The Olympics are upon us and the excitement is palpable as sportsmen across the country get ready to compete for their nation.
Great Britain did great at the Beijing Olympics to finish with 47 medals (Finishing fourth in the table) and with countries on average winning 54% more medals when hosting the Olympics themselves, Britain could win an outstanding 72 medals (a record for the country if achieved).
But what sort of impact will staging the Olympics have on the City of London and the country itself?
In terms of the legacy it will leave behind, the London Olympics objective seems confused at best.
Most countries use it to improve the hosting city or country in general, with Barcelona in 1992 a great example of how a city can use the Olympics to its advantage. Barcelona improved its infrastructure and created a new modern image of itself, which lead to the number of visitors to the city doubling in the decades since – a true legacy.
London has repeated this to a degree in revamping the Lower Lee Valley into the modern Olympic park (a much better use of the space) and improving the image of a shabby part of East London.
But the city is not in a similar state to the Barcelona of 1992.
London is already the most visited city in Europe, is a centre of wealth in the world and has good infrastructure (discounting an overused public transport system that the Olympics is only set to make worse).
So what legacy is London trying to leave behind?
By the logos up all around the city it could be to promote better fitness and sport participation in an overweight nation by getting the public involved in the Olympics. But this has had little success if the case, with statistics showing no significant change in the nation or in London (though the Olympics could have a more long term effect in this respect). That leaves the reformed areas around the east end ...
To read the rest of the article goto: