Barcelona’s Olympic legacy: A case study for London to follow?
JR James Award report by Richard Bates
In August 2013 I travelled to London and Barcelona with the aim of investigating what London can
learn from the Catalan city about creating a successful Olympic legacy.
During the build-up to the 2012 Games, I was aware that prominent individuals involved in the
organisation of the London Games referred to the 1992 Barcelona Olympics as a classic example to model
London’s legacy upon; for example, former mayor Ken Livingstone envisaged East London as “Barcelona-onThames,”1whereas chief executive of the London delivery authority David Higgins stated that London should
learn from Barcelona’s emphasis on urban regeneration. 2With this in mind, I was keen to investigate for
myself whether modelling London’s legacy on Barcelona’s was (and is) a viable option in reality, or simply
rhetoric used to emphasise the desired benefits of the Games.
As this report shows, when comparing the two cities for myself, I found the models used by each
organising committee to be largely rooted in similar principles, primarily the idea of physical and social
regeneration through the Games. Despite this, during my visit I concluded that the inherent characteristics of
the two cities are significantly different, and as such attempting to mimic the approach used in Barcelona
would be less beneficial for London than a unique approach.
For me, the two images of Barcelona below exemplify the differences between the two cities and the
lessons London can learn; on the left the Estadi Olimpic Lluis Companys (Olympic Stadium) is now used
infrequently, which I believe is something London must avoid. The image on the right shows the Barceloneta
waterfront area with parts of the old Athlete’s Village on the left, showing how the climate and physical
attributes of Barcelona left it uniquely positioned to take advantage of the Games in terms of tourism and
regeneration.
1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid9712000/9712492.stm
http://www.sourceuk.net/article/8/8874/london_looks_to_the_beacon_of_barcelonas_olympic_regeneratio
n_.html
2
Why was Barcelona’s Olympic legacy so successful?
It is testament to success of the 1992 Olympic legacy that before researching Barcelona prior to my
visit, I assumed the city had always been considered one of the most popular tourist destinations in Europe. In
actual fact, I discovered during my visit, the Games significantlyenhanced the international reputation of
Barcelona. The following images signify why I feel this transformation occurred:
Even before the Games, Barcelona had no shortage of natural attributes which would make it
extremely appealing for tourism and which had not previously been capitalised upon. The waterfront area was
completely transformed for the Olympics and the ‘Port Olimpic’ area (shown above left) was, before 1992, a
declining industrial area, whereas now it is a thriving hub of restaurants and businesses. I therefore believe
that the Olympics allowed Barcelona to publicise its existing touristic potential, rather than create new
potential through the Games. The seeds for Barcelona’s transformation, including its exotic climate, already
existed, but the Olympics marketed this to the world. Similarly, the above right image (taken from Montjuic,
close to the Olympic stadium) shows how the topography of Barcelona allows for picturesque views from the
Anella Olimpic, where the majority of the Olympics took place. This has been capitalised upon by the cable car,
which connects the city to the Olympic area.
Barcelona was also able to take advantage of existing infrastructure, most notably the Olympic
Stadium itself (above left), which was opened in 1929 as part of Barcelona’s unsuccessful bid for the 1936
Olympics. The opportunity to renovate the stadium, rather than construct a new one, freed up finances for
new non-sporting projects such as the creation of public parks, including Jardi d’Aclimentacio close to the
stadium, seen on the right. This emphasis on physical regeneration of the rest of the city and public open
space, rather than just the area surrounding the key venues, seemed to be a real strength of Barcelona’s
legacy.
Walking around Barcelona, it was constantly apparent that the residents of the city foster a strong
Catalan identity, as shown by the Estelada – or Catalan independence flags –on the left, which are displayed
from many windows in the city. Until 1975, Barcelona, like the rest of Spain, was ruled dictatorially by Franco,
who attempted to crush any attempts to restore Catalan culture to the city. As such, for decades Barcelona
lost some of its relevance in the international community. By 1992, 17 years after the death of Franco, the
time was right for Barcelona to regain lost ground in its development as a city, and the Olympics provided the
perfect framework for this. With the benefit of hindsight it is therefore apparent on the streets of Barcelona
that the Olympic legacy is intrinsically linked to the resurgence of the city itself, and that the Games acted as a
catalyst for development including the Poblenou area of the city (shown of the left), which, initially due to
investment before the Games, now houses many tertiary sector businesses linked to the economic success of
the city. I therefore feel that the city wide focus of Olympic funding, rather than a narrower focus on the main
stadium area, was a key factor in the success of the legacy.
Is London’s legacy likely to be similar to Barcelona’s?
In contrast to Barcelona, London’s Olympic legacy has not yet become fully apparent. Although my visit
came over a year after the conclusion of the Games, the Olympic Park area and the surrounding boroughs still
seemed to be undergoing radical change, with large parts of the Park still closed. I therefore feel that the
impacts of the Games are still to be defined in the fullness of time, but it
was immediately apparent to me that the circumstances are wholly
different to those faced by Barcelona.
