Abstract
Public aspirations for more sustainable mega-projects not only ensuring economic returns but also comprehensive local legacies have increased in recent years. The Olympic Games in particular have been criticized as commercial ventures lacking in proportional impacts for local communities, while largely financed by public funds. With associated corruption and gentrification concerns, such projects met with increased opposition. The International Olympic Committee (IOC), struggling to attract candidate cities, adapted its strategies and frameworks, while host cities’ priorities were better heeded. Cultural policy, associated with transformative urban powers since the 1990s, became instrumental to sustainable legacies. This article explores the increased use of cultural value, from heritage to creation, as part of the Olympic Games, to reach more sustainable cultural, socio-economic, political, and environmental objectives. Can cultural planning and programming (notably Cultural Olympiads) help provide a more sustainable legacy to the redeveloped areas and their communities? Can culture also impact the Olympic project through its use of sustainable management methods (consultation, participation, co-creation, etc.)? After discussing evolving theories and practices around sustainability, legacy, and cultural policy in the Olympic context, this article analyzes the cases of London 2012 and Paris 2024 and their Athletes’ village areas (Stratford and Plaine Commune).
Keywords
This article approaches cultural policy and planning as a mixed economy and multi-scalar field of action in heritage and creation, interconnected with glocal identities, cultural diversity, sport, leisure, and ways of life. Relying on ‘discourse, text, process, and practice’ (Bell and Oakey, 2014), cultural policy can be focused on cultural objectives per se (intrinsic cultural policy) or often ‘attached’ to other policy objectives, notably local economic development (Doustaly and Gray, 2010). Cultural policy, through intervention or incentive, has been associated with local transformative powers since the 1990s, notably in urban regeneration projects (Garcia, 2004). Once articulated as a fourth pillar of development in the Agenda 21 (UN, 1992), it was later established that it could transversally support sustainable development for local communities, as UNESCO summarized in its Culture Urban Futures report (UNESCO, 2016; Doustaly 2019). Lallement Rozenholc-Escobar, Some researchers consider that city making is in itself a cultural project (Iosa et al., 2022).
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) now insists that the games are to be transformative and sustainable projects not only with international but also long-term national and local impacts for a variety of constituencies. Local development can result from hosting the event itself (Gratton and Henry, 2001), creating local tangible legacies (new Olympic infrastructure, villages, regeneration, and jobs) and related intangible ‘legacies’: memory, attractivity, and symbolic assets (Gold and Gold, 2016; Girginov and Preuss, 2022). As the Olympics are increasingly becoming legacy and locally focused, they not only rely more on cultural policies but could also be framed as cultural projects too, the event being a high point in a long-term culturally grounded local strategy (PC, 2020), before, during, and after the games.
However, sport and economic impacts have long been prioritized by the IOC and stakeholders, while the increased, multifaceted, and long-term role of culture in the Olympics received little comparative attention in academic research, apart from a few experts (Margaret Gold, John Gold, and Beatriz Garcia). There is a need to further explore the effects of Olympic cultural policy, be it on urban fabric, local development, social inclusion, or creative ecosystems (Pappalepore and Duignan, 2016) in relation to legacy and sustainability. To do this involves approaching arts and heritage as a continuum between public policies and cultural practices ranging from heritage to creation, sport, interculturality, and ways of life (Gammon et al., 2014; Girginov and Preuss, 2022). In Athens and London, the Olympic Games have been found to support, in different ways, some creative expressions (architecture, public art, live arts), generate and valorize tangible and intangible cultural and natural heritage, and help revisit narratives on a global, national, and local stage (Doustaly and Zembri-Mary, 2019).
Local actors have identified cultural multi-scalar projects as an opportunity to articulate a singular if plural local identity and to produce commons as well as commerce (Doustaly, 2022). Olympic interventions can overpass global city competition to draw on sport and cultural event as cultural practices, generating local participation and appropriation: ‘the Olympic Games produce a kaleidoscopic range of intangible and quasi-religious engagements with place and spectacle’ (Robinson and Ploner, 2017), acting as collective identity and memory-producing machines working through discursive and performative reinventions of tradition. These ritual and relational dimensions have tangible outcomes on the local economy but are often overlooked and difficult to track.
Can culture make the Olympic project more sustainable, by ensuring long-term local development for and with local inhabitants, for whom Olympic changes can cause alarm and prove detrimental?
This article critically explores the increased use of cultural policy in the Olympic and Paralympic Games since London 2012 (Garcia, 2012), to reach local economic, social, political, environmental, and cultural objectives. Can cultural policy, through intangible and tangible cultural value creation, be used as an instrument for the Olympics to leave a more sustainable legacy and be – like other types of international cultural events – associated with opportunities for long-term local development? How does the Olympic project ‘instrumentalize’ culture through policy attachment? Can the cultural sector seize this opportunity for intrinsic goals? Can culture bridge the local v. tourist tensions and gentrification issues that generally emerge from such glocal projects?
Taking into account that the Paris games arrive after mounting pressure for sustainability and legacy, resulting not only in IOC adaptations but also a pandemic and world conflicts disrupting the global economy, the London 2012 and Paris 2024 Olympics provide complementary case studies on the redefinition and increased focus on legacy, sustainability, and cultural policy and their relations with IOC changed governance (part I). The analysis of the athletes’ village developments in Stratford and Plaine Commune allows to question why and how a more sustainable legacy could be reached by associating cultural programming and cultural planning (part II).
The evolution of the Olympic model and core concepts of legacy, sustainability, and culture
A changed governance and approach to sustainability, legacy, and culture until London 2012
Scientific literature has documented why, in the last decade, the IOC has been faced with a sharp decrease in the number of candidate cities when hosting the games used to be highly desirable. Predominantly organized along a commercial model at some periods, the Games have been lately increasingly financed by public funds but found lacking in proportional positive impacts for host communities. With documented corruption, transparency, and gentrification issues, public opinion and local opposition grew, explaining several bid withdrawals in 2022, 2024, and 2026 (Boston, Rome, etc.) (Delaplace and Schut, 2019; Bourbilleres & Koebel, 2020).
In 2017, the choice of the City of Paris and the Seine-Saint-Denis joint candidacy to organize the ‘Paris 2024 Games’ therefore took place in a new Olympic context. Fifty world cities signed an open letter supporting Paris’ bid for sustainable and ethical games, which provided both a continuation of London Olympics’ legacies in terms of the Paralympics, the environment and the Cultural Olympiad, but defended a new sustainable model around infrastructure re-use, sport-culture dialogue, and socio-economic impacts for the host communities (Paris 2024, 2017; IOC, 2021a; Doustaly, forthcoming 2). Which impact did this have on the role of stakeholders: Organising committees for the Olympic Games (OCOG, LOCOG for London and COJOP for France), local authorities, cultural, and private actors?
While the UK government created an ‘Olympic Board’ to coordinate the actions of the various local stakeholders of London 2012, the Paris Olympic system has striven to enlarge the involvement of stakeholders (elite athletes, cultural and civic groups, education actors, as well as local, regional, and national government, sponsors, and media) illustrating the new ‘collaborative Olympic governance’. Although the organization remains ‘hierarchical’ (whether IOC and State or market-based), the balance of power has shifted and the IOC needs to ensure the support of the public sphere and levels of governments. Chappelet recