through such operationalized logic that urban ‘beautification’ projects intending to ‘clean up’ urban areas are put into action. The urban spaces of the sport mega-event host city are effectively transformed into a “performance centered on commodity display and symbolic consumption” (Broudehoux, 2007, p. 384). LITERATURE REVIEW 28 While the spectacularization of Olympic host cities is receiving increased attention in the sport mega-event literature more recently (Bélanger, 2000; Broudehoux, 2010; Gotham, 2005; MacAloon, 1984), its origins can be traced to Marxist theorists who criticized urban spectacles well before the advent of the modern sport mega-event, including Walter Benjamin and Guy Debord. German scholar and social critic Benjamin presented The Arcades Project (1999) as a blueprint for the ‘unimaginably massive and labyrinthe architecture of the dream city’ (Translators’ Foreward, Eiland & McLaughlin, in Benjamin, 1999, p. xi). Benjamin theorized the role of spectacularized urban space in consumer society, applying his analysis to department stores, world fairs, and other urban-based exhibitions. While the Parisian arcades of turn of 20th century society were the original inspiration and subject of Benjamin’s critique, they also serve as a stand-in for all commoditized spaces of industrial capitalism (Hetherington, 2005). At the heart of Benjamin’s writings were the dream houses of the collective, housed within the ghostly, utopian ‘wish-images’ of societal longings and consumerism (Benjamin, 1999, p. 4). Such a reifying representation of the images cultivated by and within society, coupled with new forms of social behavior as well as technology, served to build a universe Benjamin considered phantasmagorical12 in nature. Phantasmagoria stands as one the central organizational motifs of Benjamin’s work. An extension of the Marxist principle 12 Hetherington (2005) explains the figural message behind phantasmagoria’s origins: ‘in capitalist society Phantasos has become the god of the commodity fetish’ (p. 191). Alternative language translations provide an additional dimension for investigation into the word’s etymology, such as ‘fantasme agourer’ (meaning deceiving ghost, or ghostly deceiver) (Cohen, 1989 in Hetherington, 2005, p. 194). Benjamin’s conception of phantasmagoria can be found in early editions of ‘Das Kapital.’ ‘Die phantasmagoriche Form’ appears in Moore and Aveling’s (1887) translation, whereas more recent translations from German use ‘fantastic’ in their discussion of commodity fetish (Hetherington, 2005; Marx & Engels, 1978). LITERATURE REVIEW 29 of the commodity fetish, Hetherington (2005) explains the relationship between the ‘commodification of things’ and phantasmagoria in relation to Marx’s writing: ‘Phantasmagoria is the governing trope in how [Marx] presents the “mystical” nature of commodity fetishism to us: something obscuring the role of labour power in the production of value and attributing it instead to something derived from objects themselves in the process of exchange’ (Hetherington, 2005, p. 192). Benjamin considered spectacularized urban spaces of consumerism ‘places of pilgrimage to the commodity fetish,’ a statement that deeply resonates with the current formation of the urban spectacle created by sport mega-event hosts (Benjamin, 1999, p. 7, 14). World’s fairs represented the foremost places where “the phantasmagoria of capitalist culture attains its most radiant unfolding” (Benjamin, 1999, p. 8). In this Marxist configuration, use value recedes into the background, creating “a phantasmagoria which a person enters in order to be distracted” (Benjamin, 1999, p. 7). The commoditization of place and its image, the codification of forms of social life, and the fetishization of projected images represent elements of Benjamin’s work that bear a striking connection to the current configuration of sport mega-event host cities. For example, Goss (1996) provides a modern examination of the festival marketplace as a phantasmagoria of capitalist production. The consumption of utopian images and “imaginings of a mythical natural urbanism” accompany such a spectacularized urban setting (Goss, 1996, p. 240). Debord theorized the spectacle in relationship to the role of visual phenomena and the proliferation of symbolic codes operating within contemporary society. His most famous work, Society of the Spectacle (1995), upheld the city as the center of struggle, conflict, and antagonism. The spectacle was considered a “space of consumer exploitation LITERATURE REVIEW 30 juxtaposed with the space of collective resistance and revolutionary struggle” (Gotham, 2005, p. 227). With the spectacle as the key to analyzing consumption, Debord forewarned of the ability of capital (or more accurately, those who wield it) to obscure the nature and effect of the power and deprivations of capitalism. Capitalism, writes Agamben (1993) commenting on Debord’s work, presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. For Debord, the spectacle was a space privileged above all others; however, it was at once both the source of organizing principles for commoditized capitalism and the source of its own critique (S. Plant, 1992, p. 186).13 Despite its shortcomings, Debord’s theorizations can be successfully updated and extended through the addition of critical theory, as advocated by Gotham and Krier (2008). Modernizing the theoretical and practical limitations of this body of work, Gotham and Krier (2008) replace the totality of Debord’s spectacle with an orientation stressing the plurality and multidimensionality of modern spectacles. Rather than aligning with Debord’s understanding as the spectacle as the central organizing principle of society, spectacles are resituated as “part of a wider and multifaceted totality of capitalist modernity” (Gotham & Krier, 2008, p. 179). Spectacle, explain Gotham and Krier (2008), became a conceptual extension of the phenomenon of reification, one in which ‘objectificaiton’ and ‘thingification’ of social relations correlates to the production and 13 Debord’s (1995) work was certainly not without critics. Debord openly derided academic work and empirical data collection, while never engaging with critiques reliant on women or minorities (Gotham, 2005). Debord frequently engages with hyperbolic and totalizing claims; for example, Debord unabashedly states “the spectacle is a permanent opium war” (Debord, 1995, N44). Debord’s most famous work, ‘Society of the Spectacle’ (1995), is a collection of somewhat abstract, numbered theses organized under unexplained subheadings. Despite this array of critiques, the work of the SI has gained strength in the last two decades, gaining affinity of the post-modern theorists and demonstrating a high degree of relevance with current critiques of consumer capitalism. LITERATURE REVIEW 31 consumption of images (p. 159). While in Marxist terms, capital “creates a world after its own image” (Marx & Engels, 1978, p. 477), in relation to urban spectacles such as sport mega-events, spectacle is “capital accumulated to such a degree that it becomes an image” (Boyer, 1992, p. 185). While Debord’s Society of the Spectacle was first published in 1967 and Benjamin was actively writing in the 1930”s14, their respective theorizations of spectacularized spaces have persisted. Ley and Olds (1988), seemingly tying the most important strands of both works together, write: “the spectacle is the manifestation of the power of commodity relations, and the instrument of hegemonic consciousness” (p. 194). Sport mega-events have arguably replaced the world’s fairs and exhibitions of Benjamin’s era, while the sport mega-event’s ability to command a truly global and heavily mediated spectacle likely eclipse what Debord could have envisioned. The reification of the images present in sport mega-event host cities allows for ample connections to be drawn between Debord’s vision of societal struggle and Benjamin’s elaboration of the commodity fetish within spectacularized urban settings. Such theorizations definitively contribute to modern interpretations of the sport mega-event as spectacle, and can be applied to understand how and why the institutions and processes involved in the sport mega-event function to commoditize urban landscapes. Perhaps most crucially, as Schrijver (2011) notes, Debord’s critiques viewed the city as a representation of dominant power structures. This consideration can be directly linked to a central proposition that sport 14 The Arcades Project was written between 1927 and 1940, yet was not published until 1982. Certain passages are dated, such as the Exposé of 1935 and Exposé of 1939, which are both contained within The Arcades Project. LITERATURE REVIEW 32 mega-events seek to transform the host city for purposes of both visual consumption and social control (Zukin, 1992). Power plays a central role in such Marxist renderings of the spectacle. The spectacle exerts a “new, uniquely specialized form of power” on the contemporary urban landscape (Broudehoux, 2010, p. 55) while also providing a new stage for the development and proliferation of capitalist urbanization (Gotham, 2005, p. 227). Sport mega-events utilize hegemonic ideologies to manipulate the built environment of the city, shaping the development of urban space and directly impacting urban residents. Such an urban environment, as Gotham (2005) maintains, is transformed “into an aesthetic product symbolizing consumption, leisure, and entertainment” (Gotham, 2005, p. 242). In turn, the associated images, discourse, and symbols applied in the urban setting work together to reify the hegemony of the sport mega-event ideology (Broudehoux, 2010, p. 52). It is this ideology that sport mega-event organizers and urban governments are able to capitalize on through the manipulation, concealment, and alteration of urban landscapes. 2.2 The Urban Politics of the Olympic Games While spectacularization of sport mega-events has firmly taken root in the sport mega-event literature, the nature of urban politics also bears crucial importance when understanding how such events function and interact with government processes and policy-making. Several theoretical contributions contending with the post-modernization of the city amidst the forces of urban transformation have been summarily applied to the study, critique, and exploration of the sport mega-event. A shift away from traditionally LITERATURE REVIEW 33 Fordist modes of production and accumulation – not only in the post-WWII era, but especially in the years following 1972 – has pushed cities to pursue compensatory measures for lost industrial capacity (Harvey, 1987). Under this regime of flexible accumulation, cities seek to gain competitive advantage through the deployment of new urban strategies. Yet, the transition to flexible accumulation has also precipitated vastly uneven patterns of urbanization, leading to the “social and spatial polarization of urban class antagonisms” (Harvey, 1987, p. 278). Harvey’s (1989) description of the disciplining forces of capitalist criteria and their resulting transformation to more entrepreneurial forms of governance bears three critical assertions with implications for the activities of political actors and policy makers in sport mega-event host cities. The role of public-private partnerships and influx of local boosters’ efforts is integrated with local governing powers. The public private-partnership, speculative in both nature and design, detracts from more rationally planned and coordinated development efforts. Meanwhile, the political economy of place – rather than territory as a political entity – is elevated and upheld in the entrepreneurial city. Such assertions drive cities to enact a speculative construction of place while also raising the role and prospect of competition among cities based on the underlying logic of consumption. This competitive aspect of the entrepreneurial city is the thread taken up with the greatest excitement in the sport mega-event context - not surprising as a plethora of accompanying urban initiatives can, and often are, taken up using the singular guise of the sport mega-event. By providing an ideological justification for “place-competitive re-imaging strategies,” the sport mega-event is an integral feature of entrepreneurial LITERATURE REVIEW 34 strategies in which cities seek to gain competitive advantage in the global economy (Hall, 2006, p. 64). Sport mega-events and their tendency for capital accumulation have been considered in the literature at length, typically in connection to understanding the increased sense of competitiveness between cities. Hall (2006) describes the mega-event as a crucial mechanism for attracting mobile capital and people under the pressure of intensified inter-urban competition. Spilling (1996) similarly attributes the logic of entrepreneurial competition to enhanced regional economic development in the wake of the 1994 Winter Olympic Games hosted by Lillehammer. Owen (2002) also finds the features of sport mega-events to be functional elements of urban entrepreneurialism. Identifying the centralization of planning powers, increasing involvement of the private sector, and relaxation of normal consulting and planning practices, Owen (2002) demonstrates how Sydney’s Olympic Games’ preparations successfully incorporated elements of entrepreneurial urban governance. Urban entrepreneurialism, understood as a pattern of behavior within urban governance uniting the powers of the state, civil society, and private interests, induces the formation of coalitions in order to promote a highly particular urban agenda (Harvey, 2012). These groups, identified by the moniker of growth machines and coalitions (Logan & Molotch, 1987; Molotch, 1976) or urban regimes (Stone, 1989) feature prominently in the literature as a group of mediating agents operating on behalf of vested economic and political interests. The idea of an urban growth regime, a concept used to describe the network of mediating agents operating between the goal of economic well-being and development policies in a city, is one such definition of the consortium of public and private interests LITERATURE REVIEW 35 (Stone, 1987, 1989). In a similar fashion, Molotch’s (1976) identification of growth as the operative motivation towards consensus amongst the city’s political leadership provides the theoretical basis validating the presence of the growth machine. In claiming that the “very essence of a locality is its operation as a growth machine,” economic growth takes precedence in the city and also serves as a uniting force amongst political and urban elites (Molotch, 1976, p. 10). Burbank et al. (2001) identify the growth machine as a key instrument in part of a wider strategy for promoting economic growth. Such a collection of industry leaders, politicians, and interest groups is typically instrumental in orchestrating an Olympic bid (Burbank et al., 2001; Burbank, Heying, & Andranovich, 2000). The growth regime relies on the mega-event as a legitimate rationale for the allocation of scarce resources, with organizers using the mega-event as a means of funding projects and pursuing economic growth activities (Burbank et al., 2001). As the “quintessential growth regime endeavor,” sport mega-events such as the Olympic Games …provide[s] an ideal platform for a local development agenda because it allows growth proponents access to the popular symbolism of international sports and makes opposition to development projects associated with those symbols more difficult (Burbank et al., 2001, p. 28). Surborg et al. (2008) push the concept of the growth machine in the sport mega-event context further by expanding the concept to accommodate for its transnationalized qualities. In an effort to balance the power of local growth coalitions while managing the influence of extra-territorial influences, different actors can transcend multiple locales in order to match available opportunities, resulting in a ‘nascent growth machine diaspora (Surborg et al., 2008). Surborg et al. (2008) explain the phenomenon of the international LITERATURE REVIEW 36 diaspora, noting that it is “…neither purely localized nor as placeless and hyperglobal, but … a group of dispersed actors in various selected locales that is bound together through common interests and beliefs in specific forms of urban growth and development” (p. 342). The specific forms of urban growth and development that are privileged by sport mega-event affiliated growth machines resonate with the social issues examined in the two embedded case studies presented in this dissertation. Opposition to mega-event related development projects (such as building the Athletes’ Village) or policy initiatives (such as those policies criminalizing homelessness) are difficult to oppose or even question due to the popular symbolism and powerful allegory of the Olympic Games. A corresponding theme captured by the concept of the ‘new urban politics’ is used to imply wholesale change in the way cities are managed, organized, and governed (Cox, 1993). Cochrane et al.’s (1996) work upholds Manchester’s failed 2000 Summer Olympic Games bid as an example symbolizing these changes in urban politics. The power and influence of a local hegemonic project, such as bidding for a sport mega-event, raises the possibility of “getting bread through the effective promotion of circuses” (Cochrane et al., 1996, p. 1333). Cochrane et al. (1996) raise a critical insight by identifying the paradoxical relationship of engagement with the competitive bid process. By constantly engaging in forms of interurban competition such as bidding for sport mega-events, participant cities are reproducing the very competitive structures that they hoped an Olympic success would allow them to escape (Cochrane et al., 1996, p. 1328). Contemporary urban governance viewed through the angles of growth machine or urban LITERATURE REVIEW 37 regime theory presents an inherent danger, as ostensibly defining and characterizing the behavior of urban actors is a dubious assumption. Assigning such enterprising qualities to the city holds even greater implications when such language imbues policy formation. As MacLeod and Goodwin (1999) explain, such a framing of enterprising behavior implies that a ‘quick fix’ is possible, or that economic growth can be achieved once the right regulatory matrix is imported or installed (p. 707). In outlining contemporary urban governance by relying on the institutional components of regime theory or urban entrepreneurialism, these terms themselves become entrenched in the political economy. However, such institutional considerations of economic development and government cannot also serve as the object of such theories’ explanation: ‘…the very presence of institutional ensembles should not be understood in and of themselves as the explanans – although they certainly may form a key constitutive element’ (MacLeod & Goodwin, 1999, p. 707). Even Harvey (1989), whose seminal work on the transition from managerialism to entrepreneurialism laid the groundwork for the rise of urban entrepreneurialism as a theoretical approach, warns of the dangers posed by this personification. To give a ‘city’ such objectified qualities– thereby constructing urban processes as active, rather than passive byproducts of political economic development– is an “inherently unstable formation,” one that ignores agentic capacities of the cities’ political actors and obscures the motivations of political elites (Harvey, 1989, p. 6). The coalitions of social and political elites behind the bids for these events frequently rationalize hosting with claims of enhanced tourism impact and economic growth. However, unforeseen contingencies at the time of bidding, shattered budget projections, LITERATURE REVIEW 38 and unmitigated cost overruns significantly hinder opportunities for economic windfall. Despite such budgetary shortfall and diminished capacity for economic growth, the pursuit of mega-events has largely persisted, although a lack of competition for the 2022 Winter Olympic Games could indicate a significant drop in popularity.15 One potential explanation for the continued uptake of hosting mega-events is rooted in the conditions and exigencies of an increasingly globalized international political economy, one in which former mechanisms for achieving global attention, such as trade agreements, are rapidly diminishing (Black & van der Westhuizen, 2004). While, as Harvey (2012) explains, it is a categorical error to assign globalization as the causal force driving such urban development, the processes of globalization have figured considerably in redefining the relationships between cities and regions around the world. Globalization, defined by Beck (2002) as “a non-linear, dialectic process in which the global and the local do not exist as cultural polarities but as combined and mutually implicating principles” (p. 17), features prominently in the current era of redefined dynamics between urban and global networks. While the intensity, complexity, and span of these networks is constantly evolving (Sassen, 2005), the city’s role as a central component within the re-articulation of global activities and relations has remained paramount. Functioning not as a bounded territorialized unit, but as a node in cross-boundary processes, the city has asserted itself as a key locus of interaction between supra-urban and intercontinental processes (Sassen, 2000, 2005). Interurban and interregional competition, a prime example and indicator of the changes in relations across scales at the global level, has led 15 Krakow, Poland; Lviv, Ukraine; Oslo, Norway; and Stockholm, Sweden removed themselves from the bidding competition to host the 2022 Winter Olympic Games. LITERATURE REVIEW 39 to an observable effort on behalf of the city to recover the local from the global. Reasserting the city’s identity and distinguishing it from its urban contemporaries by means of accumulating ‘marks of distinction’ is one such indication of this era of heightened global competition (Harvey, 2012, p. 106). The conditions of the “new geographical axis of competition” (N. Smith, 2002, p. 447) pit cities against one another in the global economy, a process wherein the sport mega-event becomes a significant means of attracting international attention and differentiate itself from other urban competitors. Hosting, or even bidding unsuccessfully for, a sport mega-event is a popular means through which cities and countries seek to accumulate ‘marks of distinction’ in order to raise a city’s quotient of symbolic capital (Harvey, 2012). The symbolic capital associated with even a failed bid is so great that cities now bid for the Olympic Games in full knowledge that their bid will be unsuccessful. As Gold and Gold (2008) point out, Prague bid officials viewed their 2016 candidacy as an investment and necessary step to one day securing the Olympic Games in 2020 or 2024. Thus the lucrative and “inherently more seductive symbolic capital” transforms the host city into a commodity display centered on consumption (Broudehoux, 2010, p. 53). Broudehoux (2010) aptly summarizes the complex processes of symbolic capital accumulation in light of hosting a sport mega-event, writing the spectacle is now seen as essential to the survival of twenty-first century cities, as urban imagineers and city marketers capitalize upon spectacular architectural images, historic heritage and alluring urban iconography as key generators of symbolic capital, helping market and advertise their city (p. 53-54). LITERATURE REVIEW 40 Olympic host cities, and more accurately, their boosters, lobbyists, and the individuals representing levels of government of the host jurisdiction, tend to use the mega-event as a means to alter how the city is outwardly perceived. Such ‘rewriting and reshaping’ (Andranovich, Burbank, & Heying, 2001) of the Olympic host city takes place through imaginative candidature files and futuristic renderings of the gleaming new stadia. These tools factor into the analysis of policy-making in Olympic host cities as policy becomes a primary instrument through which the city’s symbolic landscape can be realized. 2.2.1 Neoliberal Policy-Making and Sport Mega-Events While globalization has contributed to the creation of a social reality variously defined and politically contested (Roche, 2006), another systemic change to the international order is also afoot. This set of ideological principles dictating economic and social relations, neoliberalism, has effectively evolved into a dominating “rationalization for globalization and contemporary state reform” (Peck & Tickell, 2002, p. 380). Neoliberalism, writes N. Smith (2002), “represents a significant return to the original axioms of liberalism” (p. 429). The guiding tenets of 18th century liberalism, centering on the exercise of free and largely democratic, individual self-interest, advocated free marked exchange as its ideal vehicle (N. Smith, 2002). As Brenner and Theodore (2002) explain, “the linchpin of neoliberal ideology is the belief that open, competitive, and unregulated markets, liberated from all forms of state interference, represent the optimal mechanism for economic development” (p. 2). As Peck and Tickell (2002) argue, neoliberalism can be understood as ideological software for competitive globalization, feeding into logics of competitiveness and permitting the rapid growth and proliferation LITERATURE REVIEW 41 of international markets. Neoliberal projects promoting the discursive, strategic, and organizational reformulation of liberalism are a partial response to the nascent globalization and internationalization of the world’s economies (Jessop, 2002). In relation to the role of the state apparatus under such a redefined global economic order, responsibilities of the state are re-oriented around the facilitation of an environment conducive to capital accumulation (Harvey, 2005). Hegemonic as a mode of discourse (Harvey, 2005) and considered the defining political economic paradigm of our time (Chomsky, 1999), private interests have risen to a position of control under neoliberalism, reinforcing the notion that open and competitive markets are foremost the responsibility of the state (see Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Peck, Theodore, & Brenner, 2009; Peck & Tickell, 2002). Such neoliberal, growth-first behavior, writes Harvey (2011), is justified by the proposition that a rising tide of capitalist endeavor will “lift all the boats” and such benefits will trickle down magically (p. 218). Brenner and Theodore (2002) emphasize the ways neoliberalism operates within specific restructuring strategies, institutional configurations, policy regimes, and regulatory practices. The nature of ‘actually existing neoliberalism’ is called upon in order to “illuminate the complex, contested ways in which neoliberal restructuring strategies interact with pre-existing uses of space, institutional configurations, and constellations of socio-political power” (p. 14). Peck et al. (2009) shift focus away from the ‘-ism’ system or ‘end-state’ of neoliberalism and instead look towards the process of neoliberalization (p. 52). The latter, which implies more of an ongoing, recurring, and contradictory process, is predicated and realized on the basis of uneven spatial development (Peck et LITERATURE REVIEW 42 al., 2009, p. 52). Creative destruction, as presented by Brenner and Theodore (2002a), provides a useful means of describing the “geographically uneven, socially regressive, and politically volatile trajectories of institutional/spatial change” (p. 2). This double-pronged, dialectical, Schumpeterian relationship featuring two “intertwined but analytically distinct moments” (Peck et al., 2009, p. 52) of creation and destruction is particularly useful when applied to the sport mega-event host city. The creative-destructive tendency allows two simultaneous processes to coexist in the lead up to sport mega-events: the breakdown of existing governmental institutional arrangements alongside the creation of new infrastructures promoting commodification by means of capital-centric rule. Cities, and crucially sport mega-event host cities, have therefore become ‘strategically important arenas in which neoliberalizing forms of creative destruction have been unfolding’ (Peck et al., 2009, p. 57). Eick’s (2010) assessment of FIFA and its sport mega-event, the World Cup, employs the process of neoliberalization in its analysis, explaining how such a process shapes, and is shaped by, the urban form. Recognizing that neoliberalization “is more of a highly contingent process” rather than a final product, Eick (2010) highlights its conflicting tendencies towards construction and destruction (p. 281). Neoliberalization in the setting of the sport mega-event encourages the formation of new institutions and practices while dismantling existing structures of governance with the aim of allowing such structures of neoliberalism to be reproduced in the future. By installing the infrastructure necessary to sustain neoliberalised strategies of capital accumulation, the mega-event allows FIFA to LITERATURE REVIEW 43 maximize profit through the vehicle of the commercialization of urban space (Eick, 2010). The city, itself a mechanism of ‘neoliberal localization,’ according to Brenner and Theodore (2002a), serves as a strategic target as well as institutional laboratory for neoliberal policy experiments. Gaffney (2011), by extension, explains the mega-event city as an experiment in which agents of global capital are able to manipulate urban space and social relations in order to maximize accumulation strategies. Ideological projects range from place-marketing and boosterism initiatives to mechanisms of social control, policing, and surveillance (Brenner & Theodore, 2002a), all projects and social policy initiatives that can be directly linked to hosting a sport mega-event. The dismantling of the welfare state, Jones and Ward (2002) argue, cannot be untied from policy restructuring as the two are both inherently connected to the contradictions accompanying capital accumulation. Capital accumulation, considered a central motivation of the urban agenda, and consumption are achieved in tandem in the mega-event city as policies and urban projects are increasingly designed as a means of making the city more attractive to all types of investment. This idea is central to understanding the role of neoliberal policy in Olympic host cities as neoliberalism represents a hypermarketized style of governance whereby government is exacted through and by the market (Weber, 2002). Consumption, the ultimate expression of the neoliberal city, is driven by policies designed to mobilize the city for market-oriented growth (Brenner & Theodore, 2002b; Miles, 2012). LITERATURE REVIEW 44 Cochrane et al. (1996) introduce the concept of neoliberalism in their analysis of Manchester’s failed 2000 Olympic Games bid and successful bid for the Commonwealth Games. In introducing the neoliberalized, often times conservative, resoundingly corporatist rhetoric amongst different actors vying for the similar goal of bringing a sport mega-event to Manchester, Cochrane et al. (1996) frame the collective ambition of urban elites as a part of the wider process of institutional and political restructuring. As the former image of the state is replaced by an evolving form of entrepreneurial leadership, there is a renewed emphasis placed upon urban growth as a means of securing external investment (Cochrane et al., 1996). In Manchester’s case, the failed bid to host the Olympic Games was not an end in and of itself; the bid’s leadership sought to secure foreign direct investment, visitors, and new money and new business opportunities for Manchester and northwest Britain. Most crucially, Cochrane et al. (1996) explain that the Olympic bid process is part of a larger, contested political process wherein the twin imperatives of globalization and state restructuring interact. While neoliberalism, according to Jessop (2002), is constantly searching for a new ‘spatiotemporal fix,’ its path-dependent characteristics must not be overlooked. The need for a contextually specific analysis that is also reflective of neoliberalism’s path-dependent character is critical in order to reinforce the contextual embeddedness of the state restructuring process (Brenner & Theodore, 2002a). Context-specific institutional frames, preexisting policy regimes, and the presence of ongoing regulatory practices make the empirically observed characteristics of neoliberalism a variable and amorphous phenomenon and one that is difficult to pin down by means of a basic definitional LITERATURE REVIEW 45 assessment of neoliberalism’s presumed presence. VanWynsberghe et al. (2013) examine the Vancouver organizing committee’s planning processes for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, suggesting that the organization of sport mega-events are increasingly applied as instruments for the advancement of neoliberal local governance regimes. Effectively, the 2010 Games “reflect neoliberal ideologies of mega-events as place-promotion tools that serve to redirect capital and consolidate support for regional development” (VanWynsberghe et al., 2013, p. 17). Hayes and Horne (2011) similarly emphasize that the staging and hosting processes of sport mega-events promote neoliberal forms of governance alongside the increasing neoliberalization of space. The concept of ‘sustainable’ development as applied during the planning phase for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games hosted by London emerges as a paradox inherent in neoliberalism’s operation in the sport mega-event host city. Using sport mega-events as a platform for growth-oriented processes, the top-down and overwhelmingly elite-driven nature of the planning process makes the ‘sustainable’ agenda such events promise to deliver a guaranteed impossibility (Hayes & Horne, 2011). This fundamental and inherent conflict of providing a sustainable event in light of an insatiable quest for capital accumulation in the sport mega-event city “ensures that the ‘concept of the ‘sustainable Games’ … emerges as less a benign paradox than a systemic contradiction of advanced late-modern capitalist democracies” (Hayes & Horne, 2011, p. 761). As Harvey (2005) explains, such a “benevolent mask of wonderful sounding words” such as sustainable development in the context of preparing to host a sport mega-LITERATURE REVIEW 46 event is part of the “failed utopian rhetoric” unsubtly rooted in the neoliberal project (p. 119, 203). 2.3 The Olympic Games and Urban (re)Development: Regeneration, Renewal, and Reconfiguration The Olympic Games are associated with regeneration, renewal, and urban reconfiguration as hosting is increasingly perceived to bear an important role as a stimulus to urban change (Chalkley & Essex, 1999), a catalyst of urban redevelopment (Short, 2004), and most crucially, viewed as a “mechanism to stimulate consumption-led economic revival” (Waitt, 2001, p. 256). The presence and proliferation of large scale development, or redevelopment, schemes is significantly documented in the sport mega-event literature (Andranovich, Burbank, & Heying, 2001; Chalkley & Essex, 1999; Essex & Chalkley, 1998, 2004; Gold & Gold, 2008; Gold, 2010; Liao & Pitts, 2006; Smith & Fox, 2007). The all but guaranteed accompaniment of an urban regeneration project alongside mega-event preparation is unsurprising given the wider tendency for cities to engage in enterprising behavior and attempt to match all aspects of rival bids (Pentifallo & VanWynsberghe, 2012). The prospect of regenerative projects, their accompanying implications for gentrification and revanchism, the marginalization and exclusion of urban residents, and the tenets of accumulation by dispossession (Harvey, 2003) represent different forces and repercussions of urban transformation. As Fussey and Clavell (2011) write, mega-events are now “tied to a raft of longer-term urban policies that transcend the ephemeral ‘stage set’ of the actual event and resonate across time and place” (p. 149). As the mega-event LITERATURE REVIEW 47 forces a synthesis of both the local and global, the sport mega-event undeniably “foments an often dramatic clash… and the urban realm is the stage where these contestations are played out” (Fussey & Clavell, 2011, p. 149). The setting for the clash at the urban level in the sport mega-event city frequently takes shape in the form of regeneration projects, highly touted and widely acclaimed as promising to deliver urban renewal. Harvey (1989) writes, “…gentrification, cultural innovation, and physical up-grading of the urban environment… have all become much more prominent facets of strategies of urban regeneration,” a statement that resonates with the experience of sport mega-event host cities (p. 9). As the Olympic Games are increasingly hailed as a panacea for social and economic ills (Waitt, 2008), the idealism of the host alongside the imperatives of Olympic organizational requirements combine to emphasize the role and elevate the status of urban regeneration projects. Sport mega-events, it has long been noted in the literature (see MacAloon, 1984; Roche, 2003), have a unique affinity for condensing time horizons, ensuring that a range of urban processes take place in a brief and limited window of opportunity. As Greene (2003) points out, host governments typically enhance the aesthetics of the city under such a time frame, rather than attending to systemic problems of urban inequality. In the two sub-sections to follow, I will attend to two areas of literature that directly apply to the two embedded case studies presented in chapters 5 and 6. The first embedded case study analyzes urban development policies related to the creation of a social housing legacy (with material on urban development and Athletes’ Villages outlined in section LITERATURE REVIEW 48 2.3.1), while the second focuses on the enforcement of policies attempting to alleviate homelessness (with material on urban clearance and social control outlined in section 2.3.2). 2.3.1 Sport Mega-Events and Urban Development Policy Trends towards the remediation of derelict urban spaces, regeneration of historically deprived areas, and incorporation of sustainable design are common threads of Olympic-induced development projects. For example, one particular urban regeneration project that takes place in all host cities reveals a shared history, the Olympic Village. A brief review of the use and purpose of recent Games’ Villages reveals several shared tendencies towards engagement with sustainable, regenerative projects. As Muñoz (2006) explains, Olympic Village developments largely evolved from ephemeral constructions into “experiments in the transition of the urban form” (p. 176). The three Olympic editions held in the United States since 1984 (Los Angeles 1984, Atlanta 1996, and Salt Lake City 2002) deviated from this trend, relying on existing dormitories from area universities instead of new large-scale developments. Seoul and Barcelona became templates for regenerative projects with their hosting of the 1988 and 1992 Summer Olympic Games, respectively. Seoul’s Olympic Village development was placed on the south bank of the Han River, described by Liao and Pitts (2006) as a flood-prone area home to low-quality mass-housing projects. Barcelona, by far the most frequently cited example of a regenerative Olympic Games, placed its village at the centre of a massive redevelopment project of a former industrial port. However, the extent to which such a LITERATURE REVIEW 49 redevelopment maintained levels of affordable housing is in question.19 Sydney, whose 2000 Olympic Games were among the first to celebrate the inclusion of sustainable development principles into their ‘Green Games,’ built its Olympic Village as part of the larger remediation of the highly polluted Homebush Bay area (Liao & Pitts, 2006). 2010 Winter Games organizers and City of Vancouver urban planners held a similar approach when designing the Athletes’ Village. Discussed at length in section 5.1.1, the development plans for the 2010 village included sustainable design principles, the remediation of a former industrial site, and also called for the inclusion of units of social housing in the development’s post-Games usage. London, host of the 2012 Summer Olympic Games, and Glasgow, host of the 2014 Commonwealth Games, engaged in strikingly similar plans for their respective Games’ villages. Both hosts built their respective villages in their cities’ east ends, East London and the East End of Glasgow, thereby anchoring the developments as part of broader regeneration schemes. As in Vancouver, approximately half of each development was reserved for social rents or affordable units at the projects’ onset (BBC News, 2015; European Investment Bank, 2014). Glasgow organizers advertise that the 2014 Athletes’ Village is a “key exemplar for sustainable design” and exceeds all Scottish Government requirements as well as standards set by Glasgow City Council (Glasgow City Council, 2009, p. 53). Similarly, London’s Athletes’ Village is hailed as a key element of the Olympic-affiliated project of 19 The 1992 Olympic Games marked a period of rapidly increasing prices in the housing sector coupled with a dramatic decline in the availability of public housing. As COHRE reports, increases in sale prices rose 139% while rentals rose nearly 145% from 1986 to 1993. The availability of public housing decreased by 76% from 1986 to 1992 (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, 2007, p. 95). LITERATURE REVIEW 50 regenerating the East End, while also advertising that the development is the largest sustainable homes project in the U.K. (International Olympic Committee, 2012a). While the extent to which these Athletes’ Village developments in Seoul, Barcelona, and Sydney delivered upon the social and environmental claims has revealed some successes, other attempts have been more apparent in their inability to live up to their respective billings. The Athens’ Athletes’ Village that was built for the 2004 Olympic Games included housing for 10,000 and was intended to be used as social housing after the Games. Yet, of the development envisioned for 10,000 people, less than half is filled and it remains a largely abandoned complex (Govan, 2011). Beijing, in similar fashion to Sydney, tended toward the inclusion of ‘green features’ and sustainable design in its complex of high-rise apartments (Asia Business Council, 2008). However, as Gold and Gold (2009) explain, “the precise logic for associating sustainability with a Games that displaced an estimated 1.5 million people and extensively destroyed indigenous housing… is at best tenuous” (p. 13). Despite a checkered, if not controversial, history associated with the fulfillment of Olympic Village legacy, bid organizing committees continue to uphold the tradition of assigning social benefits to the Games’ largest required construction project. These projects (and their deadlines) create an intensified timeline for sport mega-event preparation. As Leeds (2008) writes, “there is no substitute for a rigid deadline combined with extensive public exposure for the results” (p. 476). Few other events – major economic crises, natural disasters, and war withstanding – provide the same combination. LITERATURE REVIEW 51 With multiple mega-projects underway in the mega-event host city under such intrusive forms of pressure, “…the Games function temporally to engineer a crisis of deliberative structures: the immutability of the deadlines, the stakes of the reputations, the primacy of delivery…” (Hayes & Horne, 2011, p. 761). The timeline placed on the event, the contractually binding obligations agreed upon between the city and the organizing body, and highly publicized progress on the mega-event’s affiliated development projects combine to create sense of crisis and a ‘state of emergency’ (Sanchez & Broudehoux, 2013). Crises, of the artificial, constructed sort, represent a theoretical explanation ably suited to the study of sport mega-events. Hayes and Horne (2011) allude to the crisis tendencies of sport mega-events as the planning process drives tension between the short-term requirements and demands raised by hosting alongside the desire to deliver large scale transformative change in host cities. Crises such as economic shocks, and natural disasters have played a key role in the historical geography of capitalism, according to Harvey (2011), who explains them as irrational rationalizers in an inherently contradictory system. The economist Milton Friedman once stated that “only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change” (Klein, 2008, p. 7). In Klein’s (2008) description of disaster capitalism, debilitating economic ‘shocks’ to a political system are quickly followed by ‘awe,’ understood as a forcible unrolling of policy programming, paving the way for decision-making that would not have been possible under normal circumstance. In this understanding, moments of collective trauma are used to engage in radical social and economic engineering (Klein, 2008). A crisis (of the manufactured LITERATURE REVIEW 52 sort) is made possible under the auspices of preparing to stage a sport mega-event (Horne & Whannel, 2012). Agamben’s (2005) concept of the state of exception is another theoretical frame through which the mega-event can be explored. The concept of exceptionalism is explained as a dominant paradigm of government in contemporary politics, one in which provisional and exceptional measures are made into recurring practice and technique. In appearing as “a threshold of indeterminacy between democracy and absolutism,” the state of exception creates a context in which fact and law seem to be indistinguishable (p. 3). Agamben’s (2005) essential criteria for constituting a state of exception is the abolition between the division of judicial powers, replaced instead by the suspension of preexisting and traditional order. Several scholars elaborate upon the state of exception in relation to the staging, preparation, and hosting of sport mega-events. The host city enters a state of exception as the contractual agreements are signed into effect (Gaffney, 2011), placing the city in a tenuous relationship with the international sport mega-event organizing body as the city is bound to deliver the pledged requirements for the mega-event, whatever the cost. Gaffney (2011) explains the implications of the contractual requirements placed upon host cities: “the notion that new governance regimes and their attendant laws are necessary, inevitable and temporary interventions belies the fact that the conditions that brought them into reality and the risks that they attend to are wholly manufactured” (p. 14). Those manufactured conditions cascade through the pre-existing political system, leading to the blurring of both political and ethical responsibilities (Sanchez & Broudehoux, 2013, p. 136). The conditions under the state of exception as witnessed in the sport mega-event host city cultivate a “spatialized suspension of democracy” in the LITERATURE REVIEW 53 seven years intervening between the time the bid is won and the event is held (Eick, 2010, p. 292). Vainer (2011) extends Agamben’s (2005) notion of the state of exception to the city of exception, described as the suspension of normative rule in times of emergency in the face of unexpected necessity (Sanchez & Broudehoux, 2013). Such necessity, while wholly constructed, nonetheless takes preeminence over typical approaches to urban governance and policy making. Yet, under pressures of the sport mega-event, the exception increasingly becomes the rule: the state of exception ossifies into normality (Boykoff, 2013). As Gaffney (2013) explains, mega-event planning requires that existing urban plans be overturned in order to meet the demands of the event. The approach of the sport mega-event serves as an alibi and justification for the sacrifice of traditional democratic norms, forsaken in the name of expediency, exigency, and urgency (Boykoff, 2013, p. 4). Sanchez and Broudehoux (2013) describe the mechanisms by which local political and economic elites extend the state of exception into normality, relying upon a sense of urgency, mobilization of resources, and governance by consensus. A state of emergency is cultivated around the mega-event as political and economic agents work exploit the ‘tight schedule and fixed deadline to deliberately induce an artificial crisis, galvanize large projects, and facilitate the adoption of neo-liberal urban policies’ (Sanchez & Broudehoux, 2013, p. 136). The advent of public-private partnerships and their increased import in mega-event preparations are also indicative of a new era captured by the notion of regulatory capitalism. Most essentially, under regulatory capitalism, states have moved their focus away from rowing and shifted more towards steering (Braithwaite, 2005). In this LITERATURE REVIEW 54 metaphor, states are less concerned with providing actual social goods and services, tilting those responsibilities to civil society and shifting their own attention to directing, guiding, and leading political activity (Jordana & Levi-Faur, 2004). The proliferation of non-state regulation and corporate self-governance has continued its robust growth, originating in the 1980s and gaining widespread acceptance in the 1990s (Jordana & Levi-Faur, 2004). While maintaining that the current era is not one marked by neoliberalism or even a regulatory state per se, Braithwaite (2008) maintains that states have turned to providing, distributing, and regulating in the age of regulatory capitalism. Under the social, political, and economic order of regulatory capitalism, ‘regulation, rather than the direct provision of public and private services, is the expanding part of government’ (Braithwaite, 2008, p. vii). Horne (2013) draws a connection between regulatory capitalism and the advent of a ‘delivery-oriented’ approach bestowed upon sport mega-event construction projects, with specific attention paid to London 2012. Governance of London 2012 construction projects featured a ‘new contractualism’ in which reciprocal relationships between corporatization and regulation became the norm (Horne, 2013). According to Raco (2014), it is estimated that 43,000 contracts were drawn up for the London 2012 Olympic Games. In effect, the London Games represent a “new mode of state-led privatization in which public funds and objectives have been converted into privately run and contractually delivered programs of action” (Raco, 2014, p. 177). By shifting organizing committee responsibilities away from the work of actually organizing and delivering the event, and placing emphasis on the outsourcing the typical provision of event services (e.g., security, venue management, event operations) instead, public funding is transferred directly to private profit. The proliferation of contractually LITERATURE REVIEW 55 delivered sport mega-events has been expensive and exploitative for the public, yet increasingly lucrative for the privately contracted firms involved (Horne, 2013). 