Notably, in contrast to Barcelona, the physical legacy of the Games
appeared to me to be more strictly confined to the area around the Olympic
Park itself. Whilst the picture on the left shows how the immediate vicinity
of the Olympic Stadium will attract footfall due to its use a parkland, the
image below shows – with the Athletes Village in the background and a
vacant former pub in the foreground- how even areas within a mile of the
Olympic Park have not yet seen any direct physical investment as a result of
the Games. For better or worse, the focus of Olympic venues in one
concentrated area of east London will have less of a city-wide impact than
the geographical spread of investment in Barcelona.
Spending time in each city, it became apparent to me that these differences
stem from the contrasting scenarios the two cities found themselves in
when bidding for the Games. Due to the size and existing reputation of
London, a radical transformation of the entire city would not have been
feasible as the result of one event. It may seem obvious that London does
not benefit from the same natural assets as Barcelona, but the consequence of this is that the Olympic legacy
must also be vastly different.Despite the rhetoric of public figures before the Games, it seemed to me that
decision makers in London are aware of the differences of the two cities, and are focussing their efforts on
creating a legacy for London centred primarily on tangible physical infrastructureto complement the existing
assets of London, rather than the multi-dimensional realisation of potential successfully encouraged in
Barcelona. In London I saw examples of this infrastructural focus including the high rise residentialscheme
shown on the left, the former broadcasting centre set-aside for future conferencing use in the centre, and,
significantly, the ‘Westfield - Stratford City’ shopping complex shown on the right. Although the Westfield
Centre, adjacent to the Olympic Park, was opened just before the Games, I consider it to be intrinsically linked
to the legacy. Whilst there, I noted that both Londoners and tourists alike would combine a visit to the
shopping centre with spending time in the Olympic Park, suggesting that the common purpose of the centre
and the Park is to draw people eastwards for a day away from more established London attractions, rather
than to put London on the map in the same way that Barcelona attempted to do.
Are there any lessons London should take from Barcelona’s
experience?
Despite the differences In approach between the cities I have noted, both city’s basic remit is to create
lasting benefits through regeneration linked to the Olympic Games. As such, whilst in Barcelona I noted some
lessons which I feel would be beneficial for London to learn.


Although Barcelona’s Estadi Olimpic played host to football club RCD Espanyol’s home matches until
2009, its over-large capacity and the atmosphere-ruining running track meant that the football club
decided to move out. When I visited the stadium, I felt that it had become somewhat of a ‘whiteelephant,’ as despite occasional concerts and the some athletics tournaments, the lack of a
permanent tenant gave the stadium an atmosphere of emptiness, rather than that of a contemporary
sports venue. London must take precautionary measures for the Olympic Stadium, should the longrunning saga of West Ham Football Club’s occupancy not conclude positively.
Contrary to the Estadi Olimpic, Barcelona’s Palau Sant Jordi (right), an
indoor arena used during the Olympics, utilises its smaller capacity to
host regular music events, as well as tennis, swimming and other
sporting tournaments. As such, its usage is more similar to London’s
O2 Arena than to anything within the Olympic Park. It seems worth
London looking into recycling a smaller indoor venue for this purpose,
rather than risking venues falling into disrepair. Given that London has
no shortage of existing parkland, diversified uses such as this may be
necessary to attract footfall once the novelty of the Games has faded
from public memory.

Creating clusters of development associated with the Olympics, most notably the Montjuic area
(parkland and Olympic venues), Port Olimpic (beach tourism and restaurants) and El Pobelnou
(technological businesses), which were consistently promoted after the Games seemed to be a key
strength of the Barcelona legacy during my visit. Whilst London mayor Boris Johnson has spoken of a
technological businesses cluster stretching from the
Olympic Park to the Old Street area3, during my visit I
saw little evidence that this cluster will achieve success
similar to its Barcelona equivalents. The image on the
left shows how the area in question actually still
contains apparently vacant industrial units, rather than
the modern digital businesses targeted. I feel that the
concept of a technological cluster is a valid objective,
and London must now look to Barcelona’s example for
how to implement this in reality.
Conclusions
Reflecting upon my visits to the two cities, I cannot help but feel that the concept of creating “Barcelona-OnThames” was never a realistic objective, and I’m sure that the organising committee in London was well aware
of this. I believe that the long-term success of any Olympic legacy relies on careful planning alongside external
factors such as the unique characteristics of each city. Whilst lessons can be learned from previous hosts, too
much focus on this would, I feel, reduce the potential benefits of the Games.
Barcelona was an underperforming, smaller city still finding its place in the modern world when it
hosted the Olympics. On the other hand London is a large, well-established capital city and as such it was
always likely that the benefits of the Games would be less impactful on the flavour of the city, more localised
within the city and probably less significant over time than the Barcelona legacy. Because of these factors and
others mentioned throughout this report, I see the London legacy as less holistic and all-encompassing than its
Catalan counterpart. I would tentatively speculate that the focus on a legacy characterised equally by a
shopping centre, conference facilities and business space as by the Olympic Park itself may be a sign of the
neo-liberal era of the London Games. Despite this, the long-term benefits for East London are as yet unclear.
The effects the Olympic Park and surrounding house-building will have twenty years after the London Games
may be as useful for Londoners as the influx of tourists proved to be for Barcelona.
3
http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2013/05/16/tech_cluster_olympics/