2.3.2 Urban Clearance: Mega-Event Policy and Social Control Sport mega-events are one of the few urban undertakings that not only allow, but also encourage, host cities and their governments, boosters, and supporters to put forward a manufactured, anesthetized urban landscape. This practice plays out through the implementation of urban policies that aim to exclude, marginalize, or remove so-called undesirable populations from certain urban locations in either the lead up to the event or during the event itself. Policies, operationalized under the guise of an upcoming sport mega-event, are frequently deployed in the name of securitization, beautification, and social control. For example, approximately 300,000 Beijing residents were forcibly evicted and undesirable areas were concealed in preparations for the 2008 Summer Olympic Games (Coaffee & Fussey, 2011). Projects intending to upgrade the physical environment, often portrayed as urban renewal schemes, represent an alternative form of urban clearance. The overall purpose of such policy initiatives is to remove certain populations form certain urban areas (Greene, 2003). Regeneration projects, securitization initiatives, and urban clearance are related in that these undertakings seek to control entry into the urban spaces of the sport mega-event. As Waitt (2008) explains, when considered as a tool of the economic elite, such urban spectacles can be conceptualized as mechanisms to include or exclude certain people from public space. LITERATURE REVIEW 56 These less visible but highly potent strands of supposed regeneration combine with what MacLeod and Ward (2002) call the introduction of globally celebrated iconography. Under the banner of the Olympic Games, urban populations in so-called regenerating areas are displaced and excluded. The purpose of regeneration, which is to facilitate “the new architectures of renaissance” (MacLeod & Ward, 2002, p. 154), has a stronger imperative of making the city a more conducive, attractive, and productive vehicle for commercialized consumption. Consumption, when considered as the ultimate expression of the neoliberal city (Miles, 2012), and the reconfiguration of cities through the vehicle of transformative projects combine in the context of the sport mega-event, as it achieves both policy mandates simultaneously. Policy represents the arena in which these mandates take effect. Excluding certain populations from the highly visible areas of the mega-event and reconfiguring urban areas in order to facilitate capital accumulation can be read as underlying motivations of the policies unrolled in mega-event cities. Enhanced securitization is one such way that mega-event policy works to exclude individuals from what were previously public spaces. As Giulianotti and Klauser (2010) note, the growth in securitization witnessed in mega-event preparation is the most striking element of the sport mega-events’ continued growth and development. Ranging from the employment of electronic surveillance, to reinforced security barriers, increase in contingency planning, and specific urban design and planning initiatives, the increased securitization of the mega-event has become paramount in Olympic Games’ preparation (Coaffee & Fussey, 2011). Klauser (2012) examines the spatial orderings of mega-event surveillance from three complementary angles: separation and access control, managing LITERATURE REVIEW 57 visitor circulation, and monitoring security enclaves. These spatial orderings are significant as policy becomes the mechanism through which social control is enacted. Through the study of security procedures surrounding the European Football Championships in 2008 (Euro 2008) hosted by Switzerland and Austria, Klauser (2012) convincingly explains the importance of analyzing spatialities of surveillance. Compounded by the extraordinary setting of the mega-event, the city is temporarily reconfigured as a security landscape (Klauser, 2012, p. 4). Eick (2011) explores the use of surveillance technologies during the 2006 FIFA World Cup hosted by Germany. Security robots, video surveillance, radio frequency identification chips (RFID), and thousands of law enforcement personnel combined to make the mega-event the largest display of domestic security witnessed in Germany since 1945 (Eick, 2011). Such a sport-related ‘security assemblage,’ according to Eick (2011), “entails a blurring between the operation and legal separations of police, intelligence and military forces, and the delineation between local and global security concerns” (p. 3334). For example, RFID chips were attached to three million tickets, meaning law enforcement officials could not only mitigate the distribution of counterfeit tickets and curb ticket scalping, but could also cross-check ticket applicants with personal information stored in a controversial data bank of known ‘hooligans’ (Eick, 2011). Crucially, FIFA made the use of RFID chips and video surveillance mandatory for hosts as a precondition for host cities, insuring FIFA’s role as “an incubator for a sustained securitization of host and post-host cities” (p. 3330). LITERATURE REVIEW 58 Reconfigurations of the urban realm have benefited greatly from what N. Smith (2002) describes as the introduction of anodyne language associated with regeneration, or the ongoing anesthetization of the vocabulary of gentrification. Such an “ideological victory for the neoliberal visions of the city” allows the process of gentrification to continue (N. Smith, 2002, p. 446). Mega-events frequently benefit from their ability to use placated rhetoric to soothe dissent. Often, gentrification is ‘sugar-coated’ by the language of regeneration, uncritically recast as a necessary and positive strategy (MacLeod & Ward, 2002, p. 159). As Lees (2011) argues, gentrifying policies are spliced with more persuasive pieces, making it increasingly difficult to argue against positively framed policies. The terminology of these packages of ‘creative neoliberalism’ is difficult, if not impossible to argue against (Peck, Theodore, & Brenner, 2010). Gentrification is therefore simplified, essentialized, generalized, and summarized as a process (Lees, 2011; N. Smith, 2002). Gentrification, once a ‘dirty word’ (N. Smith, 2002), has seemingly become an easier pill to swallow, with a sudden cheering of gentrification in the form of neutralized middle class inhabitants and the ‘residentialization’ of formerly unprofitable urban spaces. The term gentrification has been reappropriated by those seeking a ‘quick fix’ to urban blight (Slater, 2006), with enough cause for Wacquant (2008) to warn of the gentrification of gentrification. However, the eviction of critical insights on the processes of gentrification has serious implications, most critically, for those who are at greatest risk from gentrification and are most likely to suffer adverse consequences (Slater, 2006). LITERATURE REVIEW 59 Such dire warnings are of extreme relevance and importance in the case of sport mega-event host cities. Macrury and Poynter (2008) raise the issue of potential hazards associated with staging such ‘regeneration games,’ questioning the exceedingly ambitious rise in the scope of Olympic-related urban redevelopment projects. London’s successful bid for the 2012 Games was attributed in part to its promise to stage in Games in East London. However, once the bid was awarded, it became clear to organizers that the “…gap between aspiration and reality is filled… by guarantees underwritten by the host city and national government,” a realization that quickly revealed the wild inaccuracies of early budget estimates (p. 2078). Most importantly, for residents expected to reap the benefits of the supposed legacy to be bequeathed to East London, the Games failed to remediate underlying social issues Games organizers claimed to address relating to job skills deficits, persistent unemployment, health inequalities, and shortage of affordable housing stock (Macrury & Poynter, 2008). As Macrury and Poynter (2008) predict, the failure to address such pressing and underlying issues could only contribute to further polarizations of East London. Paton et al. (2012) examine Glasgow’s preparation for the 2014 Commonwealth Games, uncovering the role of policy-led gentrification and its ability to be cooptation into a governing strategy. Urban regeneration, considered in this context as an ‘active social policy,’ is applied as a means of restructuring traditional welfare practices (Cochrane, 2007 as cited in Paton et al., 2012, p. 1470). Critically, two elements are at focus in such a class-based project: first, the marketization and growth-oriented rationales of the state, and second, the proliferation of a conception of citizenship as being directly tied to LITERATURE REVIEW 60 individual consumption. Gentrification in this case is used to transform sites previously declared ‘unproductive’ into ones of productivity and consumption, making way for retail stores, conference facilities, and mega-event projects. As the Glasgow Games Monitor (2011) aptly summarizes: “Mega-events like the Commonwealth Games are more about land-grabs, than helping the local community, more about property speculation than social housing, more about the image of the city than its reality” (Glasgow Games Monitor, 2011 as cited in Paton et al., 2012, p. 1484). Tufts (2004) points to a variant of the urban form increasingly on the rise and bearing direct implications on the mega-event city: revanchism. Tufts (2004) writes, “…the Olympics are also very much implicated in the revanchist city, playing a crucial role in not only processes of accumulation, but also the social control of marginalized groups through coercive and noncoercive means” (p. 50). The revanchist city, a description coined and enacted by N. Smith (1996) explaining the “dual and divided city of wealth and poverty,” entails an city in which victors are becoming increasingly defensive of their privilege and growing increasingly vicious in defending it (p. 222). Revanchism entails a political response whereby revenge is combined with reaction against the basic assumptions of liberal policy (MacLeod & Ward, 2002). Drawing connections between the origins of revanchism in the late 19th century Paris and the late 20th century New York City, revanchism for N. Smith (1996) was a place in which revenge was exacted upon those benefiting from the redistributive policies of the liberal era (Slater, 2010). Neoliberal revanchism, which took hold in the roll-back of policies such as anti-poverty legislation, took revenge against the enemies of the political elite. As N. Smith (1998) LITERATURE REVIEW 61 explains, “the revanchist city represents a reaction to an urbanism defined by recurrent waves of unremitting danger and brutality fueled by venal and uncontrolled passion” (p. 207). As Slater (2010) describes, an exclusionary vision of civil society was being reinstated with a vengeance, banishing those not part of that vision (p. 667). MacLeod and Ward (2002) describe the revanchist city as one characterized ‘by mounting social and political unrest and pockmarked with marginal interstices: derelict industrial sites, concentrated hyperghettos, and peripheral shanty towns where the poor and the homeless are increasingly shunted’ (p. 153). The revanchist city, controlled by wealthy political elites, takes aim at is enemies (the poor, the marginalized, the ‘undesirables’), and calls for policies that outlaw ‘aggressive panhandling,’ call for the criminalization of poverty, attempt to ban homelessness, and engage in various other forms of penalization against those deemed out of place in the neoliberal city (Goss, 1996; Mitchell, 2002; N. Smith, 1996). In the revanchist city, Mitchell (2001) notes, the most disadvantaged are pushed out, “making it clear that, as broken windows rather than people, they simply have no right to the city” (p. 71). These urban dispossessions represent a secondary form of exploitation, as urbanization has provided a means for the absorption of capital and labor surpluses (Harvey, 2012). Harvey’s (2003) concept of accumulation by dispossession, a pattern replicated throughout history, is an extension of Marx’s concept of ‘primitive accumulation’ (Glassman, 2006). In Marx’s (1990) terms, primitive accumulation is explained as “nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production” (p. 875). Primitive accumulation, according to Harvey (2012), occupies the LITERATURE REVIEW 62 same role in political economy as original sin in theology. Marx (1990) writes: “from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority who, despite their labor, have up to now nothing to sell but themselves, and the wealth of the few that increased constantly, although they have ceased to work” (p. 873). Torn from their means of subsistence, workers are “hurled onto the labor-market as few, unprotected and rightless proletarians” (Marx, 1990, p. 876). While Marx’s explanation focuses on proletarianization, changes in property relations and the consolidation of capital are also considered to be part of the primitive accumulation strategy (Glassman, 2006). Primitive accumulation has varied dimensions and can take a myriad of forms, according to Glassman (2006). Privatization, constituting the preeminent form of primitive accumulation, is the “cutting edge of accumulation by dispossession” (Harvey, 2003, p. 157) and is recognized by Glassman (2006) as one of the ways in which capitalists can manufacture “new realms for proletarianization and private appropriation of public property” (p. 620). Accumulation by dispossession offers a way to overcome the structural shortcomings affiliated with problems of over accumulation (Glassman, 2006; Harvey, 2003). Accumulation by dispossession, the ‘new imperialism,’ according to Harvey (2004), has also taken on myriad new, modern forms. The commodification of culture, history, and intellectual creativity represent wholesale dispossessions as well as a new wave of enclosing the commons (Harvey, 2004, p. 75). In Freeman’s (2012) example, accumulation by dispossession can be applied to explain the role of the state in orchestrating the military’s capture of assets by force in Rio de Janeiro prior to the country’s hosting of the 2014 FIFA World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympic LITERATURE REVIEW 63 Games. Rio’s favelas represent potential outlets for surplus absorption as these territories had previously experienced little capital influx previously. As the state forcibly takes control of these valuable areas, room is made for the expansion of private capital in time for the mega-events arrival, indicating that the pacification of favelas as carried out by the Police Pacification Units (UPP) is an essential element of strategies of neoliberal accumulation (Freeman, 2012). As Glassman (2006) writes, in the contemporary neoliberal era, accumulation by dispossession has become the dominant form of accumulation. Broudehoux and Freeman (2012) describe urban government’s desire to colonize new urban territories, portraying the multiple dispossessions of Rio de Janeiro’s Porto Maravilha project as a necessary component of larger strategies to engage with capital accumulation. While spectacles such as sport mega-events actively, and rather successfully, are able to reconstitute ideological visions of place, they are also able to create distinction between the carefully orchestrated spectacle and the ‘emerging dystopian cityscape’ outside its confines (Boyer, 1992, p. 156). The spectacularization of urban spaces under the order of the sport mega-event can be read as an implicit attempt at social control, intended to coax urban populations and urban spaces into aesthetically superlative visual landscapes. Such a process of spectacularization is not a neutral endeavor (Gotham, 2007). As Gotham (2007) suggests, the process of spectacularization “reflects the relentless pursuit of corporate profit as ruled by the dictates of capitalist competition, commodification, and rationalization of production and consumption” (p. 82). Such distinctions have led to theorizations featuring the ‘theme-parking’ of cities, with several notable works LITERATURE REVIEW 64 expanding upon hyperbolic forms of utopian expression, such as the McDonaldization and Disneyfication of cities (Hannigan, 1998; Ritzer, 2008). Disneyland, famous for its suspension of reality and pushing the bounds of geographic, cultural, and mythical locales within its theme parks (Crawford, 1992), is ‘America’s stand-in for Elysium’ (Sorkin, 1992, p. 205). Sorkin (1992) explains the processes of extraction, reduction, and recombination operating in the world of television as well as the ‘theme-parking’ of Disneyland. Serving to produce a new, antigeographical space, these interrelated processes of production yield a ‘synthetic vision’ of a more simplified and sanitized rendering of the city (Sorkin, 1992). Disney World provides, in Zukin’s (1992, 1993) account, a prototype for the postmodern urban landscape, one in which multiple perspectives are elucidated through the circulation of images mapping culture and power. Such a socially constructed landscape shaped by dominant institutions and ordered by their power, as Zukin (1992) explains, is a key concept in spatial transformation and consists of a broadened interpretation considering material culture and social process. Such urban landscapes “use motifs of visual consumption as an implicit means of social control” (Zukin, 1992, p. 238). In the course of building such a simplified and sanitized vision of the city, as Vancouver (and other hosts) has attempted to do, threats to the projected image it seeks to project are simultaneously reduced, concealed or eliminated. Themed urban spaces, Boyer (1992) explains, are “owned and controlled by an institutional power,” one able to orchestrate a “tightly regulated definition, appropriation, and control of territory” (p. 156). As such, the LITERATURE REVIEW 65 mega-event can, and has, been used a means of social control as it is deployed to validate the removal and, displacement of residents from urban areas. The less visible, but increasingly common, practice of introducing legislation restricting access to public space and easing the removal of certain populations negatively affecting the city’s image is well documented in sport mega-event host cities (Eick, 2011; Fussey, Coaffee, Armstrong, & Hobbs, 2012; Kennelly & Watt, 2011). Mass evictions in areas of desirable real estate and the introduction of formal legal controls have been deployed in sport mega-event host cities, frequently accompanied by measures that serve to hamper targeted populations’ ability to resist (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, 2007). The poor, the marginalized, and other so-called ‘undesirables’ are targeted by policies that outlaw ‘aggressive panhandling,’ criminalize of poverty, ban homelessness, and engage in various other forms of penalization (Goss, 1996; Mitchell, 2002; N. Smith, 1996). Broudehoux (2007) explains how the advent of ‘civilizing’ programs applied in Beijing during the time of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games endeavored to promote the image of China as a friendly and modern nation, expressing global norms and Western expectations of civility. However, the Games themselves acted as a propaganda tool and simultaneously an instrument of pacification that distracted from social issues such as speculation, corruption, and uneven patterns of development (Broudehoux, 2007). Kennelly and Watt (2011) explore the ‘inherited polarizations of the urban landscape’ in both London 2012 and Vancouver 2010, focusing on the practice of host cities relying upon restrictive legislation to limit access of undesirable populations to urban spaces. LITERATURE REVIEW 66 Fussey et al. (2012) explain the nature of the sport mega-event setting and the combination of regeneration and security in the context of London 2012: In this complex setting, a raft of formal and informal, often subtle, regulatory mechanisms have emerged, especially as visions of social ordering focused on ‘cleansing’ and ‘purifying’ have ‘leaked out’ from the hyper-securitized ‘sterilized’ environment of the Olympic Park and become embedded within the Olympic neighbourhood. (p. 261) Sport mega-events, it has long been noted elsewhere in the literature (see MacAloon, 1984; Roche, 2003), have a unique affinity for condensing time horizons, ensuring that a range of urban processes take place in a historically brief and limited window of opportunity. As Greene (2003) points out, host governments typically enhance the aesthetics of the city under such a time frame, rather than attending to systemic problems of urban inequality. Under the logic of event-oriented development, reducing “the visibility of poverty becomes paramount in renewal schemes, and preparations often involve removing the poor from high-profile areas surrounding event venues, without significant attention to long-term solutions” (p. 163, emphasis in original). 2.4 Sport Mega-Events and the Advent of the Postpolitical A final remaining area of literature to be explored in this review consists of a theoretical interpretation of post-political consensus. Postpolitical consensus is “built around the inevitability of neoliberal capitalism as a economic system, parliamentary democracy as the political ideal, and humanitarianism and inclusive cosmopolitanism as a moral foundation” (Swyngedouw, 2007, p. 24). Under such a postpolitical consensus, the politicization of particulars is eschewed in favor of a more consensual politics, reached in a form of simple agreement (Swyngedouw, 2007; Zizek, 1998). An entity, idea, event or LITERATURE REVIEW 67 slogan presumed to be universally beneficial is selected over rational decision-making processes that would have required typically democratic processes for input. The assumption of a collectively agreed upon, unified interest working towards such presumed objectives is a central tenet of the postpolitical condition (Mouffe, 2005; Swyngedouw, 2009b; Zizek, 1998, 2008). Sport mega-events are an example of an event able to successfully generate forms of dominant consensus, which are used to “stifle effective opposition to programmes in the name of a wider, uncontestable political good” (Raco & Tunney, 2010, p. 2087). The postpolitical forecloses the political and prevents the politicization of particulars (Swyngedouw, 2007). This form of politics, one that is ‘radically reactionary’ and successfully “forestalls the articulation of divergent, conflicting, and alternative trajectories for future possibilities,” is intended to remove politicization altogether (Swyngedouw, 2007, p. 26). The void left in the absence of politics proper is filled by social administration and managerialism. As Zizek (2002) writes, “the ultimate sign of post-politics in all Western countries is the growth of a managerial approach to Western government: government is reconceived as a managerial function, deprived of its proper political dimension” (p. 303, as cited in Swyngedouw, 2009, p. 24). If politicization is understood to mean the metaphorical universalization of demands, as Swyngedouw (2007) argues, postpolitics discourages it entirely. The political is made into a space of litigation, not of debate (Mouffe, 2005; Zizek, 1998). In replacing politics with universally accepted consensus, ideological divisions are rejected in favor of the non-conflictual. LITERATURE REVIEW 68 ‘Enlightened technocrats’– or established professionals lending a sense of legitimacy to the undertaking– step in as social administration and managerialism replace what were properly democratic forays into input and solicitation. The language surrounding such a techno-political and socio- or pseudo- scientific decision-making process (Swyngedouw, 2009b) is imbued with a sense of ‘expert knowledge’ and seemingly ‘free deliberation’ (Zizek, 2008). Technocrats operating under a mandate of compromise serve as replacements for proper forums for political debate. However, as in the example of London 2012’s urban regeneration schemes, the objectives underlying the projects have been effectively depoliticized, making the politics of urban development essentially postpolitical (Raco & Tunney, 2010). In the case of the sport mega-event, slogans around sustainability, ideals around legacy, and presumed notions around regeneration are all examples of notions cast as completely positive, universally beneficial objectives. The post-political nature of the sport mega-event allows organizers and supporters to press on with minimal input or consent of host city residents. The literature review presented in this chapter demonstrates some of the central features of the sport mega-event and its attendant processes. The most important theoretical influences at stake, as they relate to the two embedded case studies in the chapters ahead, point towards the seminal features of the sport mega-event that have allowed it to persist as a vehicle of, and for, urban hegemony. The organization and urban governance of the sport mega-event exist in an extemporaneous set of political conditions, and crucially, pre-conditions. Organizing committees and host governments stringently adhere to the deadlines imposed by international organizing bodies such as the IOC, enforcing a forced LITERATURE REVIEW 69 sense of urgency and creating an artificial crisis. These artificial crises in turn alter decision-making processes and typical governance practice as the mega-event exists beyond normative structures of governance, oversight, juridical rule, and public consultation that would exist in the ordinary. These extraordinary tendencies make it possible for agents of urban governance to pass policies off as necessity, despite the fact that such decision-making would likely never happen in a non-mega-event circumstance. Under neoliberal governance models witnessed in many post-industrial cities, there is also an increased tendency to engage in large-scale urban redevelopment schemes. In Vancouver’s case, city councilors may have seen an opportunity to start a development project they had long planned, but could never initiate, using the mega-event as the catalyst for SEFC. However, the reconfiguration of urban space through the vehicle of Olympic-induced, large-scale development projects also brings with them the prospect of gentrification and revanchism. Mega-events and those orchestrating them, as the postpolitical perspective has shown, benefit from their ability to use placated language to cover dissent. Gentrification can then be cast in an uncritical manner, as both a necessary and positive urban strategy (MacLeod & Ward, 2002, p. 159). In these urban restructuring processes, revanchist tendencies are also revealed. In the revanchist city, policies outlawing panhandling, criminalizing poverty, and banning homelessness take aim at those out of place in the neoliberal city. In an attempt to control what populations can access certain public spaces, mega-event organizers have turned to policies as an active means of social control. The mega-event is now frequently accompanied by policies enabling urban clearance and encouraging the marginalization of so-called LITERATURE REVIEW 70 undesirable populations. These attempts, I maintain, are a way of orchestrating the projected image of the city. METHODOLOGY 71 3 METHODOLOGY In this chapter I explore the key elements of the methodology and methods used over the course of this dissertation. This methodological approach is intended to provide insight on how policies, operationalized under the guise of preparing to host a sport mega-event, altered the political and social trajectory of the City of Vancouver in the period leading up to the 2010 Games25. In this first section of this chapter, I discuss the two primary methodologies applied: critical policy studies and critical discourse analysis (CDA). I rely on these methodologies most heavily as they offer a way of disassembling power, discourse, and their ensuing effect on policy-making. In line with the overarching theoretical framework offered by critical urban theory, I explore how these methods can contribute to a broadened understanding of how relations of social power develop, are formed, and impact policy-making. Critical policy studies and CDA are anchored by an understanding of case study methodology, which frames the two embedded case studies contained in chapters 5 and 6. The larger and broader case being studied here is the housing legacy of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, with two embedded case studies developed around two central policy areas: social housing and homelessness. An embedded case study design permits subunits of data to by synthesized for the purposes of knowledge integration, incorporating multiple units of analysis within the larger case (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). 25 Policies collected and analyzed for this dissertation were primarily authored between the years 2000 and 2013. Occasionally, policies pre-dating this time frame were considered in order to trace earlier iterations specific policies and by-laws. METHODOLOGY 72 In the latter section of this chapter, I provide greater detail on the research project design and the specific methods employed. After explaining the literature related to document collection, coding, and analysis, I shift my focus to discussing the actual methods applied and why they were selected. By carefully tracing the origins, nature, and intent of policies as they unfolded in various iterations over time, it is my ambition to contribute to a broader understanding of how sport mega-events influence urban policies and social outcomes. 3.1 On Case Study and Methodology The range of methodological approaches described in this chapter are grounded in an understanding of case study methodology that must first be explored for its component parts: the larger case and the two embedded cast studies within it. The larger case being studied is the housing legacy attempted in conjunction with hosting the 2010 Games. The first embedded case study examines the social housing legacy in the Athletes’ Village in SEFC, while the second embedded case study focuses on the enforcement of policies affecting or alleviating homelessness in Vancouver’s DTES. A case study is not method, methodology, or research design. Case studies are defined as a transparadigmatic heuristic that enables (a) a detailed description of contextual immersion, (b) bounding the case temporally and spatially, and (c) frequent engagement between the case itself and the embedded case studies (VanWynsberghe & Kahn, 2007, p. 9). Contextual immersion is provided in the form of engagement with critical literatures on the sport mega-event, Vancouver’s sport mega-event history, and the policy landscape of Vancouver and British Columbia related to social housing and METHODOLOGY 73 homelessness. The embedded case studies are bounded temporally as policies were limited to those authored or revised between 2000 and 2013 (see Figure 1 and Table 1, p. 3). Two urban neighbourhoods, SEFC and DTES, bound the embedded case studies spatially. A case study is a form of empirical inquiry in which contemporary phenomena are explored in depth and within context, and can prove especially useful when the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are blurred (Yin, 2009). Unsurprisingly then, the case study is of interest due to the highly contextual nature of the case, which was critical in understanding how policy-making processes are influenced by, and influence, context (Heartly, 2004). A case study takes place across eminently social and contextualized settings and can have case studies embedded within a larger case (Heartly, 2004). In embedded case study research, attention is paid to more than one subunit, which refers to a different, salient element of the case (Scholz & Tietje, 2002; Yin, 2009, p. 50). Embedded case studies, according to Scholz and Tietje (2002), involve multiple units of analysis and extend beyond qualitative analysis alone. An embedded case study design permits the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative data for purposes of knowledge integration, while also calling for a multiplicity of methods that can be applied across varying subunits (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). A case study analysis permits a direct interchange between theory and data which presents another distinct advantage supporting its application in this inquiry (Rueschemeyer, 2003). The employment of a case study design involves the careful METHODOLOGY 74 delineation of the phenomena for which evidence is being collected (VanWynsberghe & Kahn, 2007). Data analysis, when applied to a case study, consists of examining, categorizing, and rearranging evidence to inform empirically-based conclusions (Yin, 2009). A case study, as VanWynsberghe and Kahn (2007) maintain, is not so much about the case revealing itself as it is about elements of the case being discovered or constructed (p. 9). The methodological approach applied over the course of this dissertation draws from two primary methodologies, critical policy studies and CDA, while also using case study as its research design. Several scholars offer suggestions on how to justify and reconcile the use of such a multi-faceted approach. Beck (2006) describes an epistemological shift currently underway in the social sciences, speaking towards the broadened reconceptualization of the way knowledge is, and can be, captured. The units of research found in various social science disciplines are becoming arbitrary and the formerly distinct contours between internal and external, national and international, and local and global are dissolving (Beck, 2006, p. 17). Such substantive, conceptual, and methodological transformations require a new syntax and grammar befitting this reality that has redefined the terms of the social and the political (Beck, 2006). Thus while I align this work with the interpretivist paradigm, there are methodological solutions to justify and rationalize the use of multiple methodological applications. A paradigm is comprised of the researcher’s worldview, formulating a comprehensive belief system centering on what research is and how it ought to be conducted. Serving as METHODOLOGY 75 a guiding set of principles within research practice and providing a frame for conducting analysis, paradigms are instrumental in orienting the researcher to the field and object of inquiry. Guba and Lincoln (2005) classify paradigms as being either objectivist or interpretivist in orientation. Objectivist paradigms, including positivism and post-positivism, feature the inclusion of verifiable hypotheses, centered on the ontological belief that knowledge is an apprehendable reality. Critical theory and constructivism, operating within the interpretivist frame, are separated from their objectivist counterparts by the ontological perspective that interpretations of reality are inherently shaped by social, political, and cultural influences. Interpretivism combines the thread of rationalism, or the idea that the pure experience of the senses is not the absolute way of knowing. With relativism, the notion is that the reality we perceive is conditioned by personal experience (Willis, 2007), and realities are thereby co-constructed alongside forces of societal influence. The interpretivist paradigm offers a practical orientation empirically rooted in observable reality, which applies to the research conducted for this dissertation. Although such an ontological orientation finds that objective reality can never be captured in totality, it is possible to gain insights into reality by focusing on its socially constructed representations. In this case, the representations being studied are manifest in the policies I have collected and analyzed for inclusion into the two embedded case studies. One way to reconcile the use of multiple methods is bricolage, which allows the researcher to work between and within overlapping perspectives and paradigms. As Lefebvre (1991) explains, it is far too late to destroy codes in the name of critical theory, METHODOLOGY 76 a greater task lies amidst their already completed destruction (p. 26). The task, as Lefebvre (1991) describes it, is to measure the effects of such destruction, seeking to construct a new code by means of theoretical ‘supercoding’ (p. 26). One such way to operate within the already completed destruction of critical theory is what de Certeau (1984) describes as the poetic practice of ‘making do’ or bricolage. This design permits work between overlapping methodologies and approaches, allowing the researcher to synthesize a range of methods and perspectives to best suit the analysis. As Levi-Strauss (1968) describes in his explanation of bricolage, the process of creating something is not a calculated choice and use of any available materials; it involves a dialogue with the material and means of execution (Chandler, 2007). While it is possible for particular courses of action to be ‘suggested’ by the materials available, the aim of such a trajectory may be modified over the course of the project (Chandler, 2007). The bricoleur therefore not only speaks with things, but also through the medium of things (Chandler, 2007; Lévi-Strauss, 1968, p. 14). Bricolage is defined by McDonough (2004) as “the combination of heterogeneous elements into a new synthesis, an act of reappropriation or creative diversion patterned ultimately after the speech act, in which speakers manipulate, elaborate, and invent upon the preexisting material of language” (p. 118). In this sense, words, language, and syntax are the foundation for knowing, while technical applications to empirical data collection combine to aid in the formation of new knowledge creation. I use bricolage as a methodological orientation because it allows for fluidity between research tools and approaches. Most importantly, bricolage not only permits, but requires that methods at METHODOLOGY 77 the researcher’s disposal are adapted to best fit a given situation. The researcher holds the ability to use both aesthetic and material tools of their craft, choosing to deploy tools and methods on the context, circumstance, and nature of the object of inquiry (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). Denzin and Lincoln (2008) maintain that a researcher cannot move freely from one paradigm to another, yet it is possible to move between less rigidly outlined research perspectives. Within interpretivism, it is possible to pursue a looser adherence to methodology, opening the possibility of a more fluid approach between methods. In fitting together a set of representations based on the specifics of a situation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008, p. 4), the bricoleur is able to stress the hermeneutic nature of interdisciplinary forms of inquiry. At the same time, bricolage recognizes the dialectical complexion of interdisciplinary relationships, promoting a ‘synergistic interaction’ between elements and influences of research methods (Kincheloe, 2001, p. 679). Bricolage maintains a quilt-like quality in which a reflexive collage or assembled montage is created, consisting of segments of reality spliced together. Bricolage has faced criticism centered on the belief that interdisciplinarity can lead to superficiality (Kincheloe, 2001). However, those who have come to its defense have upheld bricolage as an approach to qualitative methodologies embracing a deeper form of interdisciplinarity (Kincheloe, 2001). Flick (2002, 2007) defends bricolage as a strategy adding rigor, breadth, complexity, and richness to qualitative inquiry. Kincheloe’s (2001) interpretation of bricolage is presented as one that seeks to modify disciplines, engages in METHODOLOGY 78 re-negotiation, and possesses an awareness of the diverse tools available to the researcher. In cultivating an approach to methodology that negates one-sided reductionism, bricolage can be used to secure an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question. 3.1.1 Critical Policy Studies Critical policy studies represents the most crucial methodological component to this project because it offers a critical orientation to the analysis of policies and their operationalization occurring at a range of scales and levels of analysis (Orsini & Smith, 2007). Policy analysis is “an applied social science based on a multiple of theories and methods designed to produce and transform policy-relevant information to be utilized in decision-oriented political settings” (Dunn, 1981; Fischer, 2007, p. 97). While seemingly an objectivist practice when read in this definition, critical policy studies has advanced beyond this to incorporate more discursively oriented methodological approaches. As Lingard (2006) writes, previous traditions of policy analysis tended to be “technocratic and managerialist in orientation and concerned mainly with implementation questions” (p. 36; as cited in Gale, 1994, p. 1). However, other forms of critical policy studies have demonstrated a more critical and more interpretivist approach. For example, policy sociology is increasingly recognized as a sophisticated branch of policy research. Policy sociology and critical policy studies are “united by the conviction that ‘things’ especially policy discourse, must be pulled apart” (Gale, 1994; Troyna, 1994, p. 71). Paul (2009) raises a crucial point in understanding the policy production process, questioning the presumed acceptance of policies as ‘a given,’ or accepted at face value. METHODOLOGY 79 When policy production is perceived as a natural result from the rational course of problem identification, deliberation, negotiation, and implementation, the true nature of policy production is artificially separated from its discursive context (Paul, 2009, p. 243). Paul (2009) elaborates, writing “… we need to identify the discourses that dominate in them, how they come to do so, and which discourses are excluded or marginalized in that process” (p. 243). One such way to understanding the ‘field of discursivity’ (Laclau & Mouffe, 2001) surrounding policy creation is through Gale’s (2001) interpretation of policy genealogy. While not completely separate from critical policy studies, the orientation towards policy genealogy permits insight and introspection into policy ‘realizations’ that are invariably molded by the course of their formation (Foucault, 1972). Policy genealogy asks: “(1) how policies change over time, but also seeks to determine (2) how the rationality and consensus of policy production might be problematized and (3) how temporary alliances are formed and reformed around conflicting interests in the policy production process” (Gale, 2001, pp. 389–390). Policy production, when scrutinized under the lens of policy genealogy, focuses in on the questions of how, what, and why in the process (Gale, 1994, 2001). The policy process, Paul (2009) writes, is “dynamic and marked by contestation about meanings,” and so the application of the tenets of discourse analysis fittingly “allows one to historicize, scrutinize, and de-naturalize the seemingly fixed interests and identities” (p. 243-244). The policies reviewed through the two embedded case studies are analyzed with the intent of uncovering how, why, and in what ways, certain policy discourses were operationalized, or ‘put into practice.’ While Paul (2009) points out that discourses must be uncovered in critical policy studies, scholars do not explicitly offer a way of critically METHODOLOGY 80 analyzing such discourses. In building my methodology, I turned to critical discourse analysis as a way of supplementing critical policy studies’ approach to tracking how policies were operationalized over time. 3.1.2 Critical Discourse Analysis Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is well-suited for incorporation to my analysis of social housing and homelessness policies created in the years leading up to the 2010 Games as it calls for “the overlay of social theoretic discourses for explaining and explicating the social contexts, concomitants, contingencies, and consequences of any given text” (A. Luke, 2002, p. 102). CDA can take the form of linguistic analysis, which consists of a more traditional approach to discourse in the form of phonology, grammar, vocabulary, and semantics. Beyond the level of the sentence, linguistic forms of CDA can include structural elements of text and properties of dialogue. At the intertextual level, CDA is used to examine how texts selectively draw upon orders of discourse, or “the particular configurations of conventionalized practices” (Fairclough, 1992b, p. 194). Intertextual approaches to analysis draw attention to the discursive interactions between text producers and interpreters (Fairclough, 1992a). CDA holds a broad definition of what constitutes ‘text’ suitable for analysis beyond written and spoken language (Fairclough, 1992a). Any kind of significant unit or synthesis, verbal or visual, can be considered a type of language, discourse, or speech (Barthes, 1994). Expanding the definition of text to ‘discursive unit’ allows ‘discourse’ to include not only written and spoken words, but also pictures, symbols, and images (Phillips & Hardy, 2002). The definition of text can be expanded even further, going so far as to identify text as “anything that is created by humans to communicate meaning” (Leitch & Palmer, 2010, p. 1196). METHODOLOGY 81 Discourse is not merely about linguistic representations and meaning-making as it refers to particular systems of “articulatory practice which constitutes and organizes social relations” (Laclau & Mouffe, 2001, p. 96). Therefore, discourse extends beyond systems of meaning, and can be understood as the relational totality in which the meanings of elements and identities are continuously reconstituted (Gibson-Graham, 2006, p. 55). The constant interchange between meaning-making and practice is further evident in Torfing’s (1999) explanation, which further defines discourse as a “differential ensemble of signifying sequences in which meaning is constantly renegotiated” (Torfing, 1999, p. 85). This ensemble can be examined under the conditions of a relational-dialectical conception of discourse (Leitch & Palmer, 2010), one in which the “seemingly infinite process of signification” yields a combination of signifying sequences, read and interpreted through discourse analysis (Torfing, 1999, p. 94). Discourse can be interpreted as meaning-making through social processes, while also bearing linkages to what Fairclough (2013) calls semiotic modalities. Perhaps most important for CDA then, is that it extends beyond the act of meaning-making, seeking instead to examine the relations between elements of semiotic practice as well as other social elements. Semiosis, explained by Silverman (1998), is the process or activity of sign production; it is signing, rather than signs, and indicating rather than indicators. The study of signs as proffered by semiotic analysis provides a method for analyzing the intersubjective production of meaning (Jessop, 2004). Semiology seeks to postulate a relationship between the signifier and the signified, drawing heavily from its two founders, Saussure (1986) and Peirce (1991). Peirce identifies three types of signs: icons METHODOLOGY 82 (which generate meanings via the relationship between the sign and the signified), indexes (which bear meaning based on causal relationships), and symbols (which are given their meanings based on convention). Saussure, by comparison, delineates the ‘signifier’ (that is, what carries meaning) from the ‘signified’ (understood as the intended meaning), explaining that the two are not related in any necessary or essential way (Willis, 2007). While Peirce postulates that meaning is generated through greater existing contextual linkages, Saussure’s work stresses that the assigned significance between the signifier and the signified is entirely arbitrary, as no meaning is at all inherent in semiotics (Best & Kellner, 1997). This Saussurian conceptualization of the signifier is therefore understood as a correlate of the signified (Silverman, 1998). The signifier and the signified, a binary pair, together constitute the sign or associative total of both elements (Barthes, 1994). As Barthes (1994) explains, the signified is the concept, the signifier is the mental image, and the sign produced is the relation between the concept and the image. Barthes (1994) theorized the relationship between the signifier and signified according to Saussure’s conceptualizations, describing such a relationship as an act or process, which Barthes (1994) termed signification. Thus, as Fairclough (2013) explains, two dialectical relations are at focus in CDA; first, those between structures and events, and second, those relations between semiotic and extrasemiotic elements. Fairclough (2013) writes: “CDA oscillates between a focus of structures (especially the more concrete level of structuring of social practices) and a focus on strategies, on shifts in the structuring of semiotic difference (orders of discourse) and on strategies of social agents that manifest themselves in texts” (emphasis METHODOLOGY 83 in original) (p. 180). The examination of ideology, considered a “discursive naturalization of contingently constructed meanings and identities,” can be assessed through the frame of CDA, especially in light of contextual setting of policy analysis (Howarth & Griggs, 2012, p. 332). As Fairclough (2013) writes, CDA provides insight into the formation of linguistic interaction, the construction of semiotic practice, and foundation for discursive analysis by providing both a semiotic emphasis and point of entry into social analysis (Fairclough, 2013, p. 179). I utilize CDA throughout my analysis because it allows for the careful introspection into the power relations that help construct social relationships and identities (Fairclough, 1992a; Millington & Darnell, 2012, p. 7). In the case of the development of an Olympic legacy of social housing and the alleviation of homelessness, power relations and discursive practice came to definitively shape the ways in which such social objectives were pursued. From policy documents, to city council memos, to VANOC’s official publications, the extent to which social relations were shaped through the use of language, discourse, and text became paramount to the formation and achievement of the stated legacy objectives. As A. Luke (2002) writes, “CDA sets out to capture the dynamic relationships between discourse and society, between the micropolitics of everyday texts and the macropolitical landscape of ideological forces and power relations, capital exchange, and material historical conditions” (p. 100). This interchange between the micropolitics of documents such as city bylaws, and its exchange with macro-level, ideological documents such as the Inner-City Inclusive Commitment Statement (ICICS), is set against a contextual backdrop of strained historical relations with regards to the METHODOLOGY 84 pursuit of social housing. These features and the nature of this investigation make the examination of power relations seminal. Power relations lie at the core of CDA as it is dedicated to the ways in which power relations are produced, reproduced, and transformed within discourse (Leitch & Palmer, 2010, p. 1195). With an objective of critically challenging the use and force of language, discourse, text, and images and their usage under societal conditions, CDA is a vital component of the methodological arsenal for this investigation into Vancouver’s housing legacy, pursued in conjunction with hosting the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. What remains at focus in the two embedded case studies to follow is the broader context for interaction of specific policy discourses with the intent of revealing the production of such hegemonic policy discourses and practices. Hegemony, power, discourse, and practice are all central elements of the methodological approach applied for the purposes of examining policy across the two embedded case studies. Several authors have contributed to an approach to critical policy studies under the perspective of hegemonic struggle, which is outlined by Fairclough (2013) simply as the production and challenge of hegemony (Jessop, 2009; Sum, 2009). Howarth (2009) relates how hegemony is critical in contributing to a greater understanding of power, domination, and ideology in policy studies. Hegemony in such an account is simultaneously a type of political practice and a form of rule for a regime, practice, or policy and how it maintains control over its subjects through either consent or compliance (Howarth, 2009, p. 317). Both power and hegemony are vital for explaining policy making practices in sport mega-event hosts as power, and the exercise of it, constitute and reproduce practices, polices, and regimes METHODOLOGY 85 (Howarth, 2009, p. 309). Extending beyond simple reductions of structural properties or causal agents, power in this conception assumes a structure of domination in which social agents, such as organizing committees and levels of government, seek to impose their wills and objectives (Howarth, 2009, p. 323). To assemble the methodological approach used in the two embedded case studies, I ‘bricolaged’ critical policy studies and CDA as a means of critically explaining how and why particular discourses were formed, implemented, and privileged over others (Howarth, 2009). My objective in applying such an approach was to uncover the broader context for the interaction of specific policy discourses with the intent of revealing the production of such hegemonic policy discourses and practices. Sum (2009) offers two list of questions that I used as a framework to guide the analysis of policies included. Of these two lists, I have combined the questions most relevant and applicable to my analysis. This framework permitted a deeper examination of the structural features in the production of hegemony as it relates to the formulation of policy: METHODOLOGY 86 1. Where do particular policy ideas and their related discursive networks originate; 2. Which actors, individual and collective, get involved in the policy discursive networks that construct objects of economic governance; 3. How do these ideas enter policy discourses and everyday practices; 4. How and through what mechanisms are they reproduced as part of hegemonic logics; 5. How do they reorganize spaces, policies, and populations; 6. How does this hegemonic constellation of policy discourses and practices come to be challenged and renegotiated in specific conjectures; 7. How these mediate the rebuilding of social relations? (Sum, 2009, pp. 186, 198) Finally, one last concept, Laclau’s (1993) concept of the empty signifier, bears mentioning. While critical policy studies calls for discourse to be ‘pulled apart,’ the prospect of an empty signifier, one that is not attached to any signifieds “due to the incessant sliding nature of the signifieds under the signifier,” remains at large (Torfing, 1999, p. 176). While hegemonic blocs can take on broader, collective aims, it is also possible that hegemonic blocs represent the emptiness of a generalizable universality. That is to say, can terms such as social legacy or sustainability, be pulled apart to reveal an empty signifier? If meanings are constantly shifting and perpetually un- (or under-) defined, the hegemony of discursive practice such as the one involved in Vancouver’s attempt at establishing a social housing legacy rests not in the power of the signified, but in the signifer’s ability to remain a place holder, an empty vessel to be filled by the interests of the powerful, or to purposefully be left empty. METHODOLOGY 87 3.2 On Method In this section I explain the methods used in conducting research for the two embedded case studies. First, I explore what drew me to the subject in the first place before detailing the explicit processes used to collect documents and analyze data. 3.2.1 Notes from the ‘Field’ My original fascination was with how urban spaces are rewritten (discursively), reshaped (literally), and cleared (figuratively) under the guise of the sport mega-event. How, and why, and through what forces were certain ideas leading to such urban restructuring propagated? And not merely acknowledged, but forged into legitimate and operationalized policies at the local, provincial, and federal levels? The language around Vancouver’s bid to host the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, and later the event itself, was infused with ideas and objectives like ‘inclusivity’ and ‘social housing,’ while ‘sustainability’ and ‘legacy’ also rose to the fore. Where did these ideas come from, and how did they accumulate such power in the sport mega-event discourse? In the case of the Athletes’ Village, it became very clear at the onset of this investigation that such an urban development project would not have happened under almost any other set of political circumstances. The way in which land rights and title in SEFC were negotiated, the city’s decision to restructure the loan agreement and finance the remainder of the development (of which only 22% of the development would be government owned, with the remainder of the luxury condos sold at profit), and late-night, in-camera decisions made by city council and the provincial government to rewrite the City of Vancouver’s charter to augment its borrowing power are all extremely rare functions of a METHODOLOGY 88 Canadian municipal government, actions that I maintain would not be feasible nor rational under any other set of normal (i.e., non-mega-event) circumstances. The sport mega-event literature explains such activity as a result of city under the ‘state of exception,’ relying on the ‘crisis tendencies’ of sport mega-events to explain such extraordinary behavior by neoliberalizing municipal governments and their attendant regimes. While these developments in the field of sport mega-event research and investigation have proven especially useful in the theoretical sense, what is classically lacking across the sport mega-event literature is the empirical data to definitively instantiate such theories. One of my primary objectives in choosing to undertake this project was therefore to trace the origins of these policy formations, to uncover how specific temporary policy settlements (Gale, 1999) came to ensure that extraordinary measures could be taken in light of the city hosting the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. From early meetings of the nascent bid organizing committee, to loosely iterated but lofty sounding Candidature Files, through policy enactment in the City’s official development plans and administrative reports, I started this project with an idea of determining where such ideas were born and how they progressed. Were some of these statements opportune moments to galvanize public support for bringing the Olympic Games to Vancouver? Were some notions actually well intended but poorly initiated? What were the underlying motivations of those in positions of power, not only within the bid organizing committee, but within the city as well? How do certain things, at certain times, evolve to become hegemonic as a mode of discourse? The most captivating objective to me, as a doctoral student that was firmly attached, but not clearly defined, to Vancouver’s Olympic hosting experience was the attempt to METHODOLOGY 89 deliver a social housing legacy. Having lived in Vancouver since 2010, only a few kilometres away from the site of the Athletes’ Village, and having moved to Vancouver with the intent of pursuing graduate studies on something related to sport mega-events, Vancouver’s experience hosting the 2010 Winter Olympic Games would qualify as a ‘sensitizing concept’ (Blumer, 1954). With this concept ‘merely suggest[ing] directions along which to look’ and providing a general sense of reference guiding my approach to the study of sport mega-events, the Athletes’ Village became a natural focus of my inquiry (Blumer, 1954, p. 7). Morse and Mitcham (2002) explain the role that prior knowledge can have in inductive qualitative research, arguing that awareness of the concept and its stage of development can actually enhance, rather than threaten, research validity. They (2002) write: As an archaeologist does when discovering a skeleton, we knew roughly the shape of the original dinosaur– and perhaps even how it moved and worked– but we only had a general idea of its actual appearance… As an archaeologist tries to piece bones together, the inductive puzzle of inquiry is maintained, and, as inquiry proceeds, falls into place, the skeletal framework is padded, and provides the emerging model with indices of purpose and function (p. 32). The opportunity to travel to Lausanne through the IOC’s Postgraduate Research Grant Program in April 2013 gave me the time and focus to delve into the intricate and elaborate world of Olympic affiliated discourse. The main research objective of the aforementioned research project carried out as part of the IOC’s research grant program was to uncover how indicator-based impact assessment had failed to report on the extent of Vancouver’s social housing legacy failures and how case-based, contextualized study could supplement quantitatively generated data pertaining to ‘legacy.’ In pursuing the angle of examining Vancouver’s social housing legacy, I was constantly running into METHODOLOGY 90 another very different area of the city also experiencing the complete absence of a housing legacy, the DTES. Originally, my attention was drawn to how Vancouver’s homeless population was excluded from the conversation on social housing, but later, this interest evolved into uncovering the ways in which the DTES was not only skipped over in terms of consideration, but was adversely affected as a result of urban policies enacted in the lead up to the 2010 Games. 3.2.2 Data Collection and Analysis: Process and Policies As I explain the methods used in data collection and analysis in this subsection, I will use the past tense as I write, somewhat reflexively, on data collection and analysis phases of my research. Document collection took place in two physical locations for two specific time frames. For four weeks in April 2013 I collected documents related to IOC policies on legacy, the candidature process for host cities, and sustainability in Lausanne, Switzerland from the IOC’s library and official archive. In July 2013 I collected by-law and policy documents from the City of Vancouver Archives in Vancouver, BC over a three-week period. These time periods and sites of data collection were supplemented with ongoing visits to virtual policy repositories (available from the City of Vancouver and Province of British Columbia) and websites containing links to downloadable policy documents. Forms of qualitative analysis such as CDA and critical policy studies call for systematic and analytic exploration through reflexive methodology. In turn, such exploration offers a recursive process moving between data sampling, data collection, coding, analysis, and METHODOLOGY 91 interpretation (Altheide, Coyle, DeVriese, & Schneider, 2008; Thomas, 2006). I began to assemble the beginnings of a codebook by starting my search with a few key documents, such as Vancouver’s Candidature and Applicant File to host the 2010 Winter Olympic Games (see Appendix C: Codebook). I used these key documents to generate codes for the purposes of finding new documents and for the beginning of the analysis phase. For example, I did not set out to conduct a review of sustainability claims surrounding the 2010 Games, yet sustainability became part of the codebook when I realized that social housing was considered a key claim under VANOC’s pledges on social sustainability. My experience in the archives in both Vancouver and Lausanne sorting through dozens of file folders, decades old policies, tiny scraps of information like intra-office emails and larger, literal, boxes of information was in many ways coding for frames, themes, and discourse. I was sorting the information in front of me, making active decisions regarding what was necessary and what was superfluous, and in so doing, deciding which stories I was going to tell. These weeks of document collection and initial coding in April and July 2013 were arguably the most important of my doctoral work. I always knew I was looking for policies, looking for the intersection of the influence of power and knowledge dissemination, discerning how and where material-discursive practice intersected with the world of the sport mega-event, but it wasn’t until after it actually happened that I was sure of what took place. Sorting through these documents and deciding what to include and exclude was a form of emergent coding in line with Altheide’s (2000) description of tracking discourse. Such a research technique places emphasis on both discovery and description while also searching for “underlying meanings, patterns, and processes” METHODOLOGY 92 across texts (Altheide, 2000, p. 290). In a similar vein, Berg (2007) describes such analysis as a “careful, delineated, systematic examination and interpretation of a particular body of material in an effort to identify patterns, themes, biases, and meanings” (p. 303). As I collected printed materials, digitally printed materials, and photographs of physically printed materials (e.g., documents found at the City of Vancouver archives were photographed instead of photocopied to aid in the organization and sorting of documents), it became clear that a more sophisticated, computer-aided process would be necessary to begin coding and analyzing texts. A few basic, yet highly useful, qualitative tools were employed at this stage, predominantly Atlas.ti (a qualitative data analysis software package), Zotero (a bibliographic management software and internet browser plug-in), and Microsoft Excel. In Atlas.ti, I used the coding feature to highlight key terms of my developing codebook. Doing this across several documents led to several observed patterns developing not only within each contained policy or memoranda, but also across sets of documents. For example, tracking codes through an originating document, such as Project Civil City, and then replicating that process in follow-up reports and supporting files such as the Vancouver Police Department’s annual statements allowed me to see how homelessness discourses were developed and reinforced over time and across social institutions. Excel became equally useful as I used spreadsheets to capture longer statements from policy documents, such as whole sentences and entire paragraphs. I entered these paragraphs into a spreadsheet in Excel along with the corresponding policy number and its reference in the document (e.g. City of Vancouver by-law statements are numbered 1.1, 1.2, etc.). Tracking by-law revisions in the order they appeared and then METHODOLOGY 93 entering them into excel allowed me to have side-by-side comparisons of certain document iterations, such as the Southeast False Creek Official Development Plan, which was repeatedly edited in terms of the percentage of social housing slated for the development’s post-Games usage. Personal notebooks kept during the data collection process reveal how categorization, in early stages of research, not only served an organizational purpose in terms of keeping documents collated, but also served to mentally organize where very disparate strands of information fit into the project as a whole. For example, an early note simply lists five broad categories representing what I believed I was looking for within the collections at the City of Vancouver (abbreviated CoV) archives: • CoV admin. and policy reports • VANOC reports • CoV urban Olympic policies • CoV bylaws (note dated July 11, 2013) However, two weeks later I clearly became concerned with the wealth of information (all of which is available to the public, upon request) I was collecting and how best to keep track of it all. CoV keeps massive archives– at least 50 boxes (an estimate, as I am not able to see complete listings nor the stacks themselves) of Vancouver Whistler 2010 Bid Corporation Files. These files contain emails, memos, internally circulated reports, externally circulated reports, and goings-on of the bid committee grouped by series and sub-series. On Monday I began identifying folders and boxes I would need to extract from the stacks. The archive system did not rely upon the bid committee’s formal records management system and instead has generated its own, which has proven problematic. Navigating the drop-down menus to locate such references is possible, although tedious and extremely time consuming. When those METHODOLOGY 94 folders were located I started flipping through each one. If I found one of relevance (social housing, athletes’ village, homelessness, sustainability, legacy are all ‘codes’ I am alerted to) I photographed the document and accompanying pages (as necessary) with my iPad. Next, I created a Zotero entry for each document I intended to use. Today, the 25th, I uploaded all of these pictures to my computer. I renamed the files to match their titles in Zotero and then attached each .jpg of the documents to the Zotero entry. (note dated July 25, 2013). By July 29th I attempted reorganization a second time: I am reorganizing my Zotero files into more clearly demarcated sub folders: • Bid Corp Archives (everything I photographed or photocopied at CoV archives) • Interest group reports • IOC files (reference documents created by the IOC) • Journal articles (publications related to the 2010 Games or urban planning in Vancouver) • Media (news releases related to the Olympic Games, with specific focus on athletes’ village reporting and sustainability reporting, predominantly published in the lead-up to the games but some in the aftermath as well) • Policy – City Council (city council reports is a sub folder, but there is some pruning left to do within the main folder, questioning whether I should differentiate folders for admin reports, policy reports, presentations, etc.) • VANOC files (bid books, sustainability reports, progress reports, budgets) The next step might be to reconcile these Zotero subfiles with the Master Document List (formerly the Atlas.ti documents list).’ (note dated July 29, 2013) On my last day in the City of Vancouver Archives I wrote at length so that I would confidently be able to locate documents, now stored either physically in an organized binder or digitally through Zotero, and be able to refer to the master document list maintained in Excel. I am attempting to integrate what I have in paper format with my digital collection of documents. Some of what I have, for VANOC METHODOLOGY 95 specifically, exists only in paper as I copied it at the IOC/OSC [Olympic Studies Centre] in Lausanne. I have a lot of sustainability reports in digital format, plus some others in paper, so it doesn't seem practical to scan in the paper ones and collect (and later code) them all in Atlas. Of the 20 documents I am using for VANOC, 8 are in digital format only. So then, I am selecting the pages of relevance from those 8 to add to the collection of printed copies I have in my new master document collection binder. These are the Zotero folders, and next to them, in what format they will be analyzed (BINDER means paper format, added to the document collection binder) and ATLAS means I will use digital .pdf files in Atlas.ti, and DIGITAL means I will use electronically stored copies of jpg and .pdf files (accessing by iPad) and catalog them using excel. (This is because there are so many in the bid archives files that it wouldn't be practical or a productive to input them all into atlas to only code a sentence or two; in the excel spreadsheet of documents collected at the city of Vancouver archives there are 5 categories with their own subcategories where necessary, listed here). ! Bid Corp Archives (DIGITAL, excel) o Bid corp operations o ICICS o Sustainability o Athletes’ Village o Interest Groups ! Interest Group Reports (BINDER) ! IOC (BINDER) ! VANOC (BINDER) ! Policy (named CoV Urban Policies in ATLAS) o City Council (BINDER) o CoV By-laws (ATLAS) ! SEFC bylaws ! SRO bylaws ! Demolition of Social Housing As of today, that is 246 items of varying lengths, from one-page emails to 150 page sustainability reports.’ (note dated July 31, 2013) In total, 222 documents were included in and analyzed for the embedded case studies contained in this dissertation, that were created between the years 2000 and 2013.26 26 Several policies analyzed pre-date the 2000-2013 range. These policies were considered because they offered important background information, such as the original version of By-law No. 6788 Protection of METHODOLOGY 96 Appendix A: Summary Documents Analyzed and Appendix B: Documents Analyzed contain the authors, content, and document types of these sources. Figure 1 and Table 2 below display the number of sources organized by year and author. Figure 3. Sources by Year and Author Social Housing, but are not reflected in Figure 3 and Table 2. They are listed in Appendix B: Documents Analyzed. METHODOLOGY 97 Table 2. Sources by Year and Author 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 City of Vancouver 5 4 2 4 10 11 8 15 9 3 2 4 Government of British Columbia 1 2 3 Government of Canada 1 1 Vancouver Whistler 2010 Bid Corporation 3 13 49 7 VANOC 2 6 4 3 3 IOC 2 1 4 3 4 Interest Groups 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Government Stakeholders 9 1 2 1 1 4 This organizing system used during the document collection phase served as an integrated method that was useful for “locating, identifying, retrieving, and analyzing documents for their relevance, significance, and meaning” (Altheide et al., 2008, p. 128). At this stage I also identified emergent coding and content analysis as two research techniques that would prove helpful for the purposes of guiding my analysis. Emergent coding is explained as a research technique in which categories are established following some preliminary examination of the data (Stemler, 2001). In instances where emergent coding was used, documents were coded for specific words, themes, and frames as they emerged from the text. Emergent coding was most helpful in instances where policy iterations were tracked in Excel. Content analysis served as a stand-alone research technique used in conjunction with CDA and critical policy studies. Content analysis shares many of the same key features of CDA and critical policy studies, but offers a more generalized frame of guidance focused on uncovering patterns, themes, biases, and meanings (Berg & Lune, 2012, p. 349). As a research technique, content analysis offers a way to make replicable and valid inferences from texts to their contexts of use METHODOLOGY 98 (Krippendorff, 2004, p. 18). Content analysis was selected because certain documents, such as reports produced by consulting companies and powerpoint slide presentations, did not require the depth of CDA. Content analysis came to represent, for me, a lighter form of CDA in which I was scanning such documents for links to other content found within policy documents. The coding process27 helped me organize and recognize which by-laws, urban policing guidelines, housing policies, and administrative reports, all of which were generated by unique sources, shared commonalities in the language used. For example, Atlas.ti allows for easy connections to be drawn between documents through color-coded ‘codes’ (which can range in length from a word to a paragraph, to an image or an entire page) and is flexible enough to allow the researcher to control the manner in which codes are entered, sorted, and stored. Another key feature is Atlas.ti’s ability to connect and compare the rate of recurrence of code or codes between entered documents with minimal effort. As this introductory coding progressed in Atlas.ti and Zotero and gained an increasing number of entries, I resorted to Microsoft Excel to keep track of specific policies, which had very subtly, but very crucially, changed with regards to the social housing legacy slated for SEFC as well as the DTES. Three by-laws in particular came to hold seminal importance in both locations. First, the Southeast False Creek Development Plan Bylaw (No. 9073) explicitly dealt with the city’s approach to developing the public lands on the site. This bylaw was amended twelve times from the time it was passed in July 2005 to 27 See Appendix C: Codebook for more information on the coding process. METHODOLOGY 99 201328. Next, two interrelated by-laws, Demolition for Social Housing (No. 6788) and Single Room Accommodation Bylaw (No. 8733), were similarly assessed for changes over time. This exercise proved extremely useful, although extremely tedious and time consuming, for comparing line-by-line changes in policy documents. I was able to map the ways in which policies were modified over time as well as how temporary policy alliances were formed around different interests in the policy production process (Gale, 1999, 2001). Additionally, I completed a survey of relevant homelessness policy documents and housing policy documents in order to gain a more complete rendering of the policy landscape as well as the policy production process. These policies are described in Appendix D: Related Housing and Homelessness Policies. While bricolage sounds rather ideal, it was not always the perfect ‘poetic practice’ de Certeau (1984) described. Bricolage grants a researcher license to work within and between different methodologies and approaches, however, the synthesis of multiple methods was not always a smooth as it appears. Certainly, complete synthesis was not always possible. In reality, I tended to oscillate between the two primary methodologies, whose distinctions occasionally blurred from my perspective. The methodology I applied in both embedded case studies would actually be captured by ‘critical policy discourse studies,’ a hybrid of both. While critical policy studies captures the ways that meaning-making informs policy practice, I found it lacking the depth of investigation that CDA calls for. For example, critical policy studies helped me trace how and were policy iterations were transformed by linking codes from one document to the next. However, 28 See Appendix E: Complete By-law Amendments to see all changes to By-law No. 9073 from July 2005-April 2013. METHODOLOGY 100 CDA pushed me to further disassemble the power structures that generated those codes in the first place. In this regard I was using briolage as I found certain sets of policy documents called for different levels of investigation and scrutiny. The more accurate description of bricolage, for my research, is represented by Kincheloe (2001), who writes “bricoleurs pick up the pieces… and use them as best they can” (Kincheloe, 2001, p. 51). In table 3 I refer to the predominant methodology (CDA and critical policy studies, or both) along with the applicable software used or research technique applied for each set of documents analyzed. In this table, I aim to demonstrate how bricolage between methodologies, research techniques, and software transpired. METHODOLOGY 101 Table 3. Methodology, Research Techniques, and Software in Embedded Case Study Embedded Case Study on Social Housing AUTHOR SUBJECT DOCUMENT TYPE METHODOLOGY CODEBOOK RESEACH TECHNIQUE/ SOFTWARE CoV South East False Creek - Athletes' Village Administrative Reports CDA Codebook A Excel/ Emergent Coding Policy Documents and Memoranda Critical Policy Studies, CDA Policy Reports Critical Policy Studies, CDA Presentation Documents Content Analysis Official SEFC Development By-laws Critical Policy Studies Codebook C Atlas.ti Policies on Social Housing and Homelessness Official Demolition of Social Housing By-laws Critical Policy Studies Official SRO Development By-laws Critical Policy Studies GoBC Urban and Housing Policies Policy Documents Critical Policy Studies Codebook A Excel/ Emergent Coding GoC Federal Involvement Reports CDA Bid Corp Bid Materials Bid Books Athletes' Village Communications Bid Corp Operations Internal Communications ICICS Focus Groups, Internal Communications VANOC Organizing Committee Operations Progress Reports and Updates Content Analysis IOC Procedural Documents Bid Procedure Interest Groups Community Impact Community Interest Reports Excel/ Emergent Coding Consulting Reports Gov’t. Stake-holders Working Groups ICI Working Group Proceedings Critical Policy Studies, CDA Housing Table Proceedings Critical Policy Studies, CDA Homelessness Policy Reviews Critical Policy Studies Finance Financial Statements CDA METHODOLOGY 102 Table 3. Methodology, Research Techniques, and Software in Embedded Case Study Embedded Case Study on Homelessness AUTHOR SUBJECT DOCUMENT TYPE METHODOLOGY CODEBOOK RESEACH TECHNIQUE/ SOFTWARE CoV Urban Policies Policy Documents Critical Policy Studies, CDA Codebook B Atlas.ti Policy Reports Critical Policy Studies, CDA Policies on Social Housing and Homelessness Policy Documents Critical Policy Studies, CDA GoBC Urban and Housing Policies Policy Documents Critical Policy Studies, CDA Law (2004) discusses at length the ‘mess’ that is social science research. Looking back on my notes from the data collection phase, it is now very clear that I was very deep into a very large mess. Law (2004) attempts to subvert methods by remaking them, cautioning that in order to do so: we will need to unmake many of our methodological habits, including: the desire for certainty; the expectation that we can usually arrive at more or less stable conclusions about the way things really are; the belief that as social scientists we have special insights that allow us to see further than others into certain parts of social reality; and the expectations of generality… (p. 9). The chapters that follow, in their present state, are a distant descendant of their original incarnation, the product of constant engagement, scrutiny, and revision. As my analysis progressed, new documents and sources were located that pointed me towards new concepts worthy of exploration or elimination, steering me to as many new leads as dead-ends in my attempt to assemble a meaningful representation of Vancouver’s social housing legacy. As Pavoni (2011) explains, various research outputs are “constantly re-shuffled in a feedback loop between personal account, self-introspection and analytical METHODOLOGY 103 interpretation,” allowing for flexibility, complexity, and reflexivity to be considered (p. 197). I remained always mindful, however, of Pavoni’s (2011) further warning: the desire for certainty conceals the fact that the complexity of events always exceeds, ontologically, our capacity to know them, sanctioning the impossibility of any attempt to encapsulate reality into a definite set of certainty (p. 197). Over the course of the embedded case studies, analysis and discovery proceeded in tandem, the result of a constant cycle of feedback between data, discovery, description, theory, and analysis. After several months of sifting through data, I attempted to write smaller, more contained pieces analyzing my findings. In this way, the larger picture of the 2010 Games’ social housing legacy began to develop. As underlying motivations were revealed and their outcomes scrutinized, the puzzle of Vancouver’s housing legacy started to fit together and began to resonate with particular theoretical admonitions floating around the sport mega-event literature. As reading for doctoral dissertations never truly ends, I returned to the works of several key theorists and began to flesh out theoretical arguments surrounding the two major themes developing throughout the course of my analysis. The major thematic areas arising out of analysis represent slightly different sides of the housing legacy coin, yet they are all instrumental in illustrating the ways in which social issues were incorporated into policy-making over the course of Vancouver’s Olympic planning. The first thematic grouping I needed to address emerged from the analysis of several key documents produced by the organizing committee and the IOC. This set of documents, now comprising chapter 4, featured key terms that repetitively appeared in the course of my document collection and analysis, such as legacy and sustainability. Next, I collected METHODOLOGY 104 data around the thematic area pertaining to the creation of a social housing legacy and the processes and mechanisms through which the housing legacy progressed. By coupling the analysis of outcomes, such as the number of social housing units created, with what was originally promised and tracing the evolution of the discursive practices and policies surrounding these issues, I felt a more accurate assessment of Vancouver’s Olympic legacies could be arrived at. This thematic area, constituting one of the embedded case studies presented in this dissertation, is explored in chapter 5. Lastly, like pulling on a loose thread, I attempted to follow what was happening to a group that was, paradoxically, excluded from the discussion on the creation of social housing even though they needed it the most: the Vancouver’s homeless population who predominately residing formally and informally in the DTES. This foray led me to uncover City of Vancouver bylaws, policy documents, and communications regarding campaigns, renewed enforcement, and Vancouver Police Department reports pertaining to how policies were enacted, disproportionately and discriminatively, on the DTES. This thematic area and second embedded case study is found in chapter 6. Appendix A: Summary of Documents Analyzed shows where all of the documents I collected, scrutinized, and sorted were included in the various chapters of this dissertation. THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE 105 4 THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE In Chapter 4, key pieces of information and attendant ideas are introduced that are necessary to understand the context in which the two embedded case studies unfolded. First, I briefly address important background information pertaining to the City of Vancouver, such as its previous mega-event hosting experience and its impact on the city’s affordable housing supply. Next, I move to elements of the spectacle that are also helpful in contextualizing and grounding the empirical information nested in the embedded case studies. I focus on the origins of two key terms that feature prominently in the discourse surrounding sport mega-events: legacy and sustainability. 4.1 The City 4.1.1 Site, Space, and Social Intervention: An Empirical Introduction To understand the case study of the 2010 Games’ planned housing legacy, one must imagine two distinct locations separated by only two kilometres: the shores of South East False Creek, where the Athletes’ Village was built, and the Downtown Eastside (DTES), an inner-city neighborhood. The DTES, noted as one of Vancouver’s most historic neighborhoods, also holds longstanding notoriety as Canada’s poorest postal code. More than half (53.3%) of the DTES’s population of approximately 18,000 live below the low-income cut off, compared to only 19.2% across the rest of the Vancouver (City of Vancouver, 2012a). Forty-eight percent of its population consists of members of ethnic minorities, along with a higher percentage of seniors (21%) and men (60%) in comparison to city-wide averages and a particularly low level of children and youth (Carnegie Community Action Project, 2010; City of Vancouver, 2012a). The DTES has a THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE 106 high proportion of First Nations Aboriginal communities, with 10% of Vancouver’s Aboriginal population living in this neighbourhood, compared to 2% across the rest of the city. The DTES faces a number of complex social issues, including homelessness, drug use, crime, unemployment, and high rates of HIV infection (City of Vancouver, 2012a). The DTES has the lowest national life expectancy plus the highest prevalence of HIV in the Western world (British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, n.d.). However, the DTES is not entirely deserving of such a skewed reputation as a ‘skid row’, because it is also a vibrant community and some of its residents share deep sense of pride and strong social connection to their neighbourhood (Linden, Mar, Werker, Jang, & Krausz, 2012; Sommers, 2001). Physically proximate but institutionally estranged, these two urban settings share some meaningful articulations that reflect the trajectory of Vancouver’s social housing legacy (MacLeod, 2002, p. 153). The contrast of these two sites is in many ways reflective of a patchwork of dystopian and utopian spaces that are frequently found within the urban setting. SEFC had been previously classified by the City of Vancouver in 1990 as an industrial property that had been ‘let go’ (City of Vancouver, 1999). Once a major industrial hub home to sawmills, an operational port, and the terminus of the Canadian rail system, the area containing eighty hectares of land that was released from the city’s industrial land base in 1990 (City of Vancouver, 1999). City Council directed that residential housing should be provided in the resulting development policy enacted for SEFC in 1991; however, it was not until Vancouver’s successful Olympic bid placing the Athletes’ Village at the core of the site’s physical redevelopment that the project broke ground. SEFC was built with the highest possible environmental standards (i.e. LEED THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE 107 platinum certification) and anchored by Vancouver’s quest to become the most sustainable city in the world, is now a gleaming collection of waterfront luxury condo towers and the centerpiece of a fast growing neighborhood. The urban settings in which housing issues and their proposed solutions played out predominately in SEFC and the DTES, are also representative of intersections of space, power, and social justice in the context of the sport mega-event (Broudehoux, 2001). Figure 4. Map of Vancouver © OpenStreetMap contributors, License: www.openstreetmap.org/copyright The Athletes’ Village on SEFC was not the only major urban development project underway in the lead up to the 2010 Games, nor was the attempt to obscure Vancouver’s most troubling neighborhood, the DTES, the only superficial attempt made in the name of protecting Vancouver’s image. The following figure and table illustrates the largest urban THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE 108 development schemes that were directly tied, but not necessarily funded by the organizing committee. Table 4. Capital Expenditures of Olympic-related and Olympic-induced Infrastructure29 Capital Expenditure (in millions $CAD) Project Olympic Connection GoBC CoV VANOC GoC Sea-to-Sky Highway Safety and travel time improvements connecting the ice venues and alpine venues located in Whistler, BC 516 Canada Line Skytrain Public transit line linking Vancouver International Airport and the downtown core 435 28.6 450 Vancouver Convention Centre Served as main press centre and international media headquarters 540.7 222.5 Athletes' Village Provided housing for Games' athletes 299.8 30 BC Place Hosted opening and closing ceremonies 19 12.1 Olympic Venues Competition and training venues 218.3 73.8 557.7 290 Non-competition infrastructure Supporting Games venues 118.5 This table also speaks to the layers and levels of government involvement, as well as the increased challenge of negotiating public and private partnerships, which are further discussed in the context of the financial arrangements of the Athletes’ Village in chapter 5. 29 While not an exhaustive list of 2010 capital expenditures, this table displays some of the largest projects and their price tags, adapted from several sources (Auditor General of British Columbia, 2012; BC Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Secretariat, 2010; Translink, 2008; Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2010d) THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE 109 4.1.2 Vancouver’s Affordable Housing and Mega-Event History The 2010 Winter Olympic Games were certainly not Vancouver’s first brush with mega-event hosting experience. Expo ’86, officially known as the World Exposition on Transportation and Communication, had lasting effects on the DTES, adversely affecting housing prices, real estate speculation, and leading to rampant conversion of an essential, yet largely unprotected, element of Vancouver’s housing supply, Single Room Occupancy Hotels (SROs). SROs have long been recognized as an unofficial but crucial part of Vancouver’s housing spectrum, providing a critical form of housing for low-income residents. As stipulated by the City of Vancouver in a 2007 report on DTES housing stock, SROs provide “the lowest cost rental units in the city” and “very little other market housing is available in the same price range” (Raynor & Johnson, 2007, p. 3). SROs are typically ten by ten feet with shared bathrooms and are usually owned and managed either privately or through non-profit housing organizations (Eby & Misura, 2006). Also typical of SROs in the DTES are sub-standard living conditions as they are typically unsafe, unclean, in a state of disrepair, and highly inadequate for providing a standard of living (Housing Justice Project, 2012). A 2011 report estimates 3,500 privately owned SRO rooms and 1,500 non-profit or government-operated SRO rooms are servicing the low-income community (Drury & Swanson, 2011). While privately operated SROs are known to have “deplorable conditions with poor management, rodents, cockroaches, bedbug, and danger, especially for women, transgender people and people with health issues,” non-profit owned or government-operated SROs are “usually cleaner and better managed but still don’t have private bathrooms or kitchens” (Drury & Swanson, 2011, p. 2). Despite these conditions, monthly rent is usually higher than the shelter assistance component of income assistance. The same 2011 report surveyed THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE 110 private owned SRO units in the DTES and found that only seven percent of units were rented at the shelter assistance rate of $375 per month, which is a significant decline from twelve percent in 2010 and twenty-nine percent in 2009 (Drury & Swanson, 2011). Olds’ research (1988, 1998) helps to explain the policy context in Vancouver’s housing sector that precipitated the loss and conversion of SRO units, as well as evictions in the years preceding Expo ’86. Most significantly, these developments likely factored into policies and bylaws created by the City of Vancouver to protect SROs in advance of the Olympics. At the time of Expo ‘86, landlord-tenant relations were governed by the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA), however SRO occupants fell under the jurisdiction of the Innkeepers Act and were instead classified as licensees or guests. Olds (1998) elaborates on this distinction, writing that occupants “were not affording the barest of protection from the actions of the building manager or owner” and were left in a “precarious housing situation” (p. 8). Attempts to prevent evictions through legislation were thwarted by a refusal to act by the provincial and city governments, both of whom did not support community organizations’ assertion that SRO units in the DTES were at risk. In particular, a motion proposing a “time limited, no-rent increase, no-eviction legislation applied to long-term residents” put forward by the Downtown Eastside Residents Association and Social Planning Department failed to pass due to firm opposition (Olds, 1998, p. 10). This experience with Expo ’86 and the dramatic loss of SROs in advance of the event factored into several reports and recommendations created around the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. An interim report generated as part of the social impact assessment THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE 111 conducted in the bid phase for the 2010 Olympic Games alluded to the potential for negative housing impacts experienced in the city as a result of Expo ’86 (Ference Weicker & Company, 2002). Formally requested by city council in March 2002 under the auspices of the Vancouver Agreement30, the assessment was completed in two phases and intended to coincide with the timing and release of Vancouver’s Olympic bid (Rogers, 2002). This interim report represents the concerns of DTES residents and supported the opposition’s argument that the Games would adversely impact an already vulnerable sub-population living in SROs. According to the report, an estimated 1,000 to 2,000 units were demolished or closed between 1978 and 1984 and an additional 600 units were lost between 1984 and 1986, many of these losses attributed to Expo ‘86 (Ference Weicker & Company, 2002). According to Olds’ (1998) research on the impact on the housing supply on Vancouver’s inner-city, between 500 and 900 evictions occurred in the DTES due to pre-Expo demand and an estimated 1000 to 1500 lodging house rooms were switched from monthly rentals to tourist rental status in the months preceding Expo ‘86. An analysis of post-event impacts revealed that in the three years following the event, approximately 1,150 units were lost (Olds, 1998). As a response to mitigate the projected negative housing impacts, the interim report recommended several actions, including an increase in the stock of affordable housing and emergency shelters, legislation restricting conversions and evictions, and communication and education programs directed at landlords and tenants (Ference Weicker & Company, 2002). 30 The Vancouver Agreement was intended to promote and support sustainable economic, social, and community development in Vancouver, focusing on the DTES. More information can be found in Appendix F: Related Housing and Homelessness Policies. THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE 112 4.2 The Spectacle Over the course of reviewing policy documents, I kept running into two terms that in recent years have come to dominate the rhetoric surrounding the bidding and planning processes of the Olympic Games. These discourses, encapsulated by the terms legacy and sustainability, were prominent reference points for Vancouver’s Bid Organizing Committee and heavily factored into policy-making decisions surrounding the issues at focus in this dissertation. In the following two sub-sections I work through the discourses on legacy and sustainability, identifying where such concepts originated, how they were promulgated, and how they came to be hegemonic as a mode of discourse. Using the methodological tenets of CDA, I uncover the meanings tied to these terms, where they originated, and begin to link the IOC’s discourses on sustainability and legacy to the discourses put forward through government-related policy as well as VANOC-generated material. 4.2.1 Legacy: The Empty Signifier Legacy, loosely wielded by both organizing committees and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), is fervently deployed as a catchall term intended to convey the presumed, yet largely unqualified, benefits of hosting the Olympic Games (Gold & Gold, 2009). While first mentioned in official documentation in preparation for the 1956 Melbourne Games, legacy did not reach consistent usage in its current form before the 1980s, and even more tellingly, did not markedly take off in its deployment until the 1996 Summer Games31 (Gold & Gold, 2009). The language and rhetoric of the bidding and hosting processes surrounding sport mega-events today features an increasing reliance 31 Gold and Gold (2009) count the mentions of legacy in official reports of Summer and Winter Olympic Games hosts: Atlanta 1996: 71; Sydney 2000, 43; Salt Lake City 2002, 55 (p. 14) THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE 113 upon legacy discourse, often used to justify massive investments in projects that may not be politically feasible in normal contexts (Burbank, Andranovich, & Heying, 2002; A. Smith, 2009). Yet, legacy is an empty term, one without a fixed or signified meaning attached. Despite legacy’s ambiguity and ostensible definition, Olympic organizing committees, as well as the IOC, continue to rely ever more heavily upon the presumed existence of positive legacies to justify and rationalize hosting the Games and their requisite expenditures (Burbank et al., 2002). However, defining what exactly constitutes legacy has been a point of debate, and crucially, an important yet underexplored critique of the Olympic Movement. MacAloon’s (2008) exploration of the semantics and pragmatics of the legacy discourse reveals the multiplicity of meanings the term carries. An emphasis on legacy, imparted by the IOC and faithfully proselytized by organizing committees around the world, is intended to be read as a progressive stance encouraging a perception of a “common and laudable purpose” (MacAloon, 2008, p. 2060). Impacts, outcomes, consequences, and catalytic effects are among the terms that are frequently conflated with meanings and interpretations of legacy, contributing to Cashman’s (2002) assertion that it remains an ‘elusive, problematic, and even dangerous word’ (pg. 33). Yet, as Gold and Gold (2009) write, despite this lack of consensus on legacy’s definition and meaning, it remains the touchstone for measuring the Games’ worth and such events continue to be framed in terms of the legacy they are expected to leave behind (p. 9). Former IOC president Jacques Rogge has further identified the creation of sustainable legacies as a “fundamental commitment of the Olympic Movement” while also citing the THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE 114 Games’ “power to deliver lasting benefits” and ability to “considerably change a community, its image, and its infrastructure” (International Olympic Committee, 2012b, pp. 1, 6). The Olympic Games have been long associated with a presumed positive legacy of urban development, regardless of such expenditures’ link to hosting the Games. Identified as having an important role as a stimulus to change (Chalkley & Essex, 1999), a catalyst of urban redevelopment (Short, 2004), and a “mechanism to stimulate consumption-led economic revival” (Waitt, 2001, p. 256), hosting the Olympic Games has become a significant strategy by which cities attempt to ‘fast-track’ developments or secure major infrastructure projects. Prospective Olympic hosts, as Coaffee (2007) notes, have come to treat the legacy of regeneration as the most important aspect of their bids. The IOC’s emphasis on legacy is iterated in several key documents, a factor which partially explains why it has emerged as a defining feature of the discourse surrounding Olympic bids. Legacy has become seminal to the role and mission of the IOC, as stipulated in Rule 2, Article 14 of Olympic Charter. The IOC has declared that part of its role is “… to promote a positive legacy from the Olympic Games to the host cities and host countries” (International Olympic Committee, 2004, p. 12). The presence of an IOC manual on Olympic legacy is as telling as is its content. One particularly suggestive passage reads “…host cities often decide to invest in infrastructure prior to staging the Games, sometimes by fast-tracking pre-existing development plans” (International Olympic Committee, 2012b, p. 40). Legacy’s free-wielding usage has been summarily applied by hosts to projects such as infrastructural upgrades, urban regeneration, and redevelopment projects. THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE 115 Organizing committees are required to adhere to several other key documents in their preparations to host, all of which stress connections not only to legacy, but also to legacies that are sustainable. The Host City Contract, a legal document signed immediately upon the election of the host city, details the legal, commercial, and financial rights and obligations of staging the Games. In terms of environmental protection, the Host City Contract states: The city, the NOC and the OCOG undertake to carry out their obligations and activities under this Contract in a manner which embraces the concept of sustainable development that complies with applicable environmental legislation and serves to promote the protection of the environment. In particular, the concept of sustainable development shall include concerns for post-Olympic use of venues and other facilities and infrastructures (International Olympic Committee, City of Vancouver, & Canadian Olympic Committee, 2003, p. 9) Appended to the Host City contract are thirty-one Technical Manuals, with each one speaking to a different element of Olympic preparation. These Technical Manuals are published on a range of subjects, functions, or themes of the Olympic Games. The Technical Manual guiding the development of the Olympic Village speaks to the intersection of sustainable development and its tangled relationship with legacy, a relationship closely tied to Vancouver’s Athletes’ Village. In terms of sustainable development, described as an “underpinning principle of the Olympic Movement”, the manual elaborates: With long-term strategic planning, community involvement and receptiveness from all parties, the multitude of opportunities offered by hosting the Olympic Games can be optimized in order to respond, not only to the requirements needed to stage the Games, but also to the needs and expectations of the Host City’s current and future generations’ (International Olympic Committee, 2007, p. 4). The manual also attempts to establish a connection between sustainable development and legacy, in a section on sustainable development that reads: THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE 116 Encompassing the three key areas of environment, social/culture and economic, it is an integral part of Olympic Games planning, management and its subsequent legacy. Within the reach of all, sustainable development requires people, organizations, communities and government to enlarge their vision, consider the future and understand how the decisions and actions they take today will impact the legacy they leave behind them tomorrow (International Olympic Committee, 2007, p. 4). The Candidature File and Questionnaire, the manual provided by the IOC that details the responses required of those cities successfully passed through the applicant phase, also includes a specific section dedicated to the development of the Olympic Village. This section explains the seminal importance of the Olympic Village to the overall staging of the project, while also including a cursory reminder of the legal stipulations to which each Olympic Village is subject. Noting that the Olympic Village is one of the largest projects the organizing committee must undertake in the Games preparation phase, the Candidature File and Questionnaire also makes it clear that the organizing committee must also “carefully consider the post-Olympic legacy of the Olympic Village site” (International Olympic Committee, 2001b, p. 62). The Candidature File and Questionnaire further states that “venues must meet requirements and be realistic with respect to the master plan of the Host City, resource efficiencies and post-Games legacy” (International Olympic Committee, 2001b, p. 2). Additionally, on the subject of venue design principles, it states that “venue planning should support the concept of sustainable development as it applies to the Games in general, and to venues, specifically, e.g. use of permanent versus temporary facilities, environmentally sensitive materials/systems/impacts” (International Olympic Committee, 2001b, p. 2). In the section calling for the bid organizing committee’s plans for the Olympic Village, the manual elaborates: “… the OCOG must carefully consider the post-THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE 117 Olympic legacy of the Olympic Village site” (International Olympic Committee, 2001b, p. 62). 4.2.2 Sustainability: Language Games and Rhetorical Celebration Sustainability is a discourse that has similarly risen to the forefront of the mega-event planning vernacular. Olympic bids have transformed what were once singular Olympic Games into a commercially convincing, if not intellectually cogent, multiplicity of sustainability events. London pledged to launch a low carbon games, alongside a zero waste games in 2012, while Rio plans to host a water conservation games, renewable energy games and a carbon neutral games in 2016 (London 2012 Bid Committee, 2005; Rio 2016 Bid Committee, 2009). These discourses have been used, at least theoretically, as Hayes and Horne (2011) make the case, to generate an inclusive and popular dynamic around the notion of environmental sustainability (p. 758). The IOC, since the mid-1990s, has adopted popularized notions of sustainability and incorporated plans for environmental protection into the process of selecting a host city. In this way, the need felt by bid organizing committees to respond to extra-territorial actors– namely the IOC– reinforces the indoctrination of the sustainability mantra in VANOC’s own objectives and written corporate materials. Aspiring hosts are now required to speak to a range of environmental initiatives if selected as host, making the escalation of pledges swearing adherence to environmental protectionism a key competitive element of any prospective bid (Pentifallo & VanWynsberghe, 2012). The advent of sustainability rhetoric has emerged as a defining element of the sport mega-event vernacular. Vancouver, host of the self-declared “first-ever sustainable THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE 118 Olympic Games” in 2010, sought to promote a definition of sustainability that attended not only to environmental stewardship, but also to economic opportunity and social responsibility (VANOC, 2009, p. 8). As stated in VANOC’s corporate definition of sustainability: For VANOC, Sustainability means managing the social, economic and environmental impacts and opportunities of our Games to produce lasting benefits, locally and globally (Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2010b, p. 2) VANOC’s definition is a derivative of the most widely cited iteration of the concept of sustainability, one espoused in the Our Common Future report published by the World Commission of Environment and Development and named for the commission’s chair, Gro Harlem Brundtland. The ensuing Brundtland definition claims that “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987). Emerging as an attempt to bridge acknowledged poverty gaps and ecologically ruinous practices occurring at the time of the report’s writing, the Brundtland Commission’s report incorporated socio-political concerns with distributional issues. Two key concepts were introduced and incorporated into the Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainable development: • the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and • the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs (WCED, 1987). Environmental deterioration was thus linked to both human development and poverty, suggesting that both sets of issues would have to be addressed simultaneously and in a way that was mutually reinforcing (Robinson, 2004). This definition is generally THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE 119 interpreted to be a global normative admonition, one extolling the developed world to actively curtain its daily resource-depleting activities that repeatedly compromise the future of the planet. Such an intergenerational accounting has been heartily critiqued as an apology for the inequitable distribution and continued accumulation of unprecedented levels of monetary wealth, all done in the face of, and often at the expense of, an impoverished global population climbing into the billions. The term ‘sustainable development’, in the intervening twenty-five years since its inception, has been gradually replaced in scholarly, development, and political discourse by the concept of sustainability. Sustainability has been reinvented and operationalized for institutional purposes (Moneva, Archel, & Correa, 2006), presenting a dangerous proposition because it “can be made to mean what one would like it to mean” (Eden, 2000, p. 111). Chided for its intellectual emptiness (T. W. Luke, 2005, p. 228), others have argued against the term’s constructive ambiguity and lack of definitional rigor (Robinson, 2004, p. 374). This dangerous game of altering the meanings of sustainability to fit a variety of contexts has led some to question the nature of such tradeoffs. One of the greatest risks of altering the discourse is that sustainability, when used a slogan, becomes tautological (Marcuse, 1998). Without gaining definitional consensus (Hayes & Horne, 2011; Seghezzo, 2009), it is not surprising that the implementation of sustainability has remained equally problematic (Gibbs, 2000). Sport mega-event organizing bodies have come to rely on a discourse of sustainability that definitively operationalizes the concept and reinforces one particular interpretation of sustainability: the triple bottom line (TBL) (Elkington, 1994, 1998). This mid-1990s THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE 120 development morphed Brundtland’s original interpretation of alleviating poverty and ecological devastation into three neatly aligned, albeit placated, categories: social, economic, and environmental sustainability.32 As Getz (2009) explains, the TBL is a philosophy in which organizations must comprehensively evaluate impacts and appropriately account for their actions across three spheres. The creation of these three spheres of influence was initially intended as a philosophy or way of thinking about sustainability, but has instead devolved into a mechanism for sustainability accounting and reporting (Vanclay, 2004). Yet, as A. Smith (2009) argues, the scrutiny and evaluation of mega-events have tended to neglect the social entirely, leading to calls for greater attention to be paid to social sustainability. This tendency to evaluate across three spheres is a common practice in the sport mega-event field. For example, the IOC’s mandated Olympic Games Impact (OGI) study divides indicators across economic, socio-cultural, and environmental impacts, suggesting that with the right managerial approach, the implications of hosting can be appropriately monitored, if not entirely mitigated. Most tellingly, the adaptation of the TBL by sport mega-events suggests that the environment, the economy, and society at large are controllable entities. As While et al. (2004) maintain, such a position projects a “value-free vision of win-win-wins between [sic] economic growth, social development, and ecological protection” (p. 554). These rhetorical mechanisms promoting rosy win-win-win forecasts suggest that with the appropriate logics of the marketplace, these optimistic outcomes will have no choice but 32 According to Vanclay (2004), the TBL can be conceived in many ways, most commonly: social, environmental, and economic performance; economic, environmental and social sustainability; economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social justice; economic growth, economy, environment, equity; planet, people, profit (p. 27-28). THE CITY AND THE SPECTACLE 121 to come to fruition (While et al., 2004). Yet, what is being sustained, and for whom, is summarily called into question. As T.W. Luke (2005) writes, “whose needs are present, and whether or not they are needs or desires, and how development is understood to prevail where and for whom, or course, are questions that are left hanging, if not entirely begged” in the sustainability discourse (p. 228-229). The pursuit of sustainability encourages the “sustaining of an unjust status quo” and is more likely to conceal actual conflicts of interest in whose needs, and whose objectives, are being considered (Marcuse, 1998, p. 103). Understanding where the legacy and sustainability discourses came from is crucial for this dissertation as both terms definitively informed policy-making practice in areas relating to social housing and homelessness. In chapters 5 and 6, it is clear that such terms were eagerly taken up by all levels of government and reinforced by VANOC as well as the IOC. SOCIAL HOUSING 122 5 SOCIAL HOUSING 5.1 South East False Creek and the Demise of a Social Housing Legacy: Urban Planning Under Crisis In this embedded case study, I review several elements of the planned social housing legacy attempted in conjunction with hosting the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. Built on the shores of SEFC, the Athletes’ Village was meant to signify many things: an environmentally sustainable development, the centerpiece of a long-planned urban renaissance in a derelict, yet lucrative piece of city-owned real estate, and a social housing solution for a voting base that had long pressed for movement on many of the city’s pledges to add affordable housing. Developing an Athletes’ Village that boasts massive potential and social benefit is not an undertaking unique to Vancouver. Nearly every Olympic host, with the exceptions of Salt Lake City (2002), Los Angeles (1984), and Atlanta (1996), promised to convert the Athletes’ Village built for their event into some form of after-use housing, with decidedly mixed results. Nonetheless, Vancouver’s organizers pressed on, eventually marketing its plans for the Athletes’ Village as something the IOC has long supported through its host city selection process: a socially and environmentally sustainable legacy project. While intensified bidding to host the Olympic Games has partly contributed to the rise in the need to create bigger, better, and more attractive urban development projects for the purpose of garnering IOC votes, changes in urban governance have also contributed to the ability of city governments to attempt such grandiose projects. SOCIAL HOUSING 123 In this embedded case study I work through three interrelated policy areas that directly affected the delivery of Vancouver 2010’s social housing legacy using critical policy studies and critical discourse analysis. As my analysis will illustrate, the arrangement and decision-making process established in the bid phase and extended into the years preceding the 2010 Olympic Games, posed very serious complications for the allocation of the social housing units promised in the Games’ aftermath. To expand upon the theoretical significance of these findings, I will supplement the material presented with theory and literature relating to neoliberalism, mega-projects, gentrification, and the politics of exceptionalism. 5.1.1 Marketing a Promise: Vancouver 2010’s Bid Books Vancouver’s bid organizing committee established its vision for a housing legacy in the ‘Vancouver 2010 Applicant City Response’33 document: to convert the Athletes’ Village in Vancouver into a mix of market and affordable housing’ in the Games’ aftermath (Vancouver Bid Corporation, 2002b, p. 5). The ‘Vancouver 2010 Applicant City Response’ document is colloquially called the ‘mini-bid book’ and is used in the IOC’s process of deciding which cities to advance to the full Candidature stage, where full bid books are then produced. The Candidature File was the official document submitted on behalf of Vancouver’s bid organizing committee to the IOC as part of the host city selection process. Vancouver’s mini bid book laid out plans for the placement and 33 Cities seeking to host the Olympic Games are governed by a Candidature Acceptance Procedure as explained in the by-law to Rule 37 of the Olympic Charter (International Olympic Committee, 2001a). After these responses are submitted, an IOC working group then produces a report based on the Candidature Acceptance Applications, reporting their findings to the IOC Executive Board. The IOC Executive Board holds sole discretion in selecting cities to advance to the Candidature Stage. In the second phase of the bidding process, Candidate Cities prepare Candidature Files based on questions outlined by the IOC in the Candidature File and Questionnaire. SOCIAL HOUSING 124 development of the Athletes’ Village. The reasons behind SEFC’s selection as site for the Athletes’ Village development were outlined and rationalized as follows: Locating the Athletes’ Village in Vancouver’s Southeast False Creek area will be a legacy and an important catalyst for completing the remediation of this former industrial site and developing a sustainable community in accordance with existing plans for the site (p. 21). The bid organizing committee’s vision for a non-market housing legacy34 was solidified in the responses of the Candidature File. Drawing on SEFC’s former industrial history, the bid book stated: The Village is located on land historically used for industrial purposes that is being rehabilitated and developed as a model sustainable community. Following the Games, a portion of the Olympic Village will become an important addition to Vancouver’s non-market housing supply, and enduring Olympic legacy for Vancouver residents (Vancouver Bid Corporation, 2002c, p. 61). The ‘mix’ of affordable housing planned for the village in the applicant file, now explained as a ‘portion’ of additional non-market housing supply, was later in the Candidature File targeted for three-quarters of the redevelopment’s total non-market housing allotment. The Candidature File explained that 250 non-market units would be built on the site (p. 193-195). Shortly after the bid was won in 2003, the city formally integrated concepts and principles of sustainable design into the site’s planning and development with the adoption of a green building strategy and the official development plans for SEFC, which were first passed in 2005 (City of Vancouver, 2004, 2007c). These planning and design strategies, both in the bid phase and in the wake of the 2010 34 Non-market housing ‘refers to government assisted hosing which was built through one of a number of government-funded programs,’ is typically managed by the non-profit or co-op housing sectors, and receives government subsidy (Metro Vancouver, 2007). Social Housing is also identified with non-market housing in the document Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability, and is defined as housing that is usually subsidized through some combination of government support (City of Vancouver, 2012c). SOCIAL HOUSING 125 Games being awarded to Vancouver, were fully imbued with an arcing narrative of sustainability, transforming what was once an area that had been ‘let go’ into a development showcasing the city’s commitment to sustainability and provisions for a non-market housing legacy. Provisions for a non-market housing legacy were also established in the Games Facility Agreement, which states that a portion of the permanent facilities constructed will be allocated for “a lasting legacy to the community” (City of Vancouver, 2002, p. 11). While the city was given authority to make the final determination of the form and nature of the non-market housing, it also stipulates that a ‘best effort’ would be made to deliver a target of 250 units of non-market housing (City of Vancouver, 2002). The positioning of the Athletes’ Village development in SEFC is in line with theorizations on the role of neoliberal policies in urban development. Neoliberalism operates within specific restructuring strategies as well as by and through policy regimes (Brenner and Theodore, 2002). Thus, institutional configurations and “constellations of socio-political power” can be exposed by critically analyzing these policy documents with neoliberalism in mind (Brenner and Theodore, 2002, p. 14). The institutional order of the IOC is made clear when candidate cities design their bids based on their interpretation of the IOC’s mandate to make (or simply declare) more projects as constitutive of a legacy and to declare more endeavors as sustainable. For example, Vancouver’s applicant city response document explained why incorporation of this site into the bid would prove appealing to the IOC because: “These principles are perfectly aligned with the Olympic ideals and will allow the Athletes’ Village to be integrated into SOCIAL HOUSING 126 Vancouver’s overall plan for the development of these lands” (Vancouver Bid Corporation, 2002b, p. 31). The applicant city response document also alluded to a City of Vancouver policy statement that was drafted in 1999, but was not put into action until the bid was won (City of Vancouver, 1999). The policy statement, subtitled Toward a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood and a Major Park in Southeast False Creek, outlined sustainable development as the core objective of the area’s redevelopment and was a perfect match for inclusion into Vancouver’s bid documents. The bid process, from its inception, is engaged with a wildly imaginative form of planning as cities are preparing to stake their futures on a hosting, a prospect that may or may not be realized. In gambling on winning the right to host the Games, there is an overwhelming proclivity to not only minimize shortfalls and miscalculate impacts, but to engage in even more idealistic and imaginative planning. It is not surprising then that Vancouver promised a lasting legacy to the community in the form of a social housing development in a former derelict industrial site. What is more surprising is that many believed that such a resounding neoliberal development was possible and the official development plan continued on largely without criticism. The decision to build the Athletes’ Village in a derelict industrial site contaminated by decades of use as a sawmill, railway terminal, and port also aligns with Gaffney’s (2011) argument that the sport mega-event city serves as an experiment in which agents of global capital are able to manipulate urban space and social relations to maximize accumulation strategies. In turning a formerly unproductive urban site into a highly profitable commodity, policy-makers are able to use the mega-event as an instrument for the advancement of neoliberal urban governance (VanWynsberghe et al., 2013). Further, SOCIAL HOUSING 127 when considered as an instrument of local political and economic elites, as Sanchez and Broudehoux (2013) write, sport mega-events help give rise to a new, neoliberalized urban agenda promoting the commodification of the host city (p. 133). The language surrounding the Athletes’ Village development, as description in this section has shown, is definitively colored by what Harvey (2005) calls the “benevolent mask of wonderful sounding words,” such as social housing, community mix, and sustainable development (p. 119). Such terms are unsubtly rooted in the “failed utopian rhetoric” of neoliberal policy-making, strengthening the connection between neoliberal urban governance and the hosting of sport mega-events (Harvey, 2005, p. 203). 5.2 The Demise of a Social Housing Legacy: Policy and Practice In this section, I work through three interrelated policy areas that directly affected the deliver of Vancouver 2010’s social housing legacy. First, applying critical policy studies and CDA to guide my analysis, I review the role of the Housing Table, a group of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders tasked with the implementation of the housing commitments touted in the ICICS. Second, I explore legislation enacted in the form of by-laws intending to protect a vulnerable, yet essential, element of Vancouver’s housing continuum, Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotels. Lastly, I trace the evolution of the financial arrangement funding the development of the Athletes’ Village in SEFC. The arrangement and decision-making process established in the bid phase and extended into the years preceding the 2010 Olympic Games, and proved to carry very serious SOCIAL HOUSING 128 complications for the allocation of the social housing units promised in the Games’ aftermath. 5.2.1 Negotiating and Negating Social Housing: The Housing Table and Government Relations The Housing Table was a group of government, non-profit, and non-governmental stakeholders assembled under the auspices of implementing the housing-related commitments of the ICICS. Established with the purpose of advising both VANOC and its government partners, the Housing Table set a course of action for achieving the housing objectives of the ICICS. Drawing on Sum’s (2009) framework, the key actors responsible for this element of the policy production process were brought together under the auspices of the Housing Table. As its main objective, the table stated its common purpose was to “develop goals, action plans, and outcomes that will create lasting housing benefits associated with the 2010 Games, in the pursuit of the overarching goal of eradicating homelessness” (Housing Table, 2007b, p. i). The Housing Table met starting in 2006, releasing their final report and recommendations in March 2007. Twenty-five recommended actions stemmed from the report: two actions were for the creation of an affordable housing legacy, eleven actions were to protect rental housing stock, three actions were to provide alternative forms of accommodation for Games’ visitors and workers, six actions were to ensure people are not made homeless as a result of the games, and three actions were to ensure residents are not involuntarily displaced (Government of Canada, Government of British Columbia, City of Vancouver, & The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, 2007; Housing Table, 2007b). Thus, the ideas for how to achieve a legacy of affordable SOCIAL HOUSING 129 housing entered into the policy production process through the ICICS statement objectives. Of the twenty-five recommendations generated by the Housing Table, twenty-three were approved on consensus (Housing Table, 2007b). The two recommendations that met with opposition concerned a moratorium on the conversion and demolition of SROs, and another proposing changes to the Residency Tenancy Act to protect tenants from further rent increases (Mauboules, 2007). Despite seemingly popular support from levels of government as well as the private sector, the Housing Table did not continue past the issue of its final report and recommendations. As Frankish et al. (2010) report, shortly after the first sectoral table report was released, the tables were precipitously ended as they proved to be “politically unpopular with VANOC and its government partners, who appeared to fear a loss of control over both the processes and outcomes of the planned sectoral tables” (Frankish et al., 2010, p. 2). In June 2007 the city released the Joint Partner Response to the Inner-City Inclusive Commitments (ICI) Housing Table Report on behalf of the Government of Canada, the Government of British Columbia, the City of Vancouver, and VANOC (Government of Canada et al., 2007). Several comments left in response to the Housing Table’s recommendations reduce or detract from the objectives of the Housing Table. For example, the Housing Table’s first recommendation calls for the instigation of an average of 800 new social housing units per year for the next four years leading up to the 2010 Games (Housing Table, 2007a). This target is in line with the City of Vancouver’s Homeless Action Plan,35 which calls for the production of at least 8,000 more subsidized units over the next ten years (City of Vancouver, 2005). In addition, the Homeless Action 35 See Appendix E: Related Housing and Homelessness Policies for more detail. SOCIAL HOUSING 130 Plan calls for an estimated 3,200 supportive units and 600 transitional units to end homelessness. While noting that the Housing Table’s recommendation is in line with city policy, the response states: “While we continue to encourage the production of affordable housing with the goal of 800 units per year for the next ten years, Provincial funding constraints make it questionable whether or not this goal can be achieved in the short term” (Mauboules, 2007, p. 5). Thus, although the ideas around this policy production process originated with the ICICS objectives, they were aligned with existing housing legislation and ongoing housing efforts. The Joint Partner Response claimed Games’ organizers “have made good progress toward meeting the housing-related ICI Commitments since 2003, when the games were awarded to Vancouver” (Government of Canada et al., 2007, p. 1) and claimed an additional 1,109 new units of social housing were spurred as a result of VANOC efforts (Paulsen, 2007b). However, critics responded that the counting of shelter beds, pre-existing units claimed as new, and the double counting of the 250 units at the Athletes’ Village as social housing had falsely inflated such numbers (Paulsen, 2007b). However, following public testimony on the addition of new social housing in time for the Games, Council voted 6-536 to approve the Joint Partner Response, which most critically, asserts that the housing recommendations developed for VANOC are ‘not binding’ (Paulsen, 2007c). 36 This 6-5 vote was in line with Mayor Sam Sullivan’s assessment of progress made on social housing and was supported by his political party, the Non-Partisan Alliance. Opposition votes came from members of the Council of Progressive Electors (COPE) and Vision Vancouver. SOCIAL HOUSING 131 Thus, despite direct alignment with existing and pre-approved policy objectives – not only those objectives included in ICICS but in terms of Vancouver’s Homeless Action plan as well – the Housing Table’s recommendations and reporting were largely dismissed through the Joint Partner Response. While numerous critics pointed out the shortcomings in the city’s accounting methods for social housing, these tactics continued, even in the face of ICICS and its housing promises. While multiple levels of government supported the activities and reporting of the Housing Table, they were disbanded before their final report could be released. In applying Sum’s (2009) framework to this series of policy documents, I engaged with the documents created by the Housing Table, other policies relating to social housing such as the Homelessness Action Plan, and the Joint Partner Response document that represented the interests of three levels of government. These documents also called for an additional layer of analysis in the form of CDA, as there are subtleties in the language used by government partners to communicate their policy decisions. The most telling example of these subtleties in language is that Vancouver’s City Council decided that VANOC’s clearly and publicly stated commitments to creating a housing legacy were not binding. In this way, stringing together policy documents, memoranda, and government documents benefited from both critical policy analysis (which helped me track and organize policy drafts and government responses) and CDA (which helped me to account for and delve more deeply into the nuance of the language used in those documents). The ability of government partners to dismiss their own policy objectives is an interesting consideration given Sum’s (2009) second question: how and through what mechanisms are policy discursive networks reproduced as part of hegemonic logics? When SOCIAL HOUSING 132 convenient (and politically salient), the Bid Corporation was eager to promise a housing legacy; however, when tasked with actually producing one, the government partners involved backed away very quickly, and instead abolished the Housing Table altogether. In this way, the discursive policy network being developed around the idea of creating a housing legacy was influenced in a negative way by the hegemonic logics surrounding the policy production process of the government partners. The work of the Housing Table and its sudden abandonment can also be analyzed under the concept of postpolitics (Swyngedouw, 2007; Zizek, 1998, 2002). The onset of social administration in governance and a growing managerial role for government entities are a hallmark of the postpolitical (Zizek, 2002). In postpolitics, the political is made into a space of litigation, not of debate (Mouffe, 2005; Zizek, 1998). Government interests are attempting to litigate the number of new social housing units that should be created while not addressing or even questioning the more political and systemic reasons that call for additional forms of social housing units in the first place. 5.2.2 Single Room Occupancy: Protecting Affordable Housing as Legacy Legislation attempting to restrict the conversion and demolition of SRO units was enacted in October 2003, shortly after Vancouver won the bid to host the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. This section reveals another set of actors involved in the policy discursive networks responsible for the construction of objects of economic governance (Sum, 2009). The bylaw, Single Room Accommodation By-law No. 873337, required that 37 See Appendix D: Complete By-law Amendments for more detail. SOCIAL HOUSING 133 demolition or conversion could proceed only if a permit is applied for and approved by City council. The SRO bylaw is intended to dissuade SRO owners from renovation and demolition by the imposition of a $5,000 levy for each room that is converted to another use (City of Vancouver, 2007a, p. 7). However, as Eby and Misura (2006) report, the intended effect of this by-law could easily be circumvented by landlords who have renovated and increased rents beyond what those on social assistance can afford, or those who leave SRO units empty rather than rent them while property values increase. Most crucially, the cost of replacing lost housing is far greater than the $5,000 received by the City in violation of the by-law (Eby & Misura, 2006, p. 11). In 2007 the bylaw was amended, striking the $5,000 amount payable to the city to replace lost accommodation and raising the amount to $15,000 (City of Vancouver, 2007a). Most crucially, as Eby (2007) reports, the city’s 1-for-1 replacement policy38 for demolished or converted rooms is rarely realized. By 2007, no application to convert SRO housing was refused by City Council on the grounds of the replacement of lost housing or through the conversion of buildings that had been closed for years (Eby, 2007). A second by-law, Demolition for Social Housing By-law No. 6788, was changed in November 2003, months after Vancouver’s host city selection, to reflect the new requirement posed by “conditional unit allocation,” a provision imposed by the British Columbia Mortgage and Housing Corporation and required in order for demolition to proceed.39 38 The 1-for-1 replacement of SRO units is stated in the Housing Plan for the Downtown Eastside signed in September 2005. Action 3.1 states ‘replace SROs with low-income social housing on a 1-for-1 basis and facilitate the integration of market housing’ (Johnson & Greenwell, 2006) 39 See Appendix D: Complete By-law Amendments for more detail. SOCIAL HOUSING 134 The Province of British Columbia has added to the stock of government-owned SROs since 2007, purchasing twenty-four buildings and totaling 1,487 units (BC Housing, 2013). While potentially seen as an important increase in the number of affordable units available to low-income residents, critics have challenged this notion. In 2007, when the government purchased ten of the SROs, BC Housing claimed 1,342 new units were added; however, as Paulsen (2007a) reports, only 521 were actually newly built: “the remainder are a hodgepodge of renovation projects, ownership transfers and even shelter beds dressed up as ‘new units.’” As Pivot Legal Society lawyer Laura Track was quoted in response to the SRO purchases: “when the government says that it’s fulfilling its commitment to leave a lasting legacy of affordable housing, it’s really frustrating because these buildings were occupied when they were purchased and are not creating new units for people to move into from off the street” (Condon, 2009). In addition to questionable counting procedures, statistics from Pivot Legal Society and Carnegie Community Action Project show that 1,448 units were lost since the Games were awarded in 2003 (Condon, 2009). The analysis of the aforementioned by-law documents revealed the highly contentious nature of the efforts to enact legal protections for SROs. The by-law process is directly involved with Sum’s (2009) framework, which asks how policy discursive networks serve to reorganize spaces, policies, and populations. In this instance, the by-laws were reorganized likely due to the pressure and well-documented concern voiced by activist groups, community organizations, and researchers; however this direct connection was never explicitly stated. This section on the process of attempting to protect SROs through by-law enforcement explicitly connects to Olds’ (1996) research on the loss of SROs in SOCIAL HOUSING 135 anticipation of Expo ’86. Not only were community organizations and activist groups similarly concerned with the loss of unprotected low income housing in the lead up to the 2010 Games, but a copy of Olds’ (1996) research was also enclosed with a letter addressed to the bid corporation and mailed by the Tenants’ Rights Action Coalition (TRAC) in January of 2002 (Mix, 2002). This letter, found in the City of Vancouver archives, also attached a copy of a news clipping on the negative impacts of the 1988 Summer Olympic Games on Seoul’s homeless population. Olds’ (1996) research accurately predicted the dire need to protect SRO housing and the bid corporation was made aware of such concern at the community level, however, there was no definitive action on behalf of the bid corporation to ensure any guarantees on SROs were made. The analysis of this section also benefits from the literature on gentrification and mega-events. While Paton et al. (2012) discuss how policy cleared a path for gentrification in Glasgow in relation to the 2014 Commonwealth Games, in Vancouver, the absence of a strong policy similarly allowed gentrification to take place. The legislation that was enacted levied fines in SRO units that were demolished or converted without approval (originally a $5,000 fine, later raised to $15,000). However, those fines would have paled in comparison to what land developers could amass. Thus, the legislation that was passed to protect SROs from land speculation and rising prices likely did not serve as a major deterrent and no applications to convert or demolish were rejected. SOCIAL HOUSING 136 5.2.3 Financing Exceptionalism: Miscalculations and Missed Targets At focus in this section is how the financial agreements behind the Athletes’ Village were altered over time. A complex and decade-long relationship between the City of Vancouver, the selected development corporation (Millennium Development Group, MDG), and the ensuing financial arrangements was one characterized by miscalculation. The arrangement and decision-making processes established in the bid phase proved to carry serious complications for the allocation of the social housing units promised in the Games’ aftermath, thus jeopardizing, if not entirely eliminating, the potential for a social housing legacy. Several key pieces of legislation were passed by the city of Vancouver over the course of the development of the Athletes’ Village site. In 2002, the year prior to winning the bid to host the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, the city’s new neighborhood model required that a minimum of 20% of units built on city owned lands be allocated to non-market housing (City of Vancouver, 2006). This stipulation led to a letter addressed from the Housing Centre operated by the City of Vancouver to BC Housing that suggested that 288 non-market units, split into one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom allotments, would be sufficient for the Athletes’ Village (Gray, 2002). This formula was in line with the City’s new neighborhood model and was based on a recent successful Homes BC program (Gray, 2002). Three years later, the successful passage of South East False Creek’s redevelopment plan (SEFC ODP) called for a household mix consisting of 1/3 affordable housing, 1/3 modest or middle-income market housing, and 1/3 market housing, with a focus on the creation of family housing across the development (City of Vancouver, 2005b). This commitment is evident in By-law No. 9073, the By-law to Adopt the SOCIAL HOUSING 137 Southeast False Creek Development Plan as the Official Development Plan, passed in July 2005 (City of Vancouver, 2005c). However, in 2006, a report on the city’s compatible housing strategy endorsed an objective of achieving only 20% of affordable housing units (French & Hiebert, 2006). This stipulation included development sub-areas 1A, 2A, and 3A, which were owned by the city, as well as privately held sub-areas slated for development. The SEFC ODP was formally amended in April 2007 to require 20% affordable housing across all three sub-areas of the Olympic Village development site, with an additional stipulated goal of achieving 1/3 modest market housing (City of Vancouver, 2007a). While the 1/3 modest market housing was retained for other parcels of the overall development, modest market was no longer required for section 2A, the site of the Olympic Village, although the text of the Policy Report on SEFC Public Benefits and Compatible Housing Strategy encouraged its inclusion (French & Hiebert, 2006). Sub-area 2A, the site chosen for the development of the Athletes’ Village, is a central parcel within the South East False Creek area containing approximately 50 acres. The city planned longer-term development of other sub-areas adjacent to the Athletes’ Village site, while other sub-areas in the surrounding vicinity are privately owned (KPMG, 2009). It was estimated that 7,000 total housing units would be developed across all sub-areas in South East False Creek, both public and private, over the course of the ensuing thirty years (French & Hiebert, 2006). Also in November 2002, seven months before Vancouver secured the right to host the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, the Vancouver Bid Corporation and the representative government partners agreed and signed the Multiparty Agreement (City of Vancouver, Resort Municipality of Whistler, Canadian Olympic Committee, Canadian Paralympic SOCIAL HOUSING 138 Committee, & Vancouver Bid Corporation, 2002). The Multiparty Agreement stipulated that should Vancouver win the right to host, the city would provide, at its cost, the permanent facilities at the Vancouver Athletes’ Village subject to the contribution of $30 million by the organizing committee 40 to Vancouver (City of Vancouver, Resort Municipality of Whistler, Canadian Olympic Committee, Canadian Paralympic Committee, & Vancouver Bid Corporation, 2002, p. 13). Permanent facilities are described in the Games Facility Agreement as residential accommodation, commercial space, and all permanent infrastructure including roadways, walkways, green space, power, sewer, water, and other utilities. Site preparation, including ‘geotechnical work,’ leveling the property, and site remediation are also included ‘at the City’s sole cost and risk’ (City of Vancouver, 2002, p. 4). The Games Facility Agreement also stated that the city, while responsible for making the “final determination to the form and nature of the non-market housing,” would make “reasonable best efforts” to deliver the targeted number of 250 non-market housing units (City of Vancouver, 2002, p. 11). Thus, while the Vancouver Bid Corporation contributed $30 million to the building of 250 non-market housing units, the City was the entity made financially responsible for ensuring that all permanent facilities, including the necessary infrastructure and non-market units, were built. On April 3, 2006 the Millennium Development Group was selected from an open request for proposals (RFP), chosen over Concord Pacific Ltd. and Wall Financial Corporation (Andrews, 2006). The request required that 250 units of affordable housing be included, 40 While the Multiparty Agreement was signed on November 14, 2002 and Vancouver was selected as host on June 18, 2003, the document refers to the organizing committee (know by its acronym OCOG) in the Multiparty Agreement, basing its agreement on Vancouver’s contingent selection as host city. SOCIAL HOUSING 139 along with provisions made for additional modest market housing. On the structure of the financial arrangements following the Olympic Games, the city’s report added that the city will ensure financing is available for the affordable housing and will provide direction in selecting non-profit housing sponsors to operate the units after the Games (Gray, 2006, p. 4). Millennium, in its bid to become developer, covered most of the costs of making the site available for development, allowing VANOC’s investment to be dedicated to the Affordable Housing accommodating core need41 households (Gray, 2006, p. 5). In a report by the city’s deputy manager, Millennium received unanimous approval from the city’s Evaluation Committee “on the basis that Millennium’s proposal offers best value to the City,” and also notably, the highest offer – $193 million – for the city land (Andrews, 2006, p. 9). Andrews cited several compelling factors, the last of which listed that Millennium’s unconditional purchase price is “guaranteed to the City with no risk sharing” (Andrews, 2006, p. 9). As per the August 31, 2006 lease agreement, the city leased the land to Millennium in order to ensure it maintained the title to the Athletes’ Village both before and after the exclusive use period of November 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010 and thereby “maintain a greater degree of control in fulfilling its obligations to VANOC” (KPMG, 2009, p. 11). It was later reflected in city council documents that this decision was a ‘protective measure’ whereby “the City insisted on retaining ownership of the land in order to guarantee the delivery of the Olympic Village to VANOC” (Andrews, 2008, p. 3). 41 A core need household is one where persons pay more than 30% of their combined gross annual income to rent an adequate and suitable rental unit (City of Vancouver, 2005b). SOCIAL HOUSING 140 On September 28, 2006 Vancouver City Council officially allocated VANOC’s $30 million contribution for the Olympic Village project and added an addition $2 million for replacement housing from the development cost levies. This amount, $32 million, was stipulated as a “capital contribution to the 250 units of Affordable Housing to be developed in the Olympic Village” (Gray, 2006). The level of affordability was still unknown at this stage, as the project manager of the SEFC development and the director of the housing center were to report back on the level of affordability that could be achieved once building costs were determined (Gray, 2006). The city entered into a loan agreement with Millennium and Fortress Credit Corporation, a New York-based hedge fund, on September 28, 2007. Key terms of the agreement included a loan facility of $750 million from Fortress to Millennium and the subordination of the outstanding land purchase price of $171 million owed to the City (KPMG, 2009). The city authorized this tri-party relationship between itself, Millennium and Fortress, in which the city became guarantor of $190 million and provided a completion guarantee. The city manager defined the completion guarantee in a 2009 presentation to city council, characterizing it as one on which the “city is responsible to the “lender” to complete the whole project to the original designs and specifications” (Ballem, 2009). According to an auditor’s report42 prepared by accounting firm KPMG, the guarantee provided by the city was deemed a necessity after Millennium’s discussion with other Canadian lenders indicated such guarantees were needed due to the size and complexity of the transaction as well as the stipulation that the underlying land was to be 42 KPMG was retained by the city to complete an auditor’s report on the city’s obligations and commitments in December 2008 (Ballem, 2009). SOCIAL HOUSING 141 leased until after the 2010 Games, rather than transferred, to Millennium (KPMG, 2009, p.11). Most crucially for the city’s role in preparing the Athletes’ Village for the 2010 Games, the financial arrangement meant that the city was obligated to complete the project should Millennium be unable to do so. Further, as the city’s financial report for 2007 notes, in the event of default the city would assume completion and become responsible for the loan’s repayment (Lee, 2008, p. 21). The city’s financial guarantee and role in the loan agreement would prove critical in the fall of 2008 and a global economic down turn that severely damaged the international real estate market. However, even before the events of September and October 2008 the project faced budgetary concerns. In May 2008, the entire project was $35 million over budget, and in August and September 2008 further overruns of $89 million were identified, thus jeopardizing Millennium’s originally established budget of $950 million (KPMG, 2009). In both circumstances further balancing amounts were required, yet no additional funding was provided by Millennium. On September 23, 2008, embattled New York-based hedge fund Fortress advised Millennium it would not provide any further funding pursuant to the Fortress Loan Agreement. In an in-camera council session on October 14, 2008, Vancouver City Council authorized the city manager to make three protective advances of up to $100 million. The city, as iterated in its report that it was committed to the financing option that “keeps the project moving forward with Millennium as developer” and maintained the project’s already troubled timeline for delivery (Andrews, 2008, p. 3). SOCIAL HOUSING 142 The project, which at its onset had a budget of $950 million (consisting of $200 million from the purchase of land and $750 million loan agreement) grew to $1,075 million due to what the city manager labeled as “cost escalation/time frame contingencies” in a presentation to city council (Ballem, 2009). As $317 million of the $750 million loan had been advanced by Fortress to Millennium at the time progress draws43 were halted, there was an outstanding balance of $458 million that would be required to finish building the Athletes’ Village.44 The estimate to bring the project to completion at this time was estimated to be $690 million. On January 17, 2009 legislation amending the Vancouver city charter to authorize council to borrow was passed. The amendment to the Vancouver Charter “provides access to a range of financial tools to ensure that the City’s commitment to complete the village can be achieved and that the city’s financial risks are mitigated” (Bayne, 2009, p. 3). Council moved towards buying out’ Fortress’ loan on February 5, 2009 before formally buying out the entire loan for $319 million on February 18, 2009 (Ballem, Bayne, & Philpotts, 2009). The City, now having purchased the Fortress loan, became lender to Millennium and Fortress was eliminated from the project all together. The measures taken to amend the City’s charter are unprecedented, as under the City Charter prior to the amendment, the city was prohibited from borrowing without first holding a public referendum (CBC News, 2009; Kines & Bermingham, 2009). On January 18, 2009 the provincial legislature 43 Progress draws of $26.6 million were issued on a monthly basis to the wide variety of contractors working on the project; Fortress refused to make further progress draws on September 15, 2008 (Andrews, 2008). 44 Ballem illustrated the budgetary issues as follows: Millennium contributed $29 million and $171 million (developer’s deposit and land purchase balance totally $200 million); $317 million provided by the lender, Fortress; $100 million provided by the city in the form of protective advances from September 2008-January 2009 (Ballem, 2009). SOCIAL HOUSING 143 of British Columbia passed Bill 47 in an emergency all-night session. Bill 47 allowed Vancouver to borrow at least $458 million to ensure the Village was built to completion. Thus summarizing the Olympic Village’s budgetary increases, the original budget for the construction of the affordable housing component of the Athletes’ Village, comprising 252 units at its inception, was slated for $64 million, with $30 million contributed by VANOC, $2 million in development cost levies, and $32 million in mortgage financing from BC housing. Once approved in November 2006, by December 2007 council approved an increase in budget to $95 million. Citing “the ultimate design, size an expedited timeline for the construction of the units” which led to “significant overruns in construction costs,” another review of projected costs to completion revealed a cost of $110 million (Prosken, 2010). The project’s overall budget eclipsed $1 billion at its completion, with the majority of the balance provided by the City of Vancouver in the form of a loan to the site’s developer (KPMG, 2009). The financial situation at budgetary controversies surrounding the Olympic Village seriously jeopardized the allocation and distribution of social housing units. The Official Development Plan for Southeast False Creek called for 1/3 of the roughly 1,100 units to be allocated to affordable housing, 1/3 for moderate income housing, and 1/3 for market housing (City of Vancouver, 2005b). Changes in city bylaws (and the municipal government) reduced the component of required affordable housing to 20% of all new developments on public lands, while keeping the level of modest market housing to 33% (City of Vancouver, 2006). These reductions were decreased again in the wake of the ‘cost allocation’ and ‘time frame contingences’ cited by the City of Vancouver in the midst of the village’s financial crisis (Ballem, 2009). City council became divided on SOCIAL HOUSING 144 “the tension between their need to be fiscally responsible” and the pre-existing commitment to provide 20% of affordable housing for new neighborhoods, leading to drastic changes in the way units of affordable housing were allocated (Prosken, 2010, p. 2). After settling on 252 units, the number of units contained within three free-standing buildings in the village development on parcels 2, 5, and 9 of Area 2A, that number was slashed by nearly half merely one month after the games ended (Gray & Smith, 2009). Table 5 illustrates this distribution of market and affordable rentals. SOCIAL HOUSING 145 Table 5. Market and Affordable Units Total Units Built 1-Bed 2-Bed 3-Bed 4-Bed Total Units Athletes' Village Co-op (Parcel 2) 7 60 17 0 84 Olympic Village Parcel 5 59 12 16 14 101 Olympic Village Parcel 9 61 6 0 0 67 252 Market Rental 1-Bed 2-Bed 3-Bed 4-Bed Market Units Athletes' Village Co-op (Parcel 2) 3 43 15 0 136 Olympic Village Parcel 5 21 6 9 10 Olympic Village Parcel 9 26 3 0 0 Affordable Rental 1-Bed 2-Bed 3-Bed 4-Bed Affordable Units Athletes' Village Co-op (Parcel 2) 4 17 2 0 116 Olympic Village Parcel 5 38 6 7 4 Olympic Village Parcel 9 35 0 3 0 The affordable units were further divided, with roughly half (sixty-three units) going to a non-profit operator with the stipulation that those units would be dedicated to core need households. The other sixty-three units were allocated to households “paying market rents which reflects the design, size, and location of the units,” which could have a household income of up to five times the market rent (Prosken, 2010, p. 1). An annual income five times the market rent value, $1,601 per month for a one bedroom, is nearly $30,000 more than the median income for Metro Vancouver. The median household income for metropolitan Vancouver in 2010 was $67,090 (Statistics Canada, 2013) while the application for tenancy permits tenants to have a maximum monthly income of $8,005 per month, or $96,060 annually (COHO Property Management, 2011). The discrepancy in affordable units is due to the fact that 23 co-op rentals (located in SOCIAL HOUSING 146 Athletes’ Village Co-op in Parcel 2) are included in calculations of affordable housing, however, those rents are not necessarily geared to incomes. In the city’s most recent report on the status of the Athlete’s village, nearly 90% of the units are market rental, while ninety-three (sixty-five mixed income units plus twenty-eight affordable units) can be considered affordable housing. Of those units, twenty-eight or 2.5% of the total village development, are occupied by those in deep-core need and rented at the shelter assistance rate of $375 per month (Ballem, 2011). Table 6 and Figure 5 illustrate how dramatically these numbers shifted over time. Table 6. Housing Unit Breakdown, 2005-2011 !! ! ! ! ! ! ! Year MARKET HOUSING MODEST MARKET (MODERATE) HOUSING CO-OP HOUSING AFFORDABLE (MIXED) INCOME HOUSING AFFORDABLE HOUSING 2005 367 367 366 2006 513 367 220 2006 750 100 250 2007 880 220 2009 848 252 2010 848 126 126 2011 984 23 65 2846 46 Shortly after the 2010 Games ended, City council voted to make 50% available to core need households, thus representing the split in 2010 into mixed income affordable housing and affordable housing (Prosken, 2010). One year later, the number of units actually tied to income rose to 93 units, yet only 28 were filled by individuals paying the shelter assistance rate of $375 per month. SOCIAL HOUSING 147 Figure 5. Housing Unit Breakdown, 2005-2011 Drawing upon Sum’s (2009) framework, the hegemonic logics of the policy production process – sustainable design, social development, housing mix – became deeply ingrained in the Athletes’ Village development at SEFC. Fortified by the powerful policy discourse created around of the impending 2010 Games, policy makers were keen to enact legislation to ensure the Athletes’ Village was delivered on deadline to the IOC. Several theorizations on sport mega-events and urban governance are directly attributable to the findings outlined in this section. Crisis theory, exceptionalism, and regulatory capitalism can all be linked to the financing of the Athletes’ Village in SEFC. The financial 367 513 750 880 848 848 984 126 65 367 367 100 126 23 366 220 250 220 252 28 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2005 2006 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 SOCIAL HOUSING 148 arrangements for the development quickly devolved into a debacle encompassing the city manager, City Council, and the Province of British Columbia. While global financial downturn certainly exacerbated what arguably was a less than desirable arrangement at the project’s onset, the events of the global market in the fall of 2008 are not the only culprit. Any other development that was privately financed and built at the level of expense that was included in the Athletes’ Village development would have simply halted until funds were available. However, contractual requirements existing between the city, its government partners, and the IOC ensured that this would not be the case, as the village would have to be delivered on deadline, no matter the cost. This cost came at an even greater expense than taxpayer dollars as the city’s suddenly espoused desire of being fiscally responsible meant that units of social housing were significantly minimized. Considered in conjunction with the provincial government’s unprecedented midnight meetings to pass a bill in emergency session for nearly half of a billion dollars, these findings can be linked to theorizations on artificially constructed crises. Leeds (2008) writes, “there is no substitute for a rigid deadline combined with extensive public exposure for the results” (p. 476). Further, as Hayes and Horne (2011) maintain, the crisis tendencies of sport mega-events drives tension between the short-term requirements and demands raised by hosting alongside the desire to deliver large scale transformative change in host cities. The mega-event functions to temporarily “engineer a crisis of deliberative structures” circulating around the primacy of delivery (Hayes & Horne, 2011, p. 761). The extenuating circumstances created by such an artificial crisis directly influenced decision-making as well as the policy process in the City of Vancouver, making the years leading up to the 2010 Games exceptional in terms of the SOCIAL HOUSING 149 forced conditions of expediency and urgency. Sanchez and Broudehoux (2013) point out that political and economic agents exploit the crisis created around tight schedules and imminent deadlines as a way of galvanizing large projects, especially those that wouldn’t have been feasible in other contexts. The city manager illustrates this point clearly in a 2014 interview for a news article, rhetorically asking “Is that the normal way we do business? No,” while also adding that a project the size and scope of the Athletes’ Village would have been built over the course of twenty years, rather than three (Howell, 2014b). The structure of the tripartite relationship between Fortress, MDG, and the City of Vancouver is also reminiscent of theorizations related to regulatory capitalism in which governments are shifting their focus to directing, guiding, and leading political activity (Jordana & Levi-Faur, 2004). Governments are more interested in providing, distributing, and regulating under regulatory capitalism tendencies that are exemplified by the City of Vancouver’s decision to act as a financier and underwriter of a major, billion dollar project (Braithwaite, 2008). The City of Vancouver promised taxpayer funds in the event that the financial arrangements failed, which further links to Horne’s (2013) connection between regulatory capitalism and the advent of ‘delivery-oriented’ approaches seen in sport mega-event host cities. Corporatization, regulation, and contractualism are now the norm when in comes to the role of host governments and their relationship to staging mega-events (Horne, 2013; Raco, 2014). In similar fashion to Raco’s (2014) assessment of the 2012 Summer Games hosted by London, public funds and objectives are converted into privately run and contractually delivered projects. Most crucially for host city residents, the proliferation of contractually delivered sport mega-events has been expensive and exploitative for the public, yet increasingly lucrative for the privately SOCIAL HOUSING 150 contracted firms involved (Horne, 2013). Mega-projects such as the Athletes’ Village development are described as the “new political and physical animal” coursing through the world’s major cities (Flyvbjerg et al., 2003, p. 1). However, with such an appetite for bigger and more expensive projects comes an overwhelming tendency towards budgetary overruns and unrealistic forecasts of viability. The resulting projects, rather than being grounded in realistic approaches to planning, are instead comprised of a ‘fantasy world’ of underestimated costs, overstated benefits, and overvalued local development projections (Flyvbjerg et al., 2003). The disease of ‘appraisal optimism’ prevents accurate analyses and projections from taking root, creating instead a “distorted hall of mirrors in which it is exceedingly difficult to decide which projects deserve under-taking and which not (p. 48). HOMELESSNESS 151 6 HOMELESSNESS 6.1 Policy Enforcement, Homelessness, and the Downtown Eastside: Landscapes of Visual Consumption and Social Control This embedded case study explores the ways in which the 2010 Winter Olympic Games influenced the adoption and enforcement of urban policies adversely affecting residents of Vancouver’s DTES. Intending to ‘clean up’ this particular section of the downtown core, several key policies were added, amended, or enforced with the intent of presenting a safe, clean, and sanitized rendering of Vancouver during the 2010 Winter Olympic Games (City of Vancouver, 2007b). Policies outlawing ‘aggressive panhandling,’ criminalizing ‘nuisance behaviors,’ and reducing ‘street disorder’ and ‘urban decay’ were all initiated or implemented in the period immediately preceding the start of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games are critically reviewed with respect to their content as well as outcomes and implications for DTES residents. In this embedded case study I analyze an urban civility program called Project Civil City, two cold-weather forced sheltering policies, and the renewed enforcement of several bylaw infractions for the extent to which such policies were intended as a form of urban clearance, using the criminalization of homelessness to validate the removal of Vancouver’s homeless population. I use critical policy studies and CDA to guide the analysis of these policies. As I argue in this chapter, these urban policies and their subsequent enforcement were intended to not only transform the urban landscape for the purposes of visual consumption, but to serve as an implicit means of social control (Zukin, 1992, p. 238). HOMELESSNESS 152 This set of punitive urban policies, all invoked in the period leading up to the 2010 Games, were used to validate the removal of those who threatened the projected image of Vancouver. This section extends key theoretical critiques of the spectacle to the analysis of modern spectacularized spaces of consumption found within sport mega-event host cities. Specifically, this section explores the ways in which the ideology of the sport mega-event can serve as a hegemonic disciplinary mechanism responsible for the criminalization of homelessness. Urban spectacles, it has been argued elsewhere in the literature, utilize hegemonic ideologies to transform the built environment of the city “into an aesthetic product symbolizing consumption” (Gotham, 2005, p. 242). The discourse under investigation in this section is one that actively sought to project an outward image of Vancouver as a clean and safe city for both visitors and investors. Most crucially, as this examination will show, the Games themselves were used to legitimate the addition, amendment, and enforcement of policies that would definitively influence the visual landscape. By removing those individuals and communities deemed out of place in the city and identified in policy documents as ‘public disorder problems,’ Vancouver was able to protect its constructed image as an idealized Olympic host (City of Vancouver, 2007b, p. 3). Such a progression led one Vancouver activist to forewarn: “Vancouver is entering a new period of exclusion and urban power, marked by a new phase of policing and planning coinciding with the arrival of the Olympic Games” (Crompton, 2010). Fussey et al. (2012) explain the nature of the sport mega-event setting and the combination of regeneration and security in the context of London 2012: HOMELESSNESS 153 In this complex setting, a raft of formal and informal, often subtle, regulatory mechanisms have emerged, especially as visions of social ordering focused on ‘cleansing’ and ‘purifying’ have ‘leaked out’ from the hyper-securitized ‘sterilized’ environment of the Olympic Park and become embedded within the Olympic neighbourhood. (p. 261) As Greene (2003) points out, host governments typically enhance the aesthetics of the city under such a time frame, rather than attending to systemic problems of urban inequality. Under the logic of event-oriented development, “the visibility of poverty becomes paramount in renewal schemes, and preparations often involve removing the poor from high-profile areas surrounding event venues, without significant attention to long-term solutions” (p. 163, emphasis in original). While sport mega-event organizers actively seek to build place images, they also actively seek to conceal or remove any threats to that image. Lefebvre (1991) explains the spectacle as a site of struggle and as “a horizon of meaning: a specific or indefinite multiplicity of meanings, a shifting hierarchy in which one, now another meaning comes momentarily to the fore” (p. 222). The meaning shifting to the fore in Vancouver’s case is one of a safe, clean, and ‘civil’ city. The landscape to be consumed by spectators, tourists, potential investors, and a global television audience is a sanitized rendering in which the population of the DTES is deliberately excluded. The mechanisms of social control explored in this embedded case study include a series of punitive urban policies undertaken in the lead-up to the 2010 Games, which functioned to remove, exclude, or reduce the visibility of populations who were seen as being detrimental to the outward image Vancouver sought to project in the Olympic spotlight. HOMELESSNESS 154 6.2 Chronic Disorder and Urban Decay: A Critical Review of Vancouver’s Urban Policies This set of punitive urban policies,47 all invoked in the period leading up to the 2010 Games, were intended as a means of social control. With the overall intention of eliminating street disorder as the Games approached, the creation and subsequent enforcement of such legislation had a disproportionately negative affect on homeless residents of the DTES. Despite attempts made by the ICICS to stage an inclusive event that was conscious of civil liberties within Vancouver’s inner-city, the DTES did not receive many of the benefits promised during the time of Vancouver’s bid (Eby, 2007; Edelson, 2011). Kennelly and Watt (2011) explain the geographic proximity of the DTES in relationship to the event, writing that the DTES, “was thus an indirect recipient of Olympic effects, positioned more as a gathering site for international media and a vehicular thoroughfare than as a central site of the Games themselves” (p. 777). The Hastings corridor, running through the centre of the DTES, linked the Pacific Coliseum which is a figure skating and short-track speed skating venue, to Vancouver’s downtown core. The DTES is also located a few blocks away from, and exists in sharp contrast to the tourist enclave of Gastown, whose streets lined with souvenir shops, bars and restaurants, and art galleries proved a major draw for visitors during the Games. One of Vancouver’s urban policies, Project Civil City, intended to “use the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games as a catalyst to solve the public disorder problems that affect our city” (City of Vancouver, 2007b, p. 3). Project Civil City, an urban initiative 47 See Appendix A: Documents Analyzed for a complete list of policies, documents, and reports listed under the headings City of Vancouver – Urban Policies, and City of Vancouver – Policies on Social Housing and Homelessness (Policy Documents). HOMELESSNESS 155 started by former Mayor Sam Sullivan in 2007, consisted primarily of “predictable patterns of “beautification” at the expense of low-income residents” (Eby, 2007, p. 3). This urban undertaking, which included a “a roadmap toward the restoration of public order and civility in our community” (City of Vancouver, 2007b, p. 3), offered fifty suggestions for tackling such nuisance behaviors. With attention to eliminating aggressive panhandling and street disorder while also encouraging personal responsibility through incremental change, Project Civil City was directly connected to the upcoming 2010 Games, with the mayor himself declaring the event as a catalyst for urban beautification. The timing of the policy and its target dates for enforcement directly coincide with the Olympic Games, while former Mayor Sam Sullivan made the policy’s Olympic connection even more explicit. As Sullivan explains in a letter contained within the Project Civil City document, “With just over three years until the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, we have a unique opportunity to take advantage of this world-class event,” while also claiming expediency and necessity in doing so: “…there is no question that we must act swiftly and decisively to solve the public disorder problems that affect our city…” (City of Vancouver, 2007b, p. 3, 7). The Project Civil City brochure included the following four objectives: 1. Eliminate homelessness, with at least a 50% reduction by 2010 2. Eliminate the open drug market on Vancouver’s streets, with at least a 50% reduction by 2010 3. Eliminate the incidence of aggressive panhandling with at least a 50% reduction by 2010 4. Increase the level of public satisfaction with the City’s handling of public nuisance and annoyance complaints by 50% by 2010. HOMELESSNESS 156 The continued usage of a 50% reduction in all categories is striking as a somewhat arbitrary designation made without careful attention to available statistical measures. While the initiative did aim to reduce homelessness by half, statistics from Vancouver’s Homelessness Count show a different sort of reduction that relates directly to the visibility of homelessness. In 2008, one year after Project Civil City’s inception, the total homeless count stood at 1,576, with 765 of those in the count registered as sheltered homeless.48 The total homeless count in Vancouver grew to 1,715 in 2010, the year Project Civil City ended, with 1,294 sheltered homeless (Eberle Planning and Research, 2013). The total homeless population grew 8.8 percent in the two years Project Civil City was in place, while the percent change in sheltered homeless increased by 40.9 percent. While the initiative’s objective of reducing homelessness by 50 percent was certainly not reached (and in fact, the overall homeless population grew in this time period), the number of sheltered homeless increased significantly. Project Civil City’s underlying objective of enhancing the city’s image was upheld, however; the uptake in number of sheltered homeless indicates that homelessness, while on the rise overall, was increasingly less visible. Project Civil City, rationalized on the basis of reducing homelessness, was an image-centric campaign to reduce ‘nuisance’ factors and populations detrimental to the city’s image and reputation. Simultaneously, Project Civil City encouraged the neoliberal ethic of personal responsibility: “put simply, it is about inspiring individuals and organizations 48 According to the Vancouver Homeless Count 2013, sheltered homeless is defined as those who ‘stayed in an emergency shelter, safe house, and transition house for women and children fleeing violence’ (Eberle Planning and Research, 2013, p. 5). HOMELESSNESS 157 to take increased personal, social and political responsibility for improving the quality of civil life in Vancouver” (G. Plant, 2007, p. 1). This quotation, it should be noted, does not come from the literature; it is a direct quote from a document authored by Civil City Commissioner. However, in returning to the literature, it is clear that such interventions fall in line with Paton et al.’s (2012) assertion that such policies can be read as “urban restructuring borne out of neoliberalism” (p. 1470). These interventions are designed to transform ‘problem’ people and places into sites of ‘active consumption’ (Paton et al., 2012, pp. 1472, 1470). While the stated objectives included in Project Civil City’s official progress report speak to the elimination of homelessness, Project Civil City does not disguise its intended purpose, writing in the policy brochure: “The primary focus of Project Civil City is to ensure that Vancouver remains one of the best cities in the world to live, work, visit, play, and invest” (City of Vancouver, 2007b, p. 7). The opening lines of the Project Civil City Progress report authored by the former Civil City commissioner echo the sentiment, suggesting a motivation geared towards maintaining an outwardly projected image rather than reducing homelessness or its systemic causes. Speaking of Vancouver, Plant (2007) writes: It is already globally recognized as one of the world’s most livable cities. It has a magnificent geographic setting and numerous diverse, urban communities that support a high quality of life for residents and attract visitors from around the world (p. 1). Using critical policy studies and CDA, I was able to engage in a critical analysis of discourses used across policy documents. Closer inspection of the language used within Project Civil City’s text makes it clear that it is a certain type of civility that is being HOMELESSNESS 158 enforced in Vancouver. Panhandling, seen as one of the most pressing nuisance behaviors targeted through the initiative, is repeatedly prefaced by the word ‘aggressive,’ making panhandling not only a nuisance, but implying that panhandlers are also dangerous and a threat to public safety. In the twenty instances that panhandling is written about in the Project Civil City document, it is prefaced by or appears in connection with ‘aggressive’ on thirteen of those occasions. In similar fashion, it is also a very specific type of drug user in conflict with the image projected by Project Civil City. Of the nine passages speaking to substance abuse or addiction, six also mention drug-related crime. While Project Civil City sought to civilize the image of Vancouver, the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) sought to achieve similar objectives through the increased enforcement of existing legislation. One of the goals iterated by the VPD in its Strategic Plan for 2008-2012 was “to improve the quality of life by reducing street disorder” (Vancouver Police Department, 2008b, p. 42). Street disorder, as defined by the VPD, “represents any behavior or activity that, while frequently not criminal in nature, contributes to urban decay and has a negative impact on the quality of life and citizens’ perceptions of personal safety” (Vancouver Police Department, 2008b, p. 41). Among such behaviors and activities, the VPD lists “aggressive panhandling, squeegeeing, graffiti, fighting, open-air drug markets, unlicensed street vending, the scavenger economy, and sleeping or camping in parks and other public spaces” (Vancouver Police Department, 2008b, p. 41). The VPD set this objective “…in order to increase consequences for chronic disorder related bylaw offenders, namely, in relation to aggressive panhandling, loitering, and street vending…” (Vancouver Police Department, 2009, p. 27). These findings are not dissimilar from other patterns of urban clearance seen HOMELESSNESS 159 in sport mega-event host cities. The less visible, but increasingly common, practice of introducing legislation restricting access to public space and easing the removal of certain populations negatively affecting the city’s image is well documented (Eick, 2011; Fussey et al., 2012; Kennelly & Watt, 2011). Mass evictions in areas of desirable real estate and the introduction of formal legal controls are typically deployed in sport mega-event host cities, frequently accompanied by measures that serve to hamper targeted populations’ ability to resist (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, 2007). In its annual business plan, the VPD also encouraged a renewed awareness for existing bylaws on public disorder offenses, calling for the “usage of the Safe Streets and Trespass Acts in appropriate circumstances,” while simultaneously increasing the number of hours officers were deployed on foot in the DTES (Vancouver Police Department, 2009, p. 7). The Trespass Act, governing private property, prohibits walking or camping on private property without the owner’s permission (Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, 1996). Carrying a penalty of $115 for offenses, the Trespass Act elaborated on the offences that constitute trespassing. Entering premises on enclosed land surrounded by a fence or natural boundary, entering premises whereby entry was expressly prohibited by notice from the occupier, and trespassing in areas clearly demarcated by notice by either verbal or visual signs are all offenses included in the Trespass Act. The Safe Streets Act, originally passed in 2004, prohibits “solicitation in an aggressive manner” (Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, 2004, p. 1). Aggressive solicitation, as the legislation makes clear, is solicitation for money or other objects of value that may cause a reasonable person “to be concerned for the solicited HOMELESSNESS 160 person’s safety or security” (Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, 2004). Further, obstructing the path of a solicited person, approaching in a group of two or more persons, or continued solicitation may also constitute an aggressive form of solicitation. The Safe Streets Act made it illegal to panhandle within five meters of a ‘captive audience,’ which made it a criminal offense to ask for spare change within the proximity of bank machines, bus stops, pay phones, and individuals entering cars in parking lots. Safe Streets Act also amended the Motor Vehicle Act, making it an offense to stop or approach a motor vehicle for the purpose of selling or providing a commodity or service. Thus unlicensed street vending and squeegeeing were made into ticketable offenses, taking away two informal, but nonetheless significant, forms of economic opportunity for homeless individuals in the DTES community (BC Public Interest Advocacy Centre, BC Civil Liberties Association, & Legal Services Society, 2005). Tickets for violations to the Safe Streets Act range from $86 for captive audience solicitation to $115 for aggressive solicitation, which “could involve abusive or threatening behavior” with both ticket amounts well beyond what homeless individuals could afford (Ministry of Attorney General, 2005). While a Question and Answer page published by the Government of British Columbia attempts to clarify that the passage of Safe Streets Act did not constitute ‘an anti-beggars law,’ it was clearly directed at Vancouver’s homeless population (Ministry of Attorney General, 2005). The criminalization of homelessness represents a form of social control as the ticketable offences, which are likely to only be enforced against homeless individuals, had the intended effect of stymying Vancouver’s homeless by criminalizing panhandling, squeegeeing, and street vending. HOMELESSNESS 161 Drawing upon Sum’s (2009) framework, these policies not only constitute the criminalization of homelessness, but also represent a ‘hegemonic constellation of policy discourses’ (p. 198). This constellation was renegotiated in what Sum (2009) describes as ‘specific conjectures’, which can be identified as the years leading up to the 2010 Games. In a desire to engage in urban clearance and present a safe and civil image of Vancouver in time for the Games, these policies were strengthened by the mayor, given additional support by City Council, and reinforced through the ticketing practices of the VPD. Critical policy analysis of the VPD’s annual reporting revealed how many tickets were issued under this period of intense policing and scrutiny in the DTES. The effect of renewed emphasis on such legislation proved dramatic as the number of tickets issued rose markedly in the three years preceding the 2010 Games. In the VPD’s Annual Business Plan Year-end Report Back for 2008, the VPD included a ‘2008 performance projection’ target of 20% increase ‘in the number of charges under the SSA [Safe Streets Act] and TA [Trespass Act] in 2008 as compared to 2007’ (Vancouver Police Department, 2008a, p. 22). The number of tickets issued far exceeded such targets. During what King refers to as the ‘ticketing blitz of 2008’ (King, 2013a), the number of tickets issued under the Safe Streets Act and the Trespass Act increased from 202 in 2007 to 467 in 2008, constituting a 131 percent increase. Tickets issued under the Trespass Act rose from 95 in 2007 to 133 in 2008, a 40 percent increase. Summonses issued for by-law infractions including street vending, panhandling, and loitering rose 77 percent in the same time period, from 247 in 2007 to 439 in 2008 (Vancouver Police Department, 2008a). Jaywalking tickets issued in the DTES also experienced a noted increase in the average number of tickets awarded per month, more than doubling from 39 tickets per HOMELESSNESS 162 month in 2007 to 83 in 2008 (Chu, 2013). As the Impact on Communities Coalition, an activist group, wrote in its interim report card in reference to the 2008 rise in ticketing, tickets had not been issued “in this manner or on this scale” in recent memory (Impact on Communities Coalition, 2009, p. 12). Figure 6. Increase in Tickets Issued Such a change in enforcement and ticketing practices had a distinct, disproportionate, and discriminatory impact on residents of the DTES. According to a complaint filed by Doug King of Pivot Legal Society and on behalf of the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) against the Vancouver Police Department, 95% of street vending tickets issued between the years 2008 and 2012 were awarded in the DTES (King, 2013a, 2013b). King (2013a) notes that the Street Vending Bylaw was originally intended to regulate the presentation of grocery items on sidewalks, a common practice in which vendors from all parts of the city are known to extend the boundaries of business displays. However, of the 1,529 tickets written in violation of this bylaw, 1,448 were issued in the DTES. In a similar pattern, 76% of all jaywalking tickets issued in the same 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Safe Streets Act Traspass Act Bylaw infractions (street vending, panhandling, loitering) 2007 2008 Tres respa s Act HOMELESSNESS 163 time period were written in the DTES (Howell, 2014a). Critics derided such a drastic change in policing as attempts to clear the homeless off the streets in the lead-up to the Games. Edelson (2011) writes, “this ticketing was seen as a potential method to obtain court orders to keep offenders away from the Olympics” and used to ultimately force their relocation (p. 817). Supplementing the discursive scrutiny offered by CDA and critical policy studies with a quantitative approach to the analysis of tickets issued presents data that reinforces the more qualitatively oriented findings. The Extreme Weather Response Plan and Assistance to Shelter Act represent two City of Vancouver policies with direct ties to the treatment of the city’s homeless population in the lead-up to hosting the Olympic Games. In the event that an extreme weather alert is triggered by authorities, outreach workers would distribute information on where to seek shelter. According to the Extreme Weather Response Plan, ‘An alert will be called when weather conditions are deemed severe enough to present a substantial threat to the life or health of homeless persons. Factors taken into account include: • temperatures near zero with rainfall that makes it difficult or impossible for homeless people to remain dry; and or • sleet/freezing rain; and/or • snow accumulation; and/or • sustained high winds; and/or • temperatures at or below -2 degrees Celsius’ (Greater Vancouver Shelter Strategy, 2009). If Vancouver’s homeless did not voluntarily seek shelter, the Assistance to Shelter Act technically allowed authorities to take them forcibly through the use of emergency order. As the Assistance to Shelter Act states, “If a person at risk refuses to comply with or fails to respond to the police officer’s request [to go to a shelter], the police officer, using reasonable force if necessary, may transport the person at risk to an emergency shelter” HOMELESSNESS 164 (Coleman, 2009). A person at risk, the bill explains, is defined as someone over 19 years of age who ‘in the opinion of the police officer is suffering physical harm or is at risk of suffering physical harm because of the extreme weather conditions’ as defined by the Extreme Weather Response legislation (Coleman, 2009). The Extreme Weather Response Evaluation 2009-2010 recounts the enactment of the Assistance to Shelter Act as a “matter generating much publicity during the 2009-2010 season” for the potential for Vancouver’s homeless to be forcibly removed from the streets (James Pratt Consulting, 2010, p. 26). While Vancouver Police Department’s Chief Constable Jim Chu stated his officers wouldn’t employ tactics beyond the ‘minimal, non-forceful touching’ when offering shelter and claimed officers would disengage if facing overt resistance, critics were outspoken on what the legislation implied in relation to the Olympic Games (CBC News, 2009b). The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association called the Assistance to Shelter Act “a band-aid approach that could easily be used to displace the homeless from high-visibility areas in time for the Olympics” (British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, 2009). David Eby, former executive director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, stated on the subject: The timing is perfect for the Olympic Games… You want to talk about how extreme weather will be defined? Well, typically it’s defined as three to five days of rain in a row. Well, that's February in Vancouver…It will be a great way to get the homeless— force the homeless— off the streets, and get them out of the view of visitors for the Olympic games (CBC News, 2009a). According to the Extreme Weather Response Evaluation 2009-2010, there were 8,699 person nights of EWR service in 2008-2009 compared to 2,637 person-nights of EWR service in 2009-2010 (James Pratt Consulting, 2010). The evaluation explains the significant reduction: “this [2009-2010] was significantly lower than the previous year… HOMELESSNESS 165 mostly due to relatively mild weather in the early months of 2010 and additional low barrier shelter services provided in connection with the 2010 Winter Olympics” (James Pratt Consulting, 2010, p. 2). While these statistics indicate that fewer people were taken into shelter in the year of the Olympic Games, the power to enforce such legislation remains in the hands of local law enforcement, earning the Assistance to Shelter Act the unofficial title of the ‘Kidnap the Homeless Act’ from activists (Pemberton, 2009). These urban policies invoked in the period leading up to the 2010 Games were definitively intended as a means of social control, validating the criminalization of ‘chronic offenders’ who threatened the projected image of Vancouver as a safe, clean, and sanitized city (City of Vancouver, 2007b, p. 3). These policies and bylaws, while successful in criminalizing poverty and homelessness within the DTES, were instituted to reduce the visibility of some of Vancouver’s most marginalized populations. Rather than seeking to alleviate many of the systemic issues surrounding homelessness, the enforcement of the policies investigated in this section sought to remove certain populations from sightlines of spectators, visitors, and a global television audience. The enactment and heightened enforcement of these urban policies and bylaws was timed to coincide with the arrival of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. Former Mayor Sam Sullivan wrote in his preface to Project Civil City: If we simply host a successful Olympic and Paralympic Games, we will have failed. Instead, we must use these Games to create social and human legacies that will benefit generations to come (City of Vancouver, 2007b, p. 5). However, the Olympic legacy that remains in Vancouver is one featuring the criminalization of homelessness in the DTES. In attempting to curb the behavior of HOMELESSNESS 166 ‘chronic offenders’ and by extension the sources of public disorder, the policies and bylaws at focus in this section were designed to sanitize Vancouver’s image. The vision of Vancouver being presented through the Olympic Games held no place for the homeless population of the DTES. In line with theorizations of the revanchist city, the exclusionary vision of the city was successful in banning those who did not fit into that vision, a city in which “the poor and homeless are increasingly shunted” and sent to the periphery (MacLeod & Ward, 2002, p. 153). Revanchist Vancouver, under these set of punitive urban policies, such as those criminalizing panhandling, squeegeeing, and street vending, made it clear that the most disadvantaged had no place in the Olympic host city. As Mitchell (2001) writes, “as broken windows rather than people, they simply have no right to the city” (p. 71). The urban spaces of Vancouver’s most marginalized neighborhood, the DTES, were disproportionately and discriminatorily affected by the policies’ enforcement. The renewed emphasis to reduce public disorder problems aimed to punish those at the margins, rather than using the occasion of the Games to invest in a more rigorous approach to the pressing social issues of the DTES. The sport mega-event spectacle remains the ‘manifestation of commodity relations’ and a representation of dominant social institutions (Ley & Olds, 1988, p. 194). The commoditization of place, the codification of forms of social life, and the fetishization of projected images seen in the sport mega-event city reinforce Broudehoux’s (2007) claim that such events transform the host city into a commoditized, performance-centric, locale (p. 384). The city and its landscape are made into places of pilgrimage to the commodity fetish (Benjamin, 1999), its urban transformation coinciding with the arrival of the globally mediated spectacle of the Olympic Games. The spectacularization of the 2010 HOMELESSNESS 167 Winter Games host can be read as an attempt to uphold Vancouver’s outwardly projected image as a clean and safe Olympic host. The onset of punitive urban policies attempting to curb the visible effects of so-called ‘urban decay’ on Vancouver’s image is best understood as an attempt to sanitize Vancouver’s urban landscape. CONCLUSION 168 7 CONCLUSION: THE 2010 WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES In this concluding chapter, I return to the research questions outlined in the introduction while also furthering the discussion of how sport mega-events such as the 2010 Winter Olympic Games exert influence on the urban landscape, its formation, and its residents. By carefully tracing the origins, nature, and intent of Vancouver’s urban policies as they existed in various iterations over time, it was my intention to deliver an empirically-informed understanding of how the 2010 Games affected urban policies and social outcomes. As I have shown, the 2010 Games decidedly altered policy formation on the issues of homelessness and social housing in the City of Vancouver, with predominantly negative effects. The most telling conclusion arising from the empirical data presented in the two embedded case studies points to the spectacularization of policy-making, a tendency wherein authors of policy are compelled to make decisions, enact legislation, and instantiate meaning under a circumstance exacerbated by a forced sense of urgency and motivated by expediency as the mega-event draws near. In critically disassembling the policies that bore direct influence on social housing and homelessness, my findings demonstrate the ways in which policy-making processes are altered, abandoned, or exacerbated in sport mega-event host cities. The nature, requirements, and deadlines of the sport mega-event combine to create a dramatically challenging political circumstance for host cities. Sanchez and Broudehoux (2013) present one of the most compelling theories resonating with the findings of my research, one outlining the onset of a ‘state of emergency’ in the host jurisdiction. Sport mega-events carry with them a set of manufactured preconditions in the form of contractual obligations, international expectations, and CONCLUSION 169 the highly publicized nature of the event (Gaffney, 2011). In such a state of emergency, these manufactured preconditions cascade through the host city’s political system, leading to the blurring of both political and ethical responsibilities (Sanchez & Broudehoux, 2013, p. 136). Normative rule and traditional political processes are thus suspended in the face of such unexpected necessity, while the exception increasingly becomes the rule (Sanchez & Broudehoux, 2013). As Boykoff (2014) explains, the state of exception in sport mega-event host cities becomes the norm. The statement found in the sport mega-event literature bearing the greatest connection to the research I have presented on the housing legacy of the 2010 Games speaks to normalizing the exceptional. The approach of the sport mega-event serves as both alibi and justification for the sacrifice of traditional democratic activity (Boykoff, 2013, p. 4). This sentiment is replicated by other authors who have compared the tendencies of artificial crises with those of the mega-event. Hayes and Horne (2011) describe how the event engineers a crisis of deliberative strucutres, emphasizing the primacy of delivery above all else. A state of emergency is thereby cultivated around the mega-event as political and economic agents work to exploit the schedule and deadlines responsible for inducing such artificial crises, which also facilitate the adoption of neoliberal urban policies (Sanchez & Broudehoux, 2013, p. 136). Neoliberalization in the setting of the sport mega-event encourages the formation of new institutions and practices while also dismantling existing structures of governance (Eick, 2010). Under neoliberal urban governance, the two intertwined, yet analytically distinct moments of creation and destruction come to light (Peck et al., 2009). The creative-destructive tendency of neoliberalism allows two simultaneous processes to coexist in the lead up to sport mega-events: the breakdown of existing governmental institutional arrangements alongside the creation of new infrastructures promoting commodification by means of capital-centric rule. Thus, in the case of the Athletes’ Village, CONCLUSION 170 traditional institutional arrangements surrounding the development of the SEFC area were expedited and the urban planning process was altered by a desire to move the project along as quickly as possible. The example of the Athletes’ Village development also clearly points to the creation of new infrastructures promoting capital-centric rule as the development took place in a former industrial site in need of remediation. Without the City of Vancouver’s financial commitment to remediate the soil and provide all necessary geotechnical work at its own cost, it is possible that SEFC would have remained uninhabitable and unsuitable for development. This resonates with another central tenet of Sanchez and Broudehoux (2013) work as they write that sport mega-events are responsible for promoting a neoliberalized urban agenda. Further, as VanWynsberghe et al. (2013) suggest, sport mega-events are increasingly applied as instruments for the advancement of neoliberal local governance regimes. This is reflected in the policy-making processes I examined for this dissertation as the mega-event simultaneously served as an instrument of place promotion as well as a tool for consolidating development agendas. The intersection of Vancouver’s systemic homelessness issue, lengthy wait lists for social housing, and nebulous methods of accounting for and acquiring low-income housing stock were all brought together under the auspices of bidding for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. In doing so, the well-documented, capitalist-driven urban phenomena, the modern sport mega-event, paradoxically became attached to the mitigation of urban social issues. This statement is not completely surprising as it also resonates with findings in the literature as sport mega-events are increasingly hailed as a panacea for all social and economic ills of the host city (Waitt, 2008). The Inner-City Inclusive Commitment Statement (ICICS) was highly celebrated at the time of the bid, and rightfully so because never before had a host city engaged with or attempted, in policy, to use the prospect of hosting a sport mega-event to alleviate longstanding social issues. Other Olympic hosts CONCLUSION 171 have gone so far as to claim similar social benefits in their bid, but the involvement of multiple levels of government partnering in the delivery of those pledges was unprecedented. The selection of the two embedded case studies pursued in this dissertation point to a disappointing outcome falling far short of highly touted plans and projections for addressing much needed social housing units and alleviating homelessness. However, the concept of legacy coupled with the task of delivery is a complex and nebulous series of processes. Even within the realm of an Olympic-affiliated housing legacy, there are several examples of post-Games housing successes. In one instance, a Memorandum of Understanding between BC Housing and VANOC called for the temporary modular units from the Olympic and Paralympic Village in Whistler to be converted into permanent affordable housing apartments. These modular units were delivered to six cities outside of the Metro Vancouver region after the 2010 Games, constituting 156 units of housing earmarked for homeless individuals and families, low-income seniors, and for assisted living (BC Housing & Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2008). Another success story also comes from the Whistler Olympic and Paralympic Village. One hundred and fifty-four townhomes, sixty-seven condominium units, and a fifty-five unit rental apartment complex managed by the Whistler Housing Authority were designed to house Whistler’s workforce population, thereby balancing housing needs with elements of affordability in an effort to establish below market sale prices. To ensure the housing’s affordability, twenty townhomes were sold at market price as well as twenty-four lots to further offset the costs of purchase for members of Whistler’s workforce (Cheakamus Crossing, 2012). However, the analysis of the two embedded case studies point to a highly disappointing outcome for a housing legacy of any kind within the city of Vancouver. Thus, why were such legacies not CONCLUSION 172 possible in the 2010 host city? What happened in Vancouver that made such lofty ambitions for a social housing legacy fall far short? It is necessary to understand how social housing and homelessness became so intertwined with hosting the 2010 Games. The process of instilling a narrative into a sport mega-event hosting campaign has long been the work of Olympic marketers, carefully constructing and maintaining a well-manicured brand. Vancouver 2010, with its green and blue color pallet, Sea-to-Sky imagery, and arcing narrative of sustainability proclaimed in economic, social, and environmental terms. Yet, through the course of research I conducted for this dissertation, this narrative was being built well before the Games were even secured. For example, the Vancouver Whistler 2010 Bid Corporation generated an extraordinarily high number of documents in 2002 (see Figure 3, pg. 96). These communications served to reify the position of the bid committee and definitively charted the course that VANOC, the organizing committee, would later follow once the bid was secured in July 2003. These actors, both the individuals involved as well as the collective of the bid committee, became involved in the policy discursive networks of the 2010 Games at an early stage (Sum, 2009). Sustainability, legacy, and social housing were policy ideas already involved in the discussion surrounding the securing of the Olympic bid, well before the host of the 2010 Games was even decided. Elements relating to the protest and critiques put forth by interest groups, focus group responses, and the feedback of government stakeholders were already well underway, information that influenced and later, directly impacted the activities and objectives of the organizing committee (see Appendix A: Documents Analyzed – Vancouver Whistler 2010 Bid Corporation). Research Question 1: How did social housing and homelessness policies come to be incorporated into the objectives of the 2010 Games? CONCLUSION 173 However, the circumstance in which the bid committee’s policies were generated is anything but ordinary. A bid committee consists of an informally assembled group tasked with achieving the objective of winning the bid, and as such, a competitive instinct is more likely to overrule any rational or traditional methods of planning, urban or otherwise. The Athletes’ Village, in versions pre-dating the official bid book, was originally intended to be placed on the University of British Columbia’s campus (Vancouver Bid Corporation, 2001; Wright, 2000). As the only three villages in Olympic history that were not mired in financial shortfall or burdened by after-use planning missteps were those built on university campuses or those utilizing existing dormitories, building an Athletes’ Village as student housing was, historically, a sound decision. However, the development and selection of the Athletes’ Village instead aligned itself with more recent theorizations of mega-projects and the acceptance of financial risk. As Flyvbjerg et al. (2003) explain, mega-projects such as the Athletes’ Village development are commonly mired in underestimated costs, overstated benefits, and overvalued local development projections. Budget forecasting, especially in the context of the Olympic Games, has suffered from the conditions of ‘appraisal optimism.’ Rather than engage with the more financially sound and historically proven option of building student housing, the bid committee preferred what was at the time called the ‘downtown option’ for reasons relating to travel times and appeal to the IOC in host city voting (International Olympic Committee, 2003; UBC Reports, 2001). The more insidious conclusion to be drawn would be that social housing and homelessness were incorporated for reasons relating to urban competition, first, to appeal to IOC voters deciding on the 2010 Games host, and second, to assuage a responsive and socially liberal voting base that such vast public expenditures would not be made in vain. Thus, promising a social housing legacy and protections for low-income housing can be read as CONCLUSION 174 competitive decisions that bid organizers sought to use in order to raise Vancouver’s chances of bring selected as the 2010 host city. This resonates with the findings of neoliberal urbanism as the pressures of inter-urban competition pit cities against each other as cities seek to accrue ‘marks of distinction’ relative to its urban counterparts (Harvey, 2012, p. 106). 7.1 Depoliticizing the Formation of Social Legacies: The Post-Politics of the Spectacle In addition to a competitive, win-at-all costs mentality that affects the content and motivations of the bid itself, there are other systems at work responsible for the elevation of notions on providing social housing, alleviating homelessness, and hosting an inclusive event. First, legacy objectives are carefully selected, denoting a common and laudable interest popular enough to meet with little resistance. Few can argue why an event should be deliberately less sustainable or more exclusive. Thus, the legacy discourse continues on unchallenged, picking up momentum in the bid phase and then turning into a mandate once the bid is won. However, in the process of instilling a vision for legacy, little attention is paid to how legacy objectives will actually be achieved, what will constitute their realization, and how central elements of the policy making process, such as public consultation, will be considered. The assumption of a shared and unified interest in the pursuit of such objectives is indicative of what Swyngedow (2007, 2009b) and others (Mouffe, 2005; Zizek, 1998, 2008) have described as a postpolitical condition. Under the conditions of the postpolitical, the politiciziation of particulars is eschewed in favor of a more consensual politics, reached in a form of simple agreements (Swyngedouw, 2007; Zizek, 1998). Sport mega-events are attached to powerful discourses and ideology relying upon Research Question 1a: How and why were ideas such as social legacy, social housing, and sustainability promoted through hosting the event? CONCLUSION 175 metaphors relating to transcendence of the human spirit, the essence of sporting competition, and harmony and unity amongst participating nations. For the coalitions and organizing bodies driving the sport mega-event, this ideology to generate forms of dominant consensus, relying on the event to “stifle effective opposition to programmes in the name of a wider, uncontestable political good” (Raco & Tunney, 2010, p. 2087). Those ideas generating minimal dissent are preferred over others that may require more debate or may be considered controversial, allowing agreement to be reached more simply rather than through more traditionally democratic means such as polling or consultation. Policy undertakings in Vancouver relating to the alleviation of homelessness and establishment of a social housing legacy were effectively depoliticized to such a point that they became postpolitical. The void left in the absence of politics proper is filled by social administration and managerialism. As Zizek (2002) writes, “the ultimate sign of post-politics in all Western countries is the growth of a managerial approach to Western government: government is reconceived as a managerial function, deprived of its proper political dimension” (p. 303, as cited in Swyngedouw, 2009, p. 24). If politicization is understood to mean the metaphorical universalization of demands, as Swyngedouw (2007) makes the case, postpolitics discourages it entirely. In the lead-up to the 2010 Games, the discourses of social inclusion, legacy, and sustainability were repeatedly used as a way of rationalizing projects and expenditures that would not be politically feasible in any other context (Burbank et al., 2001). While the event itself was bound by a rigid deadline for delivery, the timeline for reaping such legacy benefits was not nearly as clearly delineated. Set out upon an indefinite time horizon, sport mega-event organizing committees ask populations to wait for these legacy benefits to be bequeathed upon them by hastily assembled committees, often at the comfortable distance of years or decades. That mega-events are CONCLUSION 176 successfully rationalized using such a turn of language does not diminish the fact that the pursuit of such events has largely continued, even in the face of a range of complications plaguing host cities and continued inability to successfully realize promised ‘legacy’ benefits once the event has ended. Critical policy studies and CDA were especially helpful in bringing these issues to light as I paid close attention to identifying exactly what the bid corporation promised in exchange for hosting the 2010 Games. By tracking how these legacy pledges gradually slipped away over time, I was able to see exactly how, and through what institutional and political mechanisms, legacy was transformed (Sum, 2009). As Raco (2014) explains, this transition to a depoliticized process is a wholly necessary one, especially when considered from the perspective of those responsible for policy creation. Critical policy studies allows for this type of introspection into the policy-making process and was expository in helping to identify how hegemonic logics come to dominate policy creation. “The removal of politics becomes a precondition for the effective implementation of policy as it enables policymakers to depoliticize development projects, so that professionals are able to act freely to get on with the process of making development happen” (Raco, 2014, p. 177). Such a shift, from a policy-centric orientation to one focused on delivery, has culminated in a series of regulatory structures that are intended to not only institutionalize policy outcomes, but “the mechanisms through which they are to be achieved” (Raco, 2014, p. 177). Critical policy studies, used in conjunction with CDA, provides an ideal methodological approach for revealing these mechanisms. For example, in the case of the development of SEFC, the timeline and contractual commitments made to the IOC to deliver the Athletes’ Village on time were prioritized over balanced spending and public consultation. In the case of policies CONCLUSION 177 criminalizing homelessness in the DTES, the impending event was used as rationale for engaging in urban clearance. The adoption of such punitive urban policies is one such way that policy is used in the “process of making development happen” (Raco, 2014, p. 177). By attempting to curb the behavior of chronic offenders in the DTES and therefore reduce the effects of public disorder on Vancouver, facilitating development was prioritized over more systemic issues relating to homelessness. The vision of Vancouver that city councilors and the mayor sought to project was one of a clean, safe, sanitized city, but by doing so, the very real needs of a neighborhood were met with a beautification project rather than more explicit policy interventions pertaining to homelessness, joblessness, or drug use. The discursive policy networks of ‘urban decay’ upheld in documents such as Project Civil City paint Vancouver’s DTES population as one-dimensional. That discourse, further reinforced by levels of government, paints what is a varied population with very broad strokes circulating around drug addiction, aggressive behaviors, and an unsafe, crime-ridden jurisdiction. In this way, the policy discourse put forward in these documents entered everyday practice, while also serving to reorganize spaces and populations (Sum, 2009). The loosely iterated and obtusely defined concepts of legacy, sustainability, and inclusivity are discourses that, on their surface, are not objectionable. Yet, the processes determining what is being sustained, what will constitute a legacy, and who is being included and how are scarcely considered. Despite many obvious setbacks in achieving a legacy of social housing, Vancouver 2010 is memorialized by its organizers as “sustainable games with lasting legacies” (Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2010c, p. 80). The conditions of postpolitics are also made possible through the sense of legitimacy afforded to the group of individuals at the helm of the organizing committee. Zizek (1998) calls this the ‘collaboration of enlightened technocrats,’ whose so-called ‘expert knowledge’ lends legitimacy to CONCLUSION 178 terms such as legacy, paving the way for realization of the committee’s objectives, which are set “in the guise of a more or less universal consensus” (p. 70). For example, the Housing Table was largely considered to be a successful demonstration of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders coming together. While the reports produced by the Housing Table were significant and made strong recommendations towards the achievement of the housing objectives of ICICS, their work was largely abandoned and the table was dismissed before any progress could be made. Their most notable recommendation, the creation of 3,200 supportive housing units in the four years preceding the 2010 Games, was also substantiated in other policy documents such as the Homeless Action Plan, but was still disregarded by the government’s response to the Housing Table with comments like: “Provincial funding constraints make it questionable whether or not this goal can be achieved in the short term” (Mauboules, 2007, p. 5). Thus, the process is reported as one involving techno-political and social-scientific decision-making wherein experts exercised free deliberation (Zizek, 2008; Swyngedouw, 2009). Yet, in reality, this was a process wherein the members of the Housing Table were asked how to achieve such housing objectives, but when their response proved too difficult or expensive, their recommendations were dismissed. Essentially, what appears to be a deeply consensual process is actually providing rhetorical cover for a definitively depoliticized one. This form of politics, one that is ‘radically reactionary’ and successfully “forestalls the articulation of divergent, conflicting, and alternative trajectories for future possibilities,” is intended to remove politicization altogether (Swyngedouw, 2007, p. 26). For example, the highly political, and overtly criticized, lack of a national housing strategy for alleviating homelessness in Canada took a back seat, paradoxically, in discussions around social housing and the 2010 Winter Olympic Games (CBC News, 2010; Poverty Olympics, 2009). The Research Question 2: How did discussion and deliberation around these issues proceed? CONCLUSION 179 purchase of single room occupancy (SRO) hotel rooms, read as a stop-gap measure by critics, was used as a way to shore the informal housing supply for Vancouver’s low-income residents, yet the construction of new units slowed overall (Eby, 2008; Paulsen, 2007a). Taken with consideration of a strong history of activism and a very outspoken opposition to hosting the Games dating back to the deleterious effects of Expo ‘86, the politics involved with the creation of a social housing legacy associated with Vancouver 2010 can be considered reactionary (see Olds, 1989, 1998). Groups such as the Impact on Communities Coalition (IOCC) and the Tenants Rights Action Coalition (TRAC), among others, raised concern with the impact of hosting the 2010 Winter Games on the Downtown Eastside and its residents (Johal, 2002; Mix, 2002). By replacing politics with the veneer of universally accepted consensus, ideological divisions are rejected in favor of the non-conflictual. Protections for those who need it most (e.g., homeless individuals and those at risk of homelessness in Vancouver’s DTES) are largely agreed upon as a positive measure. However, it is how and to what extent such benefits are delivered that falls beyond the boundary of scrutiny under a postpolitical condition. 7.2 Summary of Findings: Taking Stock of Vancouver’s Post-Games Housing Legacy In this section I will reflect on the larger case study, the housing legacy of the 2010 Games, to compare how initial, rosy outlooks on housing creation fared over the intervening seven years between the time the bid was won and the 2010 Games. The ICICS was created in order to “maximize the opportunities and mitigate potential impacts in Vancouver’s inner-city neighbourhoods from hosting the 2010 Winter Games” (Vancouver Bid Corporation, 2002a, p. 1). These housing objectives, first iterated in the introduction of this dissertation, are worth revisiting here: CONCLUSION 180 a) Protect rental housing stock b) Provide as many alternative forms of temporary accommodation for Winter Games visitors and workers c) Ensure people are not made homeless as a result of the Winter Games d) Ensure residents are not involuntarily displaced, evicted or face unreasonable increases in rent due to the Winter Games e) Provide an affordable housing legacy and start planning now (Vancouver Bid Corporation, 2002a, p. 3). Yet, despite the optimism surrounding the ICICS and measures taken to provide a sense of consultation, nearly all hope for realizing a positive social housing legacy as a result of hosting the 2010 Games has been squandered. The ICICS, rather than a formal, binding commitment to be adhered to and enforced by not only VANOC but by its government partners, proved to be a point of contention as the Games approached. VANOC was unwilling to fund an independent organization to monitor the extent to which ICICS pledges were upheld, a stipulation requested by community organizations (Edelson, 2011). The IOCC issued a grade of a D- in its interim report card and it became clear well before the Games had even started that at least eighteen of the thirty-seven commitments made were not going to be implemented (Impact on Communities Coalition, 2009). The ICICS has been sharply criticized as “simply a public-relations exercise undertaken to secure the bid for Vancouver” (Eby, 2007, p. 14). As the spokesman of a 2010 watchdog organization was quoted: “these [ICICS commitments] were either misguided statements designed to get people on board, or they were outright deceptions” (Condon, 2009). As Eby (in Porter et al., 2009) writes, “no new Olympic-related social housing units will be opened before the Games are here, and those that were scheduled to be located in the Olympic village are now unlikely to ever be occupied by any currently homeless individual due to cost overruns” (p. 411). The ICICS was a key component of the policy discursive network surrounding the 2010 Games’ social housing legacy. The Research Question 2a: Which actors (at the federal, provincial, or urban levels of government) were responsible for the reification of discourses surrounding social housing and homelessness and in what ways were they successful in delivering upon their stated objectives? CONCLUSION 181 hegemonic logics of the Olympic Games served to reproduce these ideas, created at the time of the bid and reinforced throughout the years leading up to the 2010 Games (Sum, 2009). In VANOC’s final sustainability report, prepared after the Games closed, the following actions were listed under housing: the contribution of “$30 million dollars to the City of Vancouver towards a post-Games legacy of 250 affordable units from Olympic and Paralympic Village Vancouver;” a ‘$250,000 contribution to the creation of 32 new shelter beds for youth at Covenant House,’ provisions for a temporary hostel for Games visitors and contribution of $200,000, and a guarantee that no low-income housing was included on the list of Olympic Family or partner accommodation (Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2010b, p. 66). VANOC mentions its own effort to keep low-income housing off the list of partner accommodation for members of the IOC family, however, that list of partner accommodation often features four and five star accredited hotel chains, and thus was likely never to include Vancouver’s informal housing stock of SRO hotels. The provisions for a temporary hostel are also adamantly contradictory to the heavy attention paid towards alleviating homelessness in the lead up to the 2010 Games (Eby, 2007; Edelson, 2011; Housing Table, 2007b). Rather than adding to the city’s supply of homeless shelters, funding went towards securing accommodation for out-of-town visitors, which as VANOC’s own reports note, were not popular (and therefore largely empty) during the Games.49 The logic of a one-time donation for the provision of shelter beds defies the logic of ‘sustainability’ underwriting VANOC’s actions while also removing the possibility of a housing ‘legacy’ coming to fruition (Paulsen, 2008). 49 VANOC’s final sustainability report states “there was no visitor demand in December or 2009 or January 2010, and limited demand in February 2010” (Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2010b, p. 66). The hostel secured included 300 beds and came at the price of $200,000, almost equal to the donation VANOC made to Covenant House. CONCLUSION 182 The one-time donation of a $250,000 to a homeless shelter, while admirable, seems paltry in comparison to VANOC’s overall operating budget of over $1.876 billion (Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2010d) and in consideration of the heavy investment and energy dedicated to the creation and promotion of the ICICS signed by VANOC and its member government partners when the bid was won. While originally agreed upon in 2002, by 2007 VANOC declared in its annual sustainability report that many of the issues it claimed to address “exceed our authority or capacity to act” and fell beyond the organization’s decision making ability (Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2007, p. 66). Factual inaccuracies can also be found within the sustainability reports themselves, as ‘new’ units of social housing were not in fact newly built, projects claimed by VANOC and its member partners were actually preexisting projects having no connection to the Olympic Games, and bid ‘commitments’ made in with regards to housing and the inner-city ‘not binding’ by 2007 (Paulsen, 2007a, 2007b). Despite these obvious setbacks in meeting conditions for social housing, the Athletes’ Village is described in a transfer of knowledge report under the sub-heading ‘sustainable games with lasting legacies’ (Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2010c, p. 80). However, the creation of social housing units in the Athlete’s Village, once a key legacy promise of the 2010 Games, provides ample evidence of the ways in which original commitments were modified over time and how discourses and technocratic language were used to avert the issue. Critical policy studies and CDA, applied across the two embedded case studies, is successful in revealing how technocratic discourses shaped policy on social housing and homelessness. While CONCLUSION 183 scant attention is paid to quantifying, for example, how much social housing will be delivered and for whom, the underlying notion that such benefits will flow freely if only the right managerial mechanisms are in place overrides proper political debate. As Zizek (2006) explains, “political struggle proper is therefore not a rational debate between multiple interests but simultaneously, the struggle for one’s voice to be recognized as the voice of a legitimate partner” (p. 69-70). Democratic forms of input and solicitation, in the form of responsive elected officials, public referendums, and other measures of traditional democracy, are passed over in favor of programs and policies that generate very little dissent. As Mouffe (2005) explains, “democracy requires citizens to be given a genuine choice when they go to vote, and this choice must offer a real alternative to the existing order” (EUROPP Blog, 2013). In this case, no alternative to the City of Vancouver and VANOC’s vision for the Games was ever truly offered. It is possible to generalize from the 2010 Games and see how the discourses surrounding legacy, sustainability, and social housing can themselves be unquestioningly accepted as ideals deemed a universal objective absent of dissent. While these terms are seemingly benign, they also function as hegemonic logics directly influencing the policy-making process (Sum, 2009). The danger in relying on the ‘benevolent mask’ or such ‘wonderful sounding words’ of neoliberal policy doctrine (Harvey, 2005) lies in the fact that these same ideals are applied, without modification, to upcoming and aspiring Olympic hosts as diverse as Rio, Sochi, Almaty, and Boston, without thorough consideration of how those terms will fit into each hosts’ urban context. For example, Boston, an applicant city for the 2024 Summer Olympic Games, writes in its feasibility study: CONCLUSION 184 Although the Commonwealth [of Massachusetts] currently lacks the housing facilities to be used as an Olympic Village (equivalent of roughly 8,000 units of housing), housing units could be built as modular units that could be leased to the Olympics for the Games, and then re-deployed to other areas of Boston to be converted into affordable, workforce, and/or graduate student housing (Special Commision Relative to the Feasibility of Hosting the Summer Olympics in the Commonwealth, 2014, p. 15). Further, Boston’s feasibility study also makes clear what factors are motivating such decisions: “The IOC prefers that the Stadium and Village be close to the city center” (Special Commision Relative to the Feasibility of Hosting the Summer Olympics in the Commonwealth, 2014, p. 15). Despite promised attention to knowledge transfer and a history of Olympic host cities repeating patterns of legacy failure, it appears there is little hope for the lessons of 2010 to carry over to future host cities embarking on the processes involved in hosting sport mega-events. While I have shown through the two embedded case studies, the ways in which Vancouver’s attempted housing legacy was seriously, if not completely, diminished before the 2010 Games had even begun, these findings are not completely novel and certainly are not unique to Vancouver. In fact, under the current order of sport mega-event oversight and governance, it is highly likely that the same missteps will be repeated in the future. Sport mega-events have repeatedly, and now routinely, failed to live up to the utopian idealism proselytized in their respective bids. 7.3 The Right to the Future City: Implications and Future Research Marcuse (2009) asks: ‘Whose Right are we talking about? What Right is it that we mean? What City is it to which we want the right?’ (p. 189). The city to which we want the right is arguably the future city. For Vancouver, although there are many political and economic interests at work, there are several repetitive threads that help to shape the city’s future direction. The city’s current Mayor, Gregor Robertson, was elected in 2008 and is a member of the Vision Vancouver party, CONCLUSION 185 one of three parties currently represented on City Council. With a slogan of ‘go forward with Vision,’ the party revealed five key priorities of its platform before the 2014 mayoral election, where Robertson was elected for a third term (Vision Vancouver, 2014). • Better transit and a greener city • Affordable housing and support for the most vulnerable; • Strong, vibrant neighbourhoods; • An inclusive city; • Growing an economy for all of Vancouver (Vision Vancouver, 2014, p. 4). This political platform is in line with the collective image that was projected, or attempted, in the lead up to the 2010 Games, an espoused image of an affordable, sustainable, housing-rich, inequality-poor urban enclave. The future city’s projection, imagined by its current government as well as by the bid and organizing committees of the 2010 Games, reveals the tensions and difficulties associated with making such a projection come to fruition. Vancouver has experienced the promotion of sustainable urban living (e.g., the addition of bike lanes, upholding its reputation as one of the most ‘livable’ cities in the world, and advent of city-wide composting initiatives, a rebirth of laneway housing construction), the delineation of tourist bubbles (e.g., the demarcation of an entertainment and sporting district on the waterfront, the promotion of a once neglected Chinatown, the expanding boundaries of Gastown and its nightlife), and emergence of a sport-lifestyle economy (i.e., the prevalence and proximity of physical activity, popularity of high end sports such as competitive road cycling). These key elements are continuously emerging and reemerging as some of the most defining features of the city’s urban policy, also mirrored by the 2010 Games’ organizing committee. These policies, read as ‘place-bound and spatially targeted’ schemes for economic development, are representative of a new brand of urban politics (Swyngedouw, Moulaert, & Rodriguez, 2002, p. 569). As a key element and instrument of place promotion, hosting a sport mega-event like the Olympic Games can CONCLUSION 186 contribute to reinforcing the city’s desired image, not only within the city, but to an international audience as well. In doing so, cities are able to utilize the position and prestige of the sport mega-event as a means of consolidating support and capital for regional development, directed towards an internal (local) as well as external (global) audience. The ‘place-competitive re-imaging strategies’ (Hall, 2006, p. 64) attached to hosting the Olympic Games have become part of the event itself. However, there is also danger in the promotion of terms that seemingly were arrived upon with consensual agreement such as the loss of the properly political. Swynegdouw (2010) explains its relation to more nascent forms of urban governance: …urban governance at the beginning of the 21st century has shifted profoundly, giving rise to a new form of governmentality in the Foucaultian sense of the word, one that is predicated upon new formal and informal institutional configurations – forms of governance that are characterized by a broadening sphere of governing, while narrowing, if not suspending, the space of the properly political (p. 2-3). Dubbed ‘Governance-beyond-the-State’ (Swyngedouw, 2005, 2009a), this regime is concerned with ‘accentuating the imperatives of a globally connected neo-liberalized market economy’ (Swyngedouw, 2010, p. 3). The regime Swyngedouw (2010) describes is not only steadfastly in line with advent of the post-political, it is also considered post-democratic in that it annuls democracy, producing “an oligarchically instituted form of governing in which political power seamlessly fuses with economic might” (Swyngedouw, 2010, p. 3). Thus, the city is shaped according to the dreams and desires of transnational economic, political, and cultural elites (Swyngedouw, 2010), not a far cry from Benjamin’s (1999) ‘wish-images’ of societal longings captured by the dream houses of the collective (p. 4). CONCLUSION 187 Vancouver 2010’s commitment to sustainability, one of the most celebrated elements of the 2010 Games (Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2010a) demonstrates some of the tension between upholding a core priority and element of Vancouver’s image with actually delivering on such promises. The heavy reliance on the concept of sustainability can be considered a rather typical pro-accumulation strategy, one that depoliticizes policy objectives in favor of allowing a less resistive path to development (T.W. Luke, 2005). In fact, in pursuing what is an unsustainable endeavor (i.e. hosting a sport mega-event) social, political, and economic elites are actually upholding “key principles of consumer capitalism including the infinite economic growth and wealth accumulation, which ecologists have always branded as fundamentally unsustainable” (Blühdorn & Welsh, 2007, p. 187). One of the key contributions of this dissertation is demonstrating how the concept of sustainability is being transformed into a commodity in Olympic host preparations. Immediately preceding the start of the 2010 Games, capital accumulation (and snow accumulation) was prioritized over actual environmental concerns and costs. In suggesting that the environment is a controllable entity, a “value-free vision of win-win-wins between economic growth, social development, and ecological protection” is prioritized (While et al., 2004, p. 554). For example, helicopters and trucks were called to ferry in more than 5,000 cubic metres of snow for freestyle skiing and snowboarding venues at a cost never revealed by VANOC (Milliken, 2010). VANOC’s response to such concerns and dissenting views over the use of extreme measures at the expense of further environmental harm was that using helicopters and trucks to tote snow would add little to its calculated 118 thousand tons of greenhouse gas emissions (Guttsman, 2010). Meanwhile, ‘enlightened technocrats’ were able to dismiss concerns surrounding the practice of stockpiling or moving snow, labeling it as a necessary and normal activity of a Winter Games organizing CONCLUSION 188 committee. A VANOC vice president was quoted as saying in response to criticisms surrounding the use of helicopters to deliver snow: “This is a normal course of action in temperate conditions, and we have all the technology, equipment, people and expertise to deliver the Games” (as cited in Branch & Austen, 2010). This statement proved a harbinger for future Winter Olympics as organizers of Sochi’s 2014 Winter Olympic Games pursued similarly extreme measures to secure snow. With its alpine events held only 30 minutes from a temperate resort on the Black Sea prone to dangerous avalanche conditions, Sochi 2014 built the largest snowmaking operation in Europe. Four hundred snowmaking cannons were installed into the newly built alpine venues, while 500,000 cubic metres of snow were stockpiled and stored under insulated blankets in alpine pockets in preparation (Branch, 2013a). The resort and its brand new snow making system also required the most extensive anti-avalanche technology to make the resort safe for skiing (Branch, 2013b). That such drastic measures have become ‘normal course of action’ for Winter Games hosts has been further solidified as Beijing, China now formally seeks to host the 2022 Winter Games, despite being 200 kilometres removed from its potential alpine location and raising several very serious concerns (again) over the state of the potential host’s air quality (Einhorn, 2013; Osborn, 2013). The expense of helicoptering snow in Vancouver, building a brand new ski resort for Sochi, or hosting a Winter Games in Beijing are newer and larger accumulation strategies, ones that selectively incorporate forms of dissent and attempt to negate critique, most curiously, through the injection of greater amounts of capital into massive infrastructure projects. In attempting to manage what is known to be fundamentally unsustainable (Blühdorn & Welsh, 2007), there exists an inherent tension between the actual requirements and delivery-based demands of staging a mega-event and the stated desire from international organizing bodies and host organizing committees to deliver a ‘sustainable’ event (Hayes & Horne, 2011). CONCLUSION 189 While I discuss at length the institutions at play such as the IOC, VANOC, and the layers of government involved, rarely have I discussed the individual authors of the policy documents I have scrutinized. A retrospective study into the agency that these individuals possessed in the Olympic policy-making process would be an extremely valuable and complementary piece to this case study on the housing legacy of the 2010 Games. While I discussed elsewhere in this dissertation, for example, how mega-events inculcate a sense of crisis and state of emergency in their planning periods, who were the individuals pushing through policy decisions in late night, in-camera meetings? In terms of the Athletes’ Village on SEFC, where such policy authors motivated to preserve city council’s reputation and approval ratings, or their own appointed positions? To shield well-informed citizens from the deleterious spending taking place in the name of the Games? In the embedded case study on the criminalization of homelessness in the DTES, were some of these suggestions for urban policing and forced sheltering well intended but just very poorly executed? Was there a genuine interest in committing to alleviating homelessness for VANOC and its organizers, or was it a lip service paid in exchange for support of the Games during the bid phase? Studies that aim to deconstruct the policy-making process around Olympic host cities in the future should look more deeply into the tension between structure (of urban governments, policy systems, and contractual obligations of the Olympic Games) and agency (as exhibited by the individuals responsible for authoring policy). 7.4 Methodological Reflections: Bringing CDA and Critical Policy Studies Together Applying critical policy studies and CDA to the policy documents analyzed in these two embedded case studies was certainly not the only way to explore the impact and influence of the 2010 Games on Vancouver. However, this methodology offered the greatest insight into discursive CONCLUSION 190 practice, or the process of meaning-making. Discourse itself is not only related to linguistic representations; it speaks to particular systems of articulatory practice which in turn organize social relations (Laclau & Mouffe, 2001). What I attempted to achieve through the use of critical policy studies was to question to acceptance of these policies as ‘a given.’ Following Paul’s (2009) instruction, I identified the discourses that dominated the policy-making process, how they came to do so, and traced how discourses were promoted within that process. Legacy, sustainability, civility are some of the discourses that were directly applied over the course of Vancouver’s 2010 preparations. Legacy is meant to signify the blank cheque that host city governments write on behalf of their taxpayers, the promise of a future benefit that typically comes without an appropriate means to ensure its delivery. The discourse of sustainability and sustainable development is used as a cover to assuage any criticism faced by the IOC or the organizing committee, claiming that all development takes place with sustainability in mind, no matter the actual environmental, social, or economic effects. Civility in the context of 2010 is a code word meant to sidestep the systemic effects of homelessness and the City of Vancouver’s desire to conceal individuals who detract from Vancouver’s camera-ready image. The ultimate aim of critical policy analysis is to critically explain how and why a particular policy has been formed and implemented, over others (Howarth, 2009, p. 324). In pulling apart the discursive practices responsible for policy iterations and implementation, I also sought to reveal those empty signifiers behind these discourses, challenging the ways in which certain under-defined terms are continuously deployed to capture a shifting and nebulous practice of assigning meaning. One of my primary objectives in choosing to undertake this project was to trace the origins of these policy formations, to uncover how specific temporary policy settlements (Gale, 1999) came to ensure that extraordinary measures could be taken in light of the city hosting the 2010 Winter CONCLUSION 191 Olympic Games. From early meetings of the nascent bid organizing committee, to loosely iterated but lofty sounding Candidature Files, through policy enactment in the city’s official development plans and administrative reports, I started this project with an idea of determining where such ideas were born and how they progressed. Some policies, such as the ICICS, were utilized in an attempt to galvanize public support during a time in which hosting the games was an unpopular idea – in February 2003 a public referendum revealed that only sixty-four percent of Vancouverites supported the 2010 bid (OGI-UBC Research Team, 2011, p. 8). Others, such as the SEFC Official Development Plan By-law No. 9073, were long considered, but faced difficulties in their implementation (City of Vancouver, 1999). Essentially, the sport mega-event offers a distinct vehicle through which policy objectives can be pursued, objectives that in other times or under other circumstance would have proven politically impossible. This is the exceptional character of the mega-event, one proposed in my earlier definition of the mega-event, that it exists and is perpetuated beyond normative spatio-temporal structures of governance, of oversight, of juridical rule, and public consultation that would exist in the context of the ordinary. For researchers, urban planners, and Olympic lobbyists curious about the role of the policy production process and its effects on the host city, there is an additional methodological approach that may offer deeper and more critical introspection into policy-making and its relation to social structures. This approach, called Cultural Political Economy (CPE), is a form of hybridized assessment that joins concepts of semiotic analysis with more critical elements offered by studies of political economy (Jessop, 2004; Jessop & Oosterlynck, 2008). This approach is closely related to Sum’s (2009) framework, which was used to guide analysis of the policies analyzed for the two Research Question 3a: In what ways do the urban processes associated with sport mega-events influence the policy-making processes of host cities? CONCLUSION 192 embedded case studies. While Sum’s (2009) guiding questions proved particularly useful in the early phases of coding and analysis, CPE would add value to the analysis of policies created during the lead up to the 2010 Games because it speaks directly to the power that resides in language, who is using it, and to what ends. While semiosis is often described as an ‘umbrella term’ for the multitude of forms in which language, narratives, and rhetoric can be examined, the study of the co-evolution of semiotic, as well as extra-semiotic practices is further delineated under CPE (Fairclough, Jessop, & Sayer, 2002). CPE, rather than focusing on a specific text or body of texts, investigates argumentation, narrativity and rhetoric beyond textual or verbal language (Fairclough et al., 2002). CPE is neither prescriptive as a methodological approach nor restrictive to the field of political economy. Instead, the general presuppositions offered by CPE can be combined with other forms of analysis appropriate for a multitude of other social forms and institutions. In this way, the approach offered by CPE would add a nuanced perspective to the housing legacy of the 2010 Games by extending its analysis into the role of narrativity and rhetoric. While I analyze how policy-making process in Vancouver, the Province of British Columbia, the Government of Canada as well as the IOC, VANOC, the Bid Corp, and other government stakeholders evolved in the lead up to the 2010 Games using CDA and critical policy studies, CPE would add value in terms of the connectivity and value that meaning-making carries in policy practice. Further to this, a study into the ‘economic imaginary’ of the Olympic Games would also tease apart how such entrenched knowledge production and knowledge transfer processes inform the policy-making process in host cities. An economic imaginary is defined by Jessop et al. (2008) as a semiotic order or “a specific configuration of genres, discourses and styles and, as such, constitutes the semiotic moment of a network of social practices in a given social field, CONCLUSION 193 institutional order, or wider social formation” (p. 1158, citing Fairclough, 2003). Such imaginaries, while always selectively defined, note Jessop et al. (2008), also bear some significant correspondence to existing material economic interdependencies. Economic imaginaries seek to develop new structural and organizational forms, and in doing so, identify and privilege economic activities and turn them into objects of observation, calculation, and governance (Jessop, 2004). Gaffney (2011) identifies a particular form, describing what he calls the Olympic imaginary. This imaginary, Gaffney (2011) explains, is extensive and includes myriad urban, political, financial, and social interventions extending across the host city. Most importantly, there is an underlying set of practices that are attached to the event itself: the Olympic imaginary “employs discursive structures that are connected to the larger ideological narratives of the IOC” (Gaffney, 2011, p. 17). These discursive structures are attached to the event even before the host city is even selected, and bear such weight in the meaning-making process that hosts’ bids are imbued with the same narratives irrespective of their location. What researches emphasizing CPE can do, when combining it with the study of sport mega-events is to emphasize and uncover the ways that economic imaginaries demarcate economic from extra-economic activities, institutions, and orders (Jessop, 2004, p. 172). 7.4.1 Implications, Limitations, and the Role of Policy in Olympic Planning That Vancouver failed to deliver on legacy pledges pertaining to social housing and homelessness was not debated when I set out to design and write this dissertation. These shortcomings were generally acknowledged, but scarcely alluded to, in discussions and media retrospectives of the Games. However, what had not been traced in research and academic perspectives on the 2010 Games was the ways in which urban social issues – such as a rising homeless population and dwindling social or affordable housing supply – were incorporated into Vancouver’s urban policy CONCLUSION 194 under the guise of meeting such objectives in connection to hosting the 2010 Games. While Sum’s (2009) framework served as a practical guide for conducting critical policy studies in conjunction with CDA, I have expanded upon this framework to show how policies can be reinforced and transformed across multiple discourses, spaces, and over a thirteen year period. Thus by carefully tracing the origins, nature, and intent of Vancouver’s urban policies as they existed in various iterations from 2000 to 2013, it was my ambition to contribute to a broader understanding of how sport mega-events influence urban policies and social outcomes. The 2010 Games, although subtly at the time, dramatically influenced the policy-making process in Vancouver. However, it wasn’t until I began to assemble a form of a forensic, genealogic policy analysis that this became truly apparent. Tracing where policy ideas and their discursive networks originated, identifying which actors were responsible for their creation, and locating the mechanisms through which they were reproduced as part of hegemonic logics were all crucial steps in the policy analysis framework (Sum, 2009). The intersection of Vancouver’s systemic homelessness issue and social housing policy in connection with hosting the 2010 Winter Olympic Games was brought to the forefront during the Games’ preparation. Around the time of the bid, Vancouver’s plans to host the 2010 Games were oriented around admonitions of lofty idealism: fomenting a social housing legacy for years to follow in the Athletes’ Village, and hosting a sustainable and socially inclusive event. What was originally seen as an opportunistic vantage point from which to shape policy quickly became a forceful lever through which policy objectives and specific mechanisms for achieving policy goals were rationalized and justified. In total, eighty-three policies created by the City of Vancouver, the Metro Vancouver Regional District, the Resort Municipality of Whistler, the Government of British Columbia, and the Research Question 3: How did the 2010 Games impact the City of Vancouver’s social housing and homelessness policy-making process? CONCLUSION 195 Government of Canada directly mentioned the arrival of the 2010 Games (OGI-UBC Research Team, 2011). However, it is the city that offers a unique and incomparable vantage point for understanding how policies are developed, formed, and implemented in the context of preparing to stage a sport mega-event. This analysis of policies created in the lead up to the 2010 Games will contribute carefully collected insight into what motivates cities to pursue such events, what benefits cities seek to gain through hosting, and how urban ambition can be distinctively compromised under malign circumstance. This critical insight is significant for determining how sport mega-events shape the urban landscape, its formations, and its residents. By untangling the complexities of two policy areas through the deployment of embedded case studies – one, on the enforcement of policies affecting or alleviating homelessness in Vancouver’s DTES, and the other featuring the creation of a social housing legacy to be left in the Athletes’ Village in SEFC – I have attempted to demonstrate how, and in what ways, the 2010 Games were successful in extorting and extolling influence on the formation and development of urban policies. BIBLIOGRAPHY 196 Bibliography Agamben, G. (1993). The Coming Community. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Altheide, D. L. (2000). Tracking discourse and qualitative document analysis. Poetics, 27(4), 287–299. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(00)00005-X Altheide, D. L., Coyle, M., DeVriese, K., & Schneider, C. (2008). Emergent qualitative document analysis. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of Emergent Methods (pp. 127–151). New York: Guilford Press. Andranovich, G., Burbank, M. J., & Heying, C. H. (2001). Olympic Cities: Lessons Learned from Mega-Event Politics. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(2), 113–131. Asia Business Council. (2008). Beijing Olympic Village. Retrieved on October 3, 2013 from http://www.ilgbc.org/download/files/Beijing%20Olympic%20Village.pdf Auditor General of British Columbia. (2012). Audits of two P3 Projects in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor. British Columbia, Ministry of the Environment. Retrieved on February 16, 2015 from file:///Users/cpentifallo/Downloads/OAGBC_P3_Final%20%281%29.pdf Barthes, R. (1994). Myth Today. In J. Storey (Ed.), Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader (pp. 107–116). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. BBC News. (2015, February 20). New homes open at Athletes’ Village. Retrieved on March 12, 2015, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-31549540 BC Housing. (2013). Government-owned SROs purchased since 2007. Retrieved on October 28, 2013 from http://www.bchousing.org/Initiatives/Access/SRO/List BIBLIOGRAPHY 197 BC Housing, & Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. (2008, October 21). Olympic Legacy Affordable Housing in British Columbia. Retrieved on April 11, 2013 from http://www.bchousing.org/Initiatives/Creating/OLH/Process BC Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Secretariat. (2010). British Columbia’s Investments in the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games and Related Activities. Victoria, BC: Province of British Columbia. BC Public Interest Advocacy Centre, BC Civil Liberties Association, & Legal Services Society. (2005, October). Safe Streets Act. BCCLA. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London!; Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Beck, U. (2002). The Cosmopolitan Society and Its Enemies. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(1-2), 17 –44. http://doi.org/10.1177/026327640201900101 Beck, U. (2006). The cosmopolitan vision. Polity. Bélanger, A. (2000). Sport venues and the spectacularization of urban spaces in North America: The case of the Molson in Montreal. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 35(3), 378–397. Benjamin, W. (1999). The Arcades Project. (H. Eiland & K. McLaughlin, Trans., R. Tiedemann, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). New York: Pearson. Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Pearson. Best, S., & Kellner, D. (1997). The Postmodern Turn. Guilford Press. Black, D. R., & van der Westhuizen, J. (2004). The Allure of Global Games for “Semi-Peripheral” Polities and Spaces: A Research Agenda. Third World Quarterly, 25(7), 1195–1214. BIBLIOGRAPHY 198 Bloyce, D., & Smith, A. (2012). The “Olympic and Paralympic effect” on public policy: use and misuse. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 4(3), 301–305. http://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2012.746236 Blühdorn, I., & Welsh, I. (2007). Eco-politics beyond the paradigm of sustainability: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Environmental Politics, 16(2), 185–205. http://doi.org/10.1080/09644010701211650 Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10. Boyer, M. C. (1992). Cities for Sale: Merchandising History at South Street Seaport. In M. Sorkin (Ed.), Variations on a Theme Park (pp. 181–204). New York: The Noonday Press. Boykoff, J. (2013). Celebration capitalism and the Olympic games. Routledge. Boykoff, J. (2014, February). Celebration Capitalism. Lecture presented at Simon Fraser University's Vancity Office of Community Engagement, Vancouver, BC. Braathen, E. (2013, March). Rio de Janeiro: A City of Exception? Chance2Sustain. Retrieved on September 9, 2015 from http://www.chance2sustain.eu/fileadmin/Website/Dokumente /Dokumente/Publications/pub_2013/C2S_OP_No8_WP3_Rio_de_Janeiro_-_A_City_of_Exception.pdf Braithwaite, J. (2005). Neoliberalism or regulatory capitalism?. Occasional Paper 5, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Retrieved on March 19, 2015 from http://regnet.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/ROP5.pdf Braithwaite, J. (2008). Regulatory Capitalism: How It Works, Ideas for Making It Work Better. Edward Elgar Publishing. Branch, J. (2013a, March 25). Sochi Organizers Are Stockpiling Snow for 2014 Winter Games. The New York Times. Retrieved on December 6, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/sports/olympics/with-weather-concerns-organizers-are-storing-snow-for-winter-olympics-in-sochi-russia.html BIBLIOGRAPHY 199 Branch, J. (2013b, December 3). Hoping to Tame the Snow in Sochi. The New York Times. Retrieved on January 18, 2015 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/sports/olympics/ defending-against-avalanches-for-the-olympics-in-sochi.html Branch, J., & Austen, I. (2010, January 22). As Olympics Near, They’re Ordering Snow. The New York Times. Retrieved on December 6, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/sports/olympics/22snow.html Brenner, N. (2009). What is critical urban theory? City, 13(2-3), 198–207. http://doi.org/10.1080/13604810902996466 Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002a). Cities and the Geographies of “Actually Existing Neoliberalism.” Antipode, 34(3), 349–379. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00246 Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002b). Spaces of neoliberalism: Urban restructuring in North America and Europe. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. (n.d.). Information about HIV/AIDS. Retrieved on January 28, 2014 from http://cfenet.ubc.ca/healthcare-resources/about-hiv-aids British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. (2009, October 29). B.C. Government Plans to Remove Homeless to Shelters. Retrieved on October 11, 2013, from http://bccla.org/news/2009/10/b-c-government-plans-to-remove-homeless-to-shelters/ Broudehoux, A.-M. (2007). Spectacular Beijing: The Conspicuous Construction of an Olympic Metropolis. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(4), 383–399. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2007.00352.x Broudehoux, A.-M. (2010). Images of Power: Architectures of the Integrated Spectacle at the Beijing Olympics. Journal of Architectural Education, 63(2), 52–62. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1531-314X.2010.01058.x BIBLIOGRAPHY 200 Broudehoux, A.-M., & Freeman, J. (2012). Accumulation by multiple dispossessions: The case of Porto Maravilha, Rio de Janeiro. Presented at the ISA Forum of Sociology: Social Justice and Democratization, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Burbank, M., Andranovich, G., & Heying, C. H. (2001). Olympic dreams: the impact of mega-events on local politics. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Burbank, M. J., Andranovich, G., & Heying, C. H. (2002). Mega-events, urban development, and public policy. The Review of Policy Research, 19(3), 179–202. Burbank, M. J., Heying, C. H., & Andranovich, G. (2000). Antigrowth politics or piecemeal resistance? Citizen opposition to Olympic-related economic growth. Urban Affairs Review, 35(3/4), 334–357. Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2010). Housing in Canada Online: Definitions of Variables. Retrieved on October 29, 2013 from http://cmhc.beyond2020.com/HiCODefinitions_EN.html#_Core_Housing_Need_Status Carnegie Community Action Project. (2010). Downtown Eastside Fact Sheet. Vancouver, BC: CCAP. Cashman, R. (2002). What is “Olympic Legacy”? In The Legacy of the Olympic Games 1984-2000 (pp. 31–42). Lausanne, Switzerland: International Olympic Committee. CBC News. (2009a, September 21). B.C. may force homeless indoors in cold snaps. Retrieved on May 27, 2013, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/09/21/bc-homeless-assistance-shelter-law.html CBC News. (2009b, December 7). Vancouver police won’t force homeless into shelters. Retrieved on October 11, 2013, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-police-won-t-force-homeless-into-shelters-1.825899/ BIBLIOGRAPHY 201 CBC News. (2010, January 25). Housing activists plan Olympic “red tent” campaign. Retrieved on November 21, 2013, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/housing-activists-plan-olympic-red-tent-campaign-1.960704/ Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions. (2007). Fair Play for Housing Rights: Mega-events, Olympic Games and Housing Rights. COHRE. Chalkley, B., & Essex, S. (1999). Urban development through hosting international events: A history of the Olympic Games. Planning Perspectives, 14(4), 369–394. Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics: The Basics (2nd ed.). Routledge. Cheakamus Crossing. (2012). Cheakamus Crossing: Whistler’s Newest Resident Community. Retrieved on January 1, 2015 from http://www.cheakamuscrossing.ca/development Chomsky, N. (1999). Profit over people: neoliberalism and global order. Seven Stories Press. Chu, J. (2013, January 10). Letter from the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner with regard to service and policy complain #2013-93SP (Standing orders or policies related to by-law enforcement in the Downtown Eastside). Vancouver Police Department. Retrieved on January 27, 2014 from http://vancouver.ca/police/policeboard/agenda/2014/0116/1401C02.pdf City of Vancouver. (1999). Southeast False Creek Policy Statement: Toward a Sustainable Urban Neighborhood and a Major Park in Southeast False Creek. City of Vancouver, Planning Department. City of Vancouver. (2002). Games Facility Agreement- Vancouver Athlete’s Village. City of Vancouver. (2004, 2008). Southeast False Creek Green building Strategy. City of Vancouver. (2005). Homeless Action Plan. City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver. (2007a). A By-Law to Amend Single Room Accommodation By-Law No. 8733 regarding miscellaneous amendments. BIBLIOGRAPHY 202 City of Vancouver. (2007b). Project Civil City. Retrieved on July 29, 2013 from http://www.samsullivan.ca/pdf/project-civil-city.pdf City of Vancouver. (2007c). Southeast False Creek Official Development Plan. City of Vancouver. (2012a). Downtown Eastside (DTES) Local Area Profile 2012. City of Vancouver. Retrieved on January 27, 204 from http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/profile-dtes-local-area-2012.pdf City of Vancouver. (2012b). Greenest City 2020 Action Plan. City of Vancouver. Retrieved on October 7, 2013 from http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Greenest-city-action-plan.pdf City of Vancouver. (2012c, June). Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability: Bold Ideas Towards an Affordable City. City of Vancouver. Retrieved on October 29, 2013 from ftp://ftp.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/chic-ccdh/External_Reports/Ca4%20BC%20VANA60%2012B53.pdf City of Vancouver. (2014, January 31). Southeast False Creek. Retrieved on February 6, 2015, from http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/southeast-false-creek.aspx Coaffee, J. (2007). Urban regeneration and renewal. In J. R. Gold & M. M. Gold (Eds.), Olympic cities: city agendas, planning, and the world’s games, 1896-2012. New York: Routledge. Coaffee, J., & Fussey, P. (2011). Resilient planning for sport mega-events: designing and managing safe and secure urban places for London 2012 and beyond. Urbe, Brazilian Journal of Urban Management, 3(2), 165–177. Cochrane, A. (2007). Understanding Urban Policy. Oxford: Blackwell. Cochrane, A., Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (1996). Manchester plays Games: Exploring the local politics of globalisation. Urban Studies, 33(8), 1319–1336. Cohen, M. (1989). Walter Benjamin’s phantasmagoria. New German Critique, 48, 87–108. BIBLIOGRAPHY 203 Coleman, R. (2009, November 17). Assistance to Shelter Act. 2009 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 39th Parliament. Retrieved on October 11, 2013 from http://www.leg.bc.ca/39th1st/3rd_read/gov18-3.htm Condon, S. (2009, February 23). Empty promises: The Olympics have failed to keep its housing commitment. Megaphone. Retrieved on August 8, 2013 from http://www.megaphonemagazine.com/legacy/content/empty_promises_olympics_have_failed_keep_its_housing_commitment.html Constantineau, B. (2015, January 5). Detached-house prices hit record high in Lower Mainland. Retrieved on February 9, 2015, from http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Detached+house+prices+record+high+Lower+Mainland/10703768/story.html Cox, K. R. (1993). The local and the global in the new urban politics: a critical view. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 11(4), 433 – 448. http://doi.org/10.1068/d110433 Crawford, M. (1992). The World in a Shopping Mall. In M. Sorkin (Ed.), Variations on a Theme Park (pp. 3–30). New York: The Noonday Press. Crompton, N. (2010, January 20). The new gentrification package for Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. Retrieved on March 6, 2013 from http://rabble.ca/news/2010/01/new-gentrification-package-vancouvers-downtown-eastside Debord, G. (1995). Society of the Spectacle. (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Rebel Press. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Introduction: The discipline and practice of Qualitative Research. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 1–32). SAGE. Drury, I., & Swanson, J. (2011). Upscale: The Downside of Gentrification. Vancouver, BC: Carnegie Community Action Project. Dunn, W. N. (1981). Public Policy Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. BIBLIOGRAPHY 204 Eberle Planning and Research. (2013). Vancouver Homeless Count 2013: Final Report. Retrieved on October 10, 2013 from http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/report-2013-homeless-count-2013-oct8.pdf Eby, D. (2007). Still waiting at the altar: Vancouver 2010’s on-again, off-again, relationship with social sustainability. In COHRE Expert Workshop on Protecting and Promoting Housing Rights in the Context of Mega Events (Vol. Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 1–17). Retrieved on December 19, 2011 from http://www.cohre.org/view_page.php?page_id=269 Eby, D. (2008, February 7). The Olympics, Housing and Homelessness in Vancouver. Retrieved on October 11, 2013, from http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/olympics-housing-and-homelessness-vancouver Eby, D., & Misura, C. (2006). Cracks in the Foundation: Solving the Housing Crisis in Canada’s Poorest Neighbourhood. Pivot Legal Society. Echenberg, H., & Jensen, H. (2012). Defining and Enumerating Homelessness in Canada (Social Affairs Division No. No. PRB 08-30E). Retrieved on December 8, 2014 from http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0830-e.pdf Economist Intelligence Unit. (2012). Hot Spots: Benchmarking Global City Competitiveness. London: The Economist. Retrieved on January 12, 2015 from http://www.economistinsights.com/sites/default/files/downloads/Hot%20Spots.pdf Edelson, N. (2011). Inclusivity as an Olympic Event at the 2010 Vancouver Winter games. Urban Geography, 32(6), 804–822. http://doi.org/10.2747/0272-36126.96.36.1994 Eden, S. (2000). Environmental issues: sustainable progress? Progress in Human Geography, 24(1), 111 –118. http://doi.org/10.1191/030913200671287506 Eick, V. (2010). A neoliberal sports event? FIFA from the Estadio Nacional to the fan mile. City, 14(3), 278–297. http://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2010.482275 BIBLIOGRAPHY 205 Eick, V. (2011). Lack of Legacy? Shadows of Surveillance after the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany. Urban Studies, 48(15), 3329 –3345. http://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011422389 Einhorn, B. (2013, November 6). No, Smoggy Beijing Isn’t Going to Get the Winter Olympics—at Least, Not Yet. BusinessWeek: Global_economics. Retrieved on December 6, 2013 from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-06/no-smoggy-beijing-isnt-going-to-get-the-winter-olympics-at-least-not-yet Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development. California Management Review, 36(June 1992), 90–101. Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. New Society Publishers. Essex, S., & Chalkley, B. (1998). Olympic Games: Catalyst of urban change. Leisure Studies, 17, 187–206. Essex, S., & Chalkley, B. (2004). Mega-sporting events in urban and regional policy: A history of the Winter Olympics. Planning Perspectives, 19(2), 201–232. European Investment Bank. (2014, April 28). Affordable housing in London’s former Olympic Village. Retrieved on March 12, 2015 from http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/news/stories/2014-april-01/affordable-housing-in-londons-former-olympic-village.htm EUROPP Blog. (2013, September 16). Five Minutes with Chantal Mouffe: “Most countries in Europe are in a post-political situation.” Retrieved on November 21, 2013, from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/09/16/five-minutes-with-chantal-mouffe-most-countries-in-europe-are-in-a-post-political-situation/ Fairclough, N. (1992a). Discourse and Social Change. Wiley. BIBLIOGRAPHY 206 Fairclough, N. (1992b). Discourse and Text: Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis within Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 193–217. http://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003002004 Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies, 7(2), 177–197. http://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2013.798239 Fairclough, N., Jessop, B., & Sayer, A. (2002). Critical Realism and Semiosis. Journal of Critical Realism, 5(1), 2–10. Ference Weicker & Company. (2002). Impact of 2010 Olympic Winter Games and Paralympic Games on Vancouver’s Inner City Neighborhoods: Interim Report. Vancouver Agreement. Fernandes, E. (2007). Constructing the 'Right To the City' in Brazil. Social & Legal Studies, 16(2), 201–219. http://doi.org/10.1177/0964663907076529 Fischer, F. (2007). Policy analysis in critical perspective: The epistemics of discursive practices. Critical Policy Studies, 1(1), 97–109. http://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2007.9518510 Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: SAGE. Flick, U. (2007). Designing qualitative research. London: SAGE. Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge University Press. Flyvbjerg, B., & Stewart, A. (2012). Olympic Proportions: Cost and Cost Overrun at the Olympics 1960-2012 (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2238053). Oxford: Said Business School, University of Oxford. Retrieved on March 25, 2013 from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2238053 Foucault, M. (1972). Archaeology of knowledge. London: Routledge. BIBLIOGRAPHY 207 Frankish, J., Kwan, B., & VanWynsberghe, R. (2010, April). The Impact of Health Policy Interventions in Inner Cities: A Case Study of Inner City Inclusivity Commitments and Vancouver’s 2010 Olympics. Centre for Population Health Promotion, University of British Columbia. Retrieved on October 29, 2013 from http://blogs.ubc.ca/frankish/files/2012/10/ICS-FINAL-report.pdf Freeman, J. (2012). Neoliberal Accumulation Strategies and the Visible Hand of Police Pacification in Rio De Janeiro. Revista de Estudos Universitários, 38(1), p. 95–126. Fresco, E. (2012). Consuming Canada’s Colonial Past: Reconciliation and Corporate Sponsorship in the Vancouver 2010 Olympics. Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies, XXI, 58–74. Fussey, P., & Clavell, G. (2011). Introduction: towards new frontiers in the study of mega-events and the city. Urbe, Brazilian Journal of Urban Management, 3(2), 149–163. Fussey, P., Coaffee, J., Armstrong, G., & Hobbs, D. (2012). The regeneration games: purity and security in the Olympic city. The British Journal of Sociology, 63(2), 260–284. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2012.01409.x Gaffney, C. (2011). The Mega-event City as a Neo-liberal Laboratory. Presented at the Think Tank on Sport Mega-event Impacts, Leveraging, and Legacies, Vancouver, BC: Unpublished proceedings. Gaffney, C. (2013). Between Discourse and Reality: The Un-Sustainability of Mega-Event Planning. Sustainability, 5, 3926–3940. Gale, T. (1994). Beyond caricature: exploring theories of educational policy production and implementation. Australian Educational Researcher, 21(2), 1–12. Gale, T. (1999). Policy Trajectories: treading the discursive path of policy analysis. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 20(3), 393–407. http://doi.org/10.1080/0159630990200304 BIBLIOGRAPHY 208 Gale, T. (2001). Critical policy sociology: historiography, archaeology and genealogy as methods of policy analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 16(5), 379–393. http://doi.org/10.1080/02680930110071002 Getz, D. (2009). Policy for sustainable and responsible festivals and events: institutionalization of a new paradigm. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1(1), 61. Gibbs, D. (2000). Ecological modernisation, regional economic development and regional development agencies. Geoforum, 31(1), 9–19. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00040-8 Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2006). A Postcapitalist Politics (1st ed.). Univ Of Minnesota Press. Giddens, A. (1991). The consequences of modernity. Stanford University Press. Giddens, A. (2011). Runaway World. Profile Books. Giulianotti, R., & Klauser, F. (2010). Security Governance and Sport Mega-events: Toward an Interdisciplinary Research Agenda. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 34(1), 49–61. http://doi.org/10.1177/0193723509354042 Glasgow City Council. (2009). Glasgow 2014 Legacy Framework. Glasgow City Council. Glasgow Games Monitor. (2011, March 27). East End Eye. Retrieved on March 7, 2013 from http://gamesmonitor2014.wordpress.com Glassman, J. (2006). Primitive accumulation, accumulation by dispossession, accumulation by “extra-economic” means. Progress in Human Geography, 30(5), 608–625. http://doi.org/10.1177/0309132506070172 Gold, J., & Gold, M. (2008). Olympic Cities: Regeneration, City Rebranding and Changing Urban Agendas. Geography Compass, 2(1), 300–318. Gold, J., & Gold, M. (2009). Riding the Mexican Wave? Deciphering the meaning of Olympic Legacy. In The Olympic Legacy: People, place, enterprise (pp. 9–20). BIBLIOGRAPHY 209 Gold, M. (2010). Olympic cities: city agendas, planning and the world’s games, 1896-2016. Taylor & Francis. Goss, J. (1996). Disquiet on the waterfront: Reflections on nostalgia and utopia in the urban archetypes of festival marketplaces. Urban Geography, 17(3), 221–247. http://doi.org/10.2747/0272-36188.8.131.52 Goss, J. (2006). Geographies of consumption: the work of consumption. Progress in Human Geography, 30(2), 237–249. http://doi.org/10.1191/0309132506ph604pr Gotham, K. F. (2005). Theorizing urban spectacles. City, 9(2), 225–246. http://doi.org/10.1080/13604810500197020 Gotham, K. F. (2007). Critical theory and Katrina: Disaster, spectacle and immanent critique. City, 11(1), 81–99. Gotham, K. F., & Krier, D. A. (2008). From the culture industry to the society of the spectacle: Critical theory and the situationist international. Current Perspectives in Social Theory, 25, 155–192. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-1204(08)00005-4 Govan, F. (2011, June 23). Greece’s Olympic dream has turned into a nightmare for Village residents. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved on October 25, 2013 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8595360/Greeces-Olympic-dream-has-turned-into-a-nightmare-for-Village-residents.html Government of Canada, Government of British Columbia, City of Vancouver, & The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. (2007). Joint Partner Response to the Inner-City Inclusive Commitments (ICI). Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections for the Prison Notebooks. (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Eds.). New York: International Publishers Co. BIBLIOGRAPHY 210 Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness. (2014). Results of the 2014 Homeless Count in the Metro Vancouver Region. Vancouver, BC. Greater Vancouver Shelter Strategy. (2009). Vancouver 2009-2010 Extreme Weather Response Plan. Greene, S. J. (2003). Staged cities: mega-events, slum clearance, and global capital. Yale Hum.Rts.& Dev.LJ, 6, 161. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (Vol. 8, pp. 191–215). SAGE Publications. Guttsman, J. (2010, February 11). Critics question Vancouver’s green credentials. Reuters. Vancouver. Retrieved on December 6, 2013 from http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/11/us-olympics-green-idUSTRE6195GQ20100211 Hall, C. M. (2006). Urban entrepreneurship, corporate interests and sports mega-events: The thin policies of competitiveness within the hard outcomes of neoliberalism. In J. Horne & W. Manzenreiter (Eds.), Sports Mega-Events: Social Scientific Analyses of a Global Phenomenon (pp. 59-70). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Hannigan, J. (1998). Fantasy City: Pleasure and Profit in the Postmodern Metropolis. Taylor & Francis. Harvey, D. (1987). Flexible Accumulation through Urbanization: Reflections on “Post-Modernism” in the American City. Antipode, 19(3), 260–286. Harvey, D. (2003). The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D. (2004). The “New” Imperialism: Accumulation by Dispossession. Socialist Register, 40, 63–87. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press. BIBLIOGRAPHY 211 Harvey, D. (2008). The Right to the City. New Left Review, 53, 23–40. Harvey, D. (2011). The Enigma of Capital: And the Crises of Capitalism. Profile Books. Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. Verso Books. Hayes, G., & Horne, J. (2011). Sustainable Development, Shock and Awe? London 2012 and Civil Society. Sociology, 45(5), 749 –764. http://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511413424 Heartly, J. (2004). Case study research. In Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research (pp. 323–333). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Hetherington, K. (2005). Memories of capitalism: cities, phantasmagoria and arcades. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(1), 187–200. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00579_1.x Hiller, H. H. (2000). Toward an urban sociology of mega-events. Research in Urban Sociology, 5, 181–205. Horne, J. (2013, June). Transforming sovereignties: regulatory capitalism, the London Olympics and beyond. Presentation at the World Congress of Sociology of Sport, Vancouver, BC. Horne, J., & Manzenreiter, W. (2006). An introduction to the sociology of sports mega-events. In J. Horne & W. Manzenreiter (Eds.), Sports Mega-Events: Social Scientific Analyses of a Global Phenomenon (pp. 1-24). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Horne, J., & Whannel, G. (2012). Understanding the Olympics. London: Routledge. Housing Justice Project. (2012, October 9). Vancouver, Canada: A study in Housing Injustice. Submission to Official of the High Commissioner for human Rights. Retrieved on October 28, 2013 from http://housingjustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Housing-Justice-Submission-UPR-CANADA.pdf Housing Table. (2007a). Housing Legacy of the 2010 Winter Games Report of the Inner City Inclusive Committee Housing Table. BIBLIOGRAPHY 212 Housing Table. (2007b). Report of the Inner-City Inclusive Housing Table. Howarth, D. (2009). Power, discourse, and policy: articulating a hegemony approach to critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies, 3(3-4), 309–335. http://doi.org/10.1080/19460171003619725 Howarth, D., & Griggs, S. (2012). Postructuralist policy analysis: discourse, hegemony and critical explanation. In F. Fischer & H. Gottweis (Eds.), The argumentative turn revisited: public policy as communicative practice (pp. 305–342). Durham [N.C.]: Duke University Press. Howell, M. (2014a, January 14). VPD eases off DTES jaywalkers. Retrieved on January 23, 2014, from http://www.vancourier.com/news/vpd-eases-off-dtes-jaywalkers-1.788947 Howell, M. (2014b, April 28). Updated: City of Vancouver sells final stake in Olympic Village. Retrieved on March 11, 2015, from http://www.vancourier.com/news/updated-city-of-vancouver-sells-final-stake-in-olympic-village-1.1005787 Impact on Communities Coalition. (2009). Olympic Oversight Interim Report Card: 2010 Winter Games. Vancouver, BC: Impact on Communities Coalition. Retrieved on March 27, 2013 from www.olympicsforall.ca International Olympic Committee. (2001a). Candidature Acceptance Procedure: XXI Olympic Winter Games 2010. International Olympic Committee. International Olympic Committee. (2001b). Manual for Candidate Cities for the XXI Olympic Winter Games 2010: Part 2 - Candidature File - Questionnaire. International Olympic Committee. Retrieved on October 2, 2013 from http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_524.pdf International Olympic Committee. (2003). Report of the IOC Evaluation Commission. International Olympic Committee. International Olympic Committee. (2004, September 1). Olympic Charter. International Olympic Committee. BIBLIOGRAPHY 213 International Olympic Committee. (2007). Technical Manual on Olympic Village. International Olympic Committee. (2012a). Factsheet: London 2012 Facts & Figures. International Olympic Committee. Retrieved on March 11, 2015 from http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reference_documents_Factsheets/London_2012_Facts_and_Figures-eng.pdf International Olympic Committee. (2012b). Olympic Legacy. International Olympic Committee. International Olympic Committee, City of Vancouver, & Canadian Olympic Committee. (2003, July 2). Host City Contract for the XXI Olympic Winter Games in the Year 2010. International Olympic Committee. Irwin, J. (2004). Home Insecurity: The State of Social Housing Funding in BC. Vancouver, BC: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives - BC Office. Retrieved on January 17, 2015 from http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC_Office_Pubs/home_insecurity.pdf James Pratt Consulting. (2010). Metro Vancouver Extreme Weather Response Report and Evaluation 2009-2010. Greater Vancouver Shelter Strategy. Jessop, B. (1997). Capitalism and its future: remarks on regulation, government and governance. Review of International Political Economy, 4(3), 561–581. http://doi.org/10.1080/096922997347751 Jessop, B. (2002). Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: A state-theoretical perspective. In Spaces of neoliberalism: Urban restructuring in North America and Western Europe (pp. 105–125). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Jessop, B. (2004). Critical semiotic analysis and cultural political economy. Critical Discourse Studies, 1(2), 159–174. http://doi.org/10.1080/17405900410001674506 Jessop, B. (2009). Cultural political economy and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies, 3(3-4), 336–356. http://doi.org/10.1080/19460171003619741 BIBLIOGRAPHY 214 Jessop, B., & Oosterlynck, S. (2008). Cultural political economy: On making the cultural turn without falling into soft economic sociology. Geoforum, 39(3), 1155–1169. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.12.008 Johal, A. (2002, July 5). Impact of the Olympics on Community. Johnson, B., & Greenwell, P. (2006). Downtown Eastside Housing Plan - Report Back on SRO Stock (Administrative Report No. RTS. 05512). Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver. Jordana, J., & Levi-Faur, D. (Eds.). (2004). The politics of regulation: institutions and regulatory reforms for the age of governance. Cheltenham, UK!; Northampton, MA, USA: E. Elgar. Kennelly, J., & Watt, P. (2011). Sanitizing Public Space in Olympic Host Cities: The Spatial Experiences of Marginalized Youth in 2010 Vancouver and 2012 London. Sociology, 45(5), 765–781. http://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511413425 Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Describing the Bricolage: Conceptualizing a New Rigor in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 679–692. http://doi.org/10.1177/107780040100700601 King, D. (2013a, March 6). By-Law Ticketing in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. King, D. (2013b, March 6). VANDU and Pivot Allege Discrimination by VPD in By-Law Ticketing. Retrieved on October 15, 2013, from http://www.pivotlegal.org/vandu_and_pivot_allege_discrimination_by_vpd_in_by_law_ticketing Klauser, F. (2012). Spatialities of security and surveillance: Managing spaces, separations and circulations at sport mega events. Geoforum. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.11.011 Klein, N. (2008). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Random House Digital, Inc. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. SAGE. BIBLIOGRAPHY 215 Laclau, E. (1993). Why do empty signifers matter to politics? In J. Weeks (Ed.), Lesser evil and the greater good!: the theory and politics of social diversity. London: Rivers Oram Press. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: towards a radical democratic politics. London; New York: Verso. Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge. Leeds, M. A. (2008). Do Good Olympics Make Good Neighbors? Contemporary Economic Policy, 26(3), 460–467. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00067.x Lees, L. (2011). The Geography of Gentrification: Thinking Through Comparative Urbanism. Progress in Human Geography. http://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511412998 Lefebvre, H. (1967). The Right to the City. In E. Kofman & E. Lebas (Eds.), Writings on Cities (eds. 1996). London: Blackwell. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Blackwell Publishing. Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia. (1996). Trespass Act. Victoria, BC: Government of British Columbia. Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia. (2004). Safe Streets Act. Victoria, BC: Government of British Columbia. Leitch, S., & Palmer, I. (2010). Analysing Texts in Context: Current Practices and New Protocols for Critical Discourse Analysis in Organization Studies. SSRN eLibrary. Retrieved on February 8, 2012 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1647254 Lévi-Strauss, C. (1968). The Savage Mind. University Of Chicago Press. Ley, D., & Olds, K. (1988). Landscape as spectacle: world’s fairs and the culture of heroic consumption. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 6(2), 191 – 212. http://doi.org/10.1068/d060191 BIBLIOGRAPHY 216 Liao, H., & Pitts, A. (2006). A brief historical review of Olympic urbanization. International Journal of the History of Sport, 23(7), 1232. Linden, I. A., Mar, M. Y., Werker, G. R., Jang, K., & Krausz, M. (2012). Research on a Vulnerable Neighborhood—The Vancouver Downtown Eastside from 2001 to 2011. Journal of Urban Health, 90(3), 559–573. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-012-9771-x Lingard, B. (2006). The Changing State of Policy Production in Education: Some Australian reflections on the state of policy sociology. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 3(1), 25–47. Logan, J. R., & Molotch, H. L. (1987). Urban fortunes!: The political economy of place. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. London 2012 Bid Committee. (2005). London 2012 Candidate City. London 2012 Bid Committee. Luke, A. (2002). Beyond Science and Ideology Critique: Developments in Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 96–110. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000053 Luke, T. W. (2005). Neither sustainable nor development: reconsidering sustainability in development. Sustainable Development, 13(4), 228–238. http://doi.org/10.1002/sd.284 MacAloon, J. J. (1984). Olympic Games and the Theory of Spectacle in Modern Societies. In J. J. MacAloon (Ed.), Rite, Drama, Festival, Spectacle: Rehearsals Toward a Theory of Cultural Performance (pp. 241–275). Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. MacAloon, J. J. (2008). “Legacy” as Managerial/Magical Discourse in Contemporary Olympic Affairs. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 25(14), 2060–2071. http://doi.org/10.1080/09523360802439221 BIBLIOGRAPHY 217 MacLeod, G. (2002). From Urban Entrepreneurialism to a “Revanchist City”? On the Spatial Injustices of Glasgow’s Renaissance. Antipode, 34(3), 602–624. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00256 MacLeod, G., & Goodwin, M. (1999). Reconstructing an urban and regional political economy: on the state, politics, scale, and explanation. Political Geography, 18(6), 697–730. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(99)00014-1 MacLeod, G., & Ward, K. (2002). Spaces of Utopia and Dystopia: Landscaping the Contemporary City. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 84(3‐4), 153–170. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0435-3684.2002.00121.x Macrury, I., & Poynter, G. (2008). The Regeneration Games: Commodities, Gifts and the Economics of London 2012∗. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 25(14), 2072–2090. http://doi.org/10.1080/09523360802439254 Marcuse, P. (1998). Sustainability is not enough. Environment and Urbanization, 10(2), 103 –112. http://doi.org/10.1177/095624789801000201 Marcuse, P. (2009). From critical urban theory to the right to the city. City, 13(2-3), 185–197. http://doi.org/10.1080/13604810902982177 Marx, K. (1990). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (Vol. Volume 1). London: Penguin Classics. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1978). The Marx-Engels Reader. (R. C. Tucker, Ed.) (2nd Revised & enlarged). W. W. Norton & Company. Mauboules, C. (2007). Housing Legacy of the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games: report of the Housing Table for the Inner-City Inclusivity Initiative (Administrative Report). Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver. Retrieved on October 29, 2013 from http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk//20070628/documents/pe7.pdf BIBLIOGRAPHY 218 McCallum, K., Spencer, A., & Wyly, E. (2005). The City as an Image-creation Machine: A Critical Analysis of Vancouver’s Olympic Bid. Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, 67, 24–46. McDonough, T. (2004). No Ghost*. October, -, 107–130. http://doi.org/10.1162/0162287042379829 Metro Vancouver. (2007). Metro Vancouver Affordable Housing Strategy. Miles, S. (2012). The neoliberal city and the pro-active complicity of the citizen consumer. Journal of Consumer Culture, 12(2), 216–230. http://doi.org/10.1177/1469540512446881 Milliken, M. (2010, February 9). “Operation snow lift” won’t break Games bank. Reuters. Millington, R., & Darnell, S. C. (2012). Constructing and Contesting the Olympics Online: The Internet, Rio 2016 and the politics of Brazilian development. International Review for the Sociology of Sport. http://doi.org/10.1177/1012690212455374 Milton-Smith, J. (2002). Ethics, the Olympics and the search for Global values. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 131–142. Ministry of Attorney General. (2005, February 28). Questions and Answers about the Safe Streets Act. Retrieved on January 22, 2014 from http://www.ag.gov.bc/safe-streets/ Mitchell, D. (2001). Postmodern geographical praxis? Postmodern impulse and the war against homeless people in the “postjustice” city. In C. Minca (Ed.), Postmodern Geography: Theory and Praxis (pp. 57–92). Oxford: Blackwell. Mitchell, D. (2002). The New Empire of Capital: The Pedagogy of the Streets. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 24, 147–151. Mix, L. (2002, May 13). Tenants’ Rights Action Coalition. to Lizette Parsons, Vancouver 2010 Bid Corporation. Mol, A. P. J. (2010). Sustainability as global attractor: the greening of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Global Networks, 10(4), 510–528. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2010.00289.x BIBLIOGRAPHY 219 Molotch, H. (1976). The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place. The American Journal of Sociology, 82(2), 309–332. Moneva, J. M., Archel, P., & Correa, C. (2006). GRI and the camouflaging of corporate unsustainability. Accounting Forum, 30(2), 121–137. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2006.02.001 Morse, J. M., & Mitcham, C. (2002). Exploring Qualitatively-derived Concepts: Inductive—Deductive Pitfalls. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(4), 28–35. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the Political. New York: Routledge. Müller, M. (2015). What Makes an Event a Mega-Event? Definitions and Sizes of Major, Mega- and Giga-Events. Leisure Studies. Retrieved on January 29, 2015 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2462539 Muñoz, F. (2006). Olympic urbanism and Olympic villages: Planning strategies in Olympic host cities, London 1908 to London 2012. In J. Horne & W. Manzenreiter (Eds.), Sports Mega-Events: Social Scientific Analyses of a Global Phenomenon (pp. 175-186). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. O’Bonsawin, C. M. (2010). “No Olympics on stolen native land”: contesting Olympic narratives and asserting indigenous rights within the discourse of the 2010 Vancouver Games. Sport in Society, 13(1), 143–156. http://doi.org/10.1080/17430430903377987 OGI-UBC Research Team. (2011). Olympic Games Impact (OGI) Study for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games: Games-time Report. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. Olds, K. (1988). Planning for the Housing Impacts of a Hallmark event: A case study of Expo 86. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Retrieved on May 12, 2013 from https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/28192/UBC_1988_A8%20O42.pdf?sequence=1 BIBLIOGRAPHY 220 Olds, K. (1989). Mass Evictions in Vancouver: The Human Toll of Expo ’86. Canadian Housing, 6(1), 49–53. Olds, K. (1996, November). Hallmark events, evictions and housing rights: The Canadian Case. Centre for Human Settlements, School of Community and Regional Planning, The University of British Columbia. Retrieved on April 25, 2013 from http://edocs.lib.sfu.ca/projects/chodarr/documents/chodarr0084.pdf Olds, K. (1998). Urban mega-events, evictions and housing rights: The Canadian case. Current Issues in Tourism, 1(1), 2–46. Orsini, M., & Smith, M. (2007). Critical Policy Studies. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press. Osborn, P. (2013, November 5). Beijing and Zhangjiakou launch joint bid to host 2022 Winter Olympic Games. Retrieved on December 7, 2013, from http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/winter-olympics/2022/1016809-beijing-and-zhangjiakou-launch-joint-bid-to-host-2022-winter-olympic-games Owen, K. A. (2002). The Sydney 2000 Olympics and urban entrepreneurialism: Local variations in urban governance. Australian Geographical Studies, 40(3), 323–336. Paton, K., Mooney, G., & McKee, K. (2012). Class, Citizenship and Regeneration: Glasgow and the Commonwealth Games 2014. Antipode, 44(4), 1470–1489. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00966.x Paul, K. T. (2009). Discourse analysis: An exploration of methodological issues and a call for methodological courage in the field of policy analysis. Critical Policy Studies, 3(2), 240–253. Paulsen, M. (2007a, June 4). Province’s Boasts of “New” Homeless Units Don’t Add Up. Retrieved on October 11, 2013, from http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/06/04/Homeless4/ BIBLIOGRAPHY 221 Paulsen, M. (2007b, June 28). Olympic Partners Said to “Fudge” Housing Claims. Retrieved on October 11, 2013, from http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/06/28/OlympicHousingClaims/ Paulsen, M. (2007c, June 29). Vancouver Drops Olympics Housing Pledge. Retrieved on October 30, 2013, from http://thetyee.ca/Bigstory/2007/06/29/NoHousing/ Paulsen, M. (2008, April 15). VANOC Antes up for Shelter. Retrieved on April 18, 2013, from http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/04/15/VANOC/print.html Pavoni, A. (2011). Tuning the city: Johannesburg and the 2010 World Cup. Urbe, Brazilian Journal of Urban Management, 3(2), 191–209. Peck, J., Theodore, N., & Brenner, N. (2009). Neoliberal Urbanism: Models, Moments, Mutations. SAIS Review, 29(1), 49–66. Peck, J., Theodore, N., & Brenner, N. (2010). Postneoliberalism and its Malcontents. Antipode, 41, 94–116. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00718.x Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing Space. Antipode, 34(3), 380–404. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00247 Peirce, C. S. (1991). Peirce on signs: writings on semiotic. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Pemberton, K. (2009, November 26). Advocates slam homeless shelter act as Olympic ploy. Vancouver Sun. Pentifallo, C., & VanWynsberghe, R. (2012). Blame it on Rio: isomorphism, environmental protection and sustainability in the Olympic Movement. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 4(3), 427–446. http://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2012.694115 Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social Construction. SAGE. Plant, G. (2007, October 30). Project Civil City: Progress Report and Agenda for Action. City of Vancouver, Appendix A: City of Vancouver Administrative Report. BIBLIOGRAPHY 222 Plant, S. (1992). The Most Radical Gesture: The Situationist International and After. Taylor & Francis. Porter, L., Jaconelli, M., Cheyne, J., Eby, D., & Wagenaar, H. (2009). “Planning displacement: the real legacy of major sporting events”; “‘Just a person in a wee flat’: Being displaced by the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow”s East End’; “Olympian master planning in London”; “Closing ceremonies: how law, policy and the Winter Olympics are displacing an inconveniently located low-income community in Vancouver”; ’Commentary: recovering public ethos: critical analysis for policy and planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 10(3), 395–418. Poverty Olympics. (2009). Land of Plenty. Retrieved on November 11, 2013 from http://povertyolympics.ca/?page_id=3 Preuss, H., & Alfs, C. (2011). Signaling through the 2008 Beijing Olympics—Using Mega Sport Events to Change the Perception and Image of the Host. European Sport Management Quarterly, 11(1). Raco, M. (2014). Delivering Flagship Projects in an Era of Regulatory Capitalism: State-led Privatization and the London Olympics 2012. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(1), 176–197. http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12025 Raco, M., & Tunney, E. (2010). Visibilities and Invisibilities in Urban Development: Small Business Communities and the London Olympics 2012. Urban Studies, 47(10). Retrieved from http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/0042098009357351v1 Raynor, P., & Johnson, B. (2007). 2007 Survery of Low-income Housing in the Downtown Core (Administrative Report No. RTS. 06589). Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver. Rio 2016 Bid Committee. (2009). Candidature file for Rio de Janeiro to host the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Bid Commission for Rio 2016. Ritzer, G. (2008). The McDonaldization of Society. Los Angeles, Calif.: Pine Forge Press. BIBLIOGRAPHY 223 Robinson, J. (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 48(4), 369–384. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.017 Roche, M. (1994). Mega-events and urban policy. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(1), 1–19. http://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(94)90002-7 Roche, M. (2003). Mega-Events, Time and Modernity On Time Structures in Global Society. Time & Society, 12(1), 99–126. http://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X03012001370 Roche, M. (2006). Mega-events and modernity revisited: Globalization and the case of the Olympics. In J. Horne & W. Manzenreiter (Eds.), Sports Mega-Events: Social Scientific Analyses of a Global Phenomenon (pp. 27-40). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Rogers, J. (2002). 2010 Olympic Winter Games and Paralympic Winter Games Bid: Status Report (No. RTS. No. 02869). Rueschemeyer, D. (2003). Can one or a few cases yield theoretical gains? In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 305–336). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sanchez, F., & Broudehoux, A.-M. (2013). Mega-events and urban regeneration in Rio de Janeiro: planning in a state of emergency. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 5(2), 132–153. Sassen, S. (2000). New Frontiers Facing Urban Sociology at the Millenium. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 143–160. Sassen, S. (2005). The City: Localizations of the Global. Perspecta, 36, 73–77. Saussure, F. de. (1986). Course in general linguistics. LaSalle, Ill: Open Court. Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Types of Case Studies. In R. W. Scholz & O. Tietje (Eds.), Embedded Case Study Mehtods (pp. 9–15). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. BIBLIOGRAPHY 224 Schrijver, L. (2011). Utopia and/or Spectacle? Rethinking Urban Interventions Through the Legacy of Modernism and the Situationist City. Architectural Theory Review, 16(3), 245–258. http://doi.org/10.1080/13264826.2011.621545 Seghezzo, L. (2009). The five dimensions of sustainability. Environmental Politics, 18(4), 539–556. Short, J. R. (2004). Global metropolitan: Globalizing cities in a capitalist world. London: Routledge. Silverman. (1998). Cultural Semiosis: Tracing the Signifier. Routledge. Slater, T. (2006). The Eviction of Critical Perspectives from Gentrification Research. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30(4), 737–757. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2006.00689.x Slater, T. (2010). Revanchist City. In R. Hutchinson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Urban Studies (Vol. Volume 2). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Smith, A. (2005). Conceptualizing City Image Change: The “Re-Imaging” of Barcelona. Tourism Geographies, 7(4), 398–423. Smith, A. (2009). Theorising the Relationship between Major Sport Events and Social Sustainability. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 14(2-3), 109–120. http://doi.org/10.1080/14775080902965033 Smith, A., & Fox, T. (2007). From “Event-led” to “Event-themed” Regeneration: The 2002 Commonwealth Games Legacy Programme. Urban Studies, 44(5/6), 1125–1143. Smith, N. (1996). The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. New York: Routledge. Smith, N. (1998). Guiliani time: The revanchist 1990s. Social Text, 57, 1–20. Smith, N. (2002). New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy. Antipode, 34(3), 427–450. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00249 BIBLIOGRAPHY 225 Sommers, J. (2001). The place of the poor: Poverty, space and the politics of representation in downtown Vancouver, 1950-1997 (British Columbia). Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC. Sorkin, M. (1992). See You in Disneyland. In M. Sorkin (Ed.), Variations on a Theme Park (pp. 205–232). New York: The Noonday Press. Special Commission Relative to the Feasibility of Hosting the Summer Olympics in the Commonwealth. (2014). Understanding a Boston 2024 Olympics: A Report of the Special Commission Relative to the Feasibility of Hosting the Summer Olympics in the Commonwealth. Boston, MA: Massachusetts State Legislature. Retrieved on January 17, 2015 from https://malegislature.gov/content/documents/newsitems/Special%20Commission%20Final%20Report%202.27.14.pdf Spilling, O. (1996). The entrepreneurial system: On entrepreneurship in the context of a mega-event. Journal of Business Research, 36(1), 91–103. http://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(95)00166-2 Stemler, S. (2001). An Overview of Content Analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17), 137–146. Stone, C. N. (1987). Summing up: Urban regimes, development policy, and political arrangements. In C. N. Stone & H. Sanders (Eds.), The Politics of Urban Development. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas. Stone, C. N. (1989). Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas. Sum, N.-L. (2009). The production of hegemonic policy discourses: “competitiveness” as a knowledge brand and its (re-)contextualizations. Critical Policy Studies, 3(2), 184–203. BIBLIOGRAPHY 226 Surborg, B., VanWynsberghe, R., & Wyly, E. (2008). Mapping the Olympic growth machine: Transnational urbanism and the growth machine diaspora. City, 12(3), 342–355. Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-Beyond-the-State. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991–2006. Swyngedouw, E. (2007). Impossible/Undesirable Sustainability and the Post-Political Condition. In R. Krueger & D. Gibbs (Eds.), The Sustainable Development Paradox (pp. 13–40). New York: Guilford Press. Swyngedouw, E. (2009a). Civil Society, Governmentality and the Contradictions of Governance-beyond-the-State: The Janus Face of Social Innovation. In D. MacCallum, F. Moulaert, J. Hillier, & S. V. Haddock (Eds.), Social Innovation and Territorial Development (pp. 63–78). Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Swyngedouw, E. (2009b). The Antinomies of the Postpolitical City: In Search of a Democratic Politics of Environmental Production. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), 601–620. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00859.x Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Post-Democratic Cities: For Whom and For What? In Regional Studies Association Annual Conference. Budapest, Hungary. Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F., & Rodriguez, A. (2002). Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large-Scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy. Antipode, (34), 543–577. The Canadian Press. (2015, January 20). Vancouver has 2nd most unaffordable housing market in the world after Hong Kong. Retrieved on February 9, 2015, from http://www.cbc.ca/1.2919593 The Economist. (2014). The best places to live. The Economist. Retrieved on December 15, 2014 from http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/08/daily-chart-13 BIBLIOGRAPHY 227 Thomas, D. R. (2006). A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. http://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748 Torfing, J. (1999). New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek. John Wiley & Sons. Translink. (2008). Translink 2008 Annual Report. South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority. Troyna, B. (1994). Critical social research and education policy. British Journal of Educational Studies, 42(1), 70–84. http://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.1994.9973984 Tufts, S. (2004). Building the “competitive city”: Labour and Toronto’s bid to host the Olympic games. Geoforum, 35(1), 47–58. UBC Reports. (2001, August 9). Olympic Bid committee prefers downtown option. Retrieved on January 14, 2015, from http://news.ubc.ca/2001/08/09/archive-ubcreports-2001-01aug09-olympic/ Vainer, C. (2011). Megaeventos e a Cidade de Exceção. Presented at the 14th Annual Meeting of the National Association of Researchers in Urban and Regional Planning (ANPUR), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Vanclay, F. (2004). Impact Assessment and the Triple Bottom Line: Competing Pathways to Sustainability? In Sustainability and social science: Round table proceedings (pp. 27–39). Sydney: The Institute for Sustainable Futures/Melbourne: CSIRO Minerals. Vancouver Bid Corporation. (2001, March 15). Vancouver Whislter 2010 Olympic Villages UBC. Vancouver Whistler 2010 Bid Corporation. Vancouver Bid Corporation. (2002a). 2010 Winter Games Inner-City Inclusive Commitment Statement. Vancouver Bid Corporation. (2002b). Vancouver 2010 Applicant City Responses. Vancouver Whistler 2010 Bid Corporation. BIBLIOGRAPHY 228 Vancouver Bid Corporation. (2002c). Vancouver 2010 Candidate City. Vancouver Whistler 2010 Bid Corporation. Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. (2007). Vancouver 2010 Sustainability Report 2006-2007. Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. (2009, November). Vancouver 2010 Bid Report. VANOC. Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. (2010a). Vancouver 2010 Sustainability Report. Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. (2010b). Vancouver 2010 Sustainability Report 2009-2010. Vancouver, BC: VANOC. Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. (2010c, September). Staging the Olympic Winter Games Knowledge Report. VANOC. Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. (2010d, December 17). Consolidated Financial Statements. VANOC. Vancouver Police Department. (2008a). Vancouver Police Department 2008 Annual Business Plan Year-end Report-back. Prepared by the Organization Planning Unit - Planning, Research, and Audit Section. Vancouver Police Department. (2008b). Vancouver Police Department Strategic Plan 2008-2012. Vancouver Police Department. Vancouver Police Department. (2009). Vancouver Police Department 2009 Annual Business Plan Year-end Report-back. Prepared by the Organization Planning Unit - Planning, Research, and Audit Section. VanWynsberghe, R., & Kahn, S. (2007). Redefining Case Study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6(2), 80–94. BIBLIOGRAPHY 229 VanWynsberghe, R., Surborg, B., & Wyly, E. (2013). When the Games Come to Town: Neoliberalism, Mega-Events and Social Inclusion in the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(6), 2074–2093. Vertinsky, P., Jette, S., & Hoffman, A. (2009). “Skinerinas” in the Olympics: Gender Justice and Gender Politics at the Local, National, and International Level over the Challenge of Women’s Ski Jumping. Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies, XVIII, 25–52. Vision Vancouver. (2014). Vision Vancouver: Go Forward With Vision. Vision Vancouver. Wacquant, L. (2008). Relocating Gentrification: The Working Class, Science and the State in Recent Urban Research. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 198–205. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00774.x Waitt, G. (2001). The Olympic spirit and civic boosterism: The Sydney 2000 Olympics. Tourism Geographies, 3(3), 249–278. http://doi.org/10.1080/14616680110055402 Waitt, G. (2008). Urban Festivals: Geographies of Hype, Helplessness and Hope. Geography Compass, 2(2), 513–537. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00089.x WCED, (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weber, R. (2002). Extracting value from the city: Neoliberalism and urban redevelopment. In Spaces of neoliberalism: Urban restructuring in North America and Western Europe (pp. 172–193). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. While, A., Jonas, A. E. G., & Gibbs, D. (2004). The Environment and the Entrepreneurial City: Searching for the Urban “Sustainability Fix” in Manchester and Leeds. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research, 28(3), 549–569. William-Ross, L. (2014). Vancouver named 2nd best city in the world in Telegraph Travel Awards. Retrieved on December 15, 2014 from BIBLIOGRAPHY 230 http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2014/12/vancouver-named-2nd-best-city-world-telegraph-travel-awards/ Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches. Sage Publications, Inc. Wright, T. (2000, March 24). UBC Summary. Vancouver Whistler 2010 Bid Corporation. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sage Publications. Zizek, S. (1998). For a leftist appropriation of the European legacy. Journal of Political Ideologies, 3(1), 63–78. Zizek, S. (2002). Revolution at the gates: Zizek on Lenin - the 1917 writings. London: Verso. Zizek, S. (2006). The lesson of Rancière. In J. Rancière (Ed.), The politics of aesthetics. London: Continuum. Zizek, S. (2008). The ticklish subject: the absent centre of political ontology. London; New York: Verso. Zukin, S. (1992). Postmodern urban landscapes: Mapping culture and power. In S. Lash & J. Friedman (Eds.), Modernity and Identity (pp. 221–247). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Zukin, S. (1993). Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World. University of California Press. APPENDICES 231 Appendices Appendix A: Summary of Documents Analyzed City of Vancouver (2002-2010) South East False Creek - Athletes' Village Administrative Reports 11 2006 2013 5.2.3 Policy Documents and Memoranda 16 2002 2011 4.1.2, 5.1.1 Policy Reports 3 2006 2010 5.2.3 Presentation Documents 3 2009 2009 5.2.3 Official SEFC Development By-laws 13 2005 2013 5.2.3 Urban Policies Policy Documents 4 2007 2013 6.2 Policy Reports 7 2007 2010 6.2 Policies on Social Housing and Homelessness Policy Documents 12 2002 2010 6.2 Official Demolition of Social Housing By-laws 5 1991 2003 5.2.2 Official SRO Development By-laws 7 2003 2013 5.2.2 Government of British Columbia (2004-2008) Urban and Housing Policies Policy Documents 7 1996 2008 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 6.2 Government of Canada (2007-2010) Federal Involvement Reports 2 2007 2010 5.2.1 APPENDICES 232 Vancouver Whistler 2010 Bid Corporation (2000-2003) Bid Materials Bid Books 2 2002 2002 5.1.1 Athletes' Village Communications 8 2001 2003 5.2.3 Bid Corp Operations Internal Communications 25 2000 2003 5.1.1 ICICS Focus Groups, Internal Communications 20 2002 2003 5.2.1, 7.3 Sustainability Planning Documents 12 2001 2003 4.2.1, 7.3 Interest Groups Correspondance 5 2002 2002 7.1 VANOC (2006-2010) Organizing Committee Operations Progress Reports and Updates 11 2006 2010 5.2.3 Sustainability Reports 7 2006 2010 4.2.2 IOC (2001-2012) Planning Documents Information 9 2007 2012 4.2.1 Procedural Documents Bid Procedure 5 2001 2011 5.1.1 Interest Groups (2002-2011) Community Impact Community Interest Reports 8 2002 2011 5.2.1, 5.2.2 Consulting Reports 2 1999 2002 5.2.2 Government Stakeholders (2002-2010) Working Groups ICI Working Group Proceedings 6 2002 2002 5.2.1 Housing Table Proceedings 2 2007 2007 5.2.1 Homelessness Policy Reviews 2 2008 2009 5.2.1 Finance Financial Statements 8 2002 2010 5.2.3 Total Documents 222 APPENDICES 233 Appendix B: Documents Analyzed AUTHOR SUBJECT TYPE CITATION City of Vancouver Southeast False Creek - Athletes' Village Administrative Reports Andrews, J. (2006). Selection of a Developer for Sub-Area 2A of Southeast False Creek Including the Olympic Village (Administrative Report). Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver. Andrews, J. (2008). Southeast False Creek and Olympic Village Financing Consdieration (Administrative Report). Vancouver City Council. Aujla, B. (2009). City’s Projects in South East False Creek (Administrative Report). Vancouver City Council. Bayne, K. (2009). Southeast False Creek Development: Financing Update (Administrative Report). Vancouver City Council. Gray, C. (2006). Affordable and Modest Market Housing: Sub-Area 2A of Southeast False Creek (the Olympic Village) (Administrative Report). Vancouver City Council. Lee, E. (2008). City of Vancouver 2007 Statement of Financial Information (Administrative Report No. RTS. 07179). Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver. Gray, C., & Smith, I. (2009). The Cost and Affordability of the City’s Affordable Housing: Southeast False Creek Area 2A (Olympic Village) (Administrative Report). Vancouver City Council. Johnson, B., & Greenwell, P. (2006). Downtown Eastside Housing Plan - Report Back on SRO Stock (Administrative Report No. RTS. 05512). Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver. APPENDICES 234 AUTHOR SUBJECT TYPE CITATION Lee, E. (2013). 2012 Annual Financial Report (Administrative Report). Mauboules, C. (2007). Housing Legacy of the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games: report of the Housing Table for the Inner-City Inclusivity Initiative (Administrative Report). Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver. Retrieved from http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/ccle
UBC Theses and Dissertations
The city and the spectacle : social housing, homelessness, and the 2010 winter Olympic Games Pentifallo, Caitlin 2015
Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.
- 24-ubc_2015_september_pentifallo_caitlin.pdf [ 14.37MB ]
- JSON: 24-1.0166306.json
- JSON-LD: 24-1.0166306-ld.json
- RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0166306-rdf.xml
- RDF/JSON: 24-1.0166306-rdf.json
- Turtle: 24-1.0166306-turtle.txt
- N-Triples: 24-1.0166306-rdf-ntriples.txt
- Original Record: 24-1.0166306-source.json
- Full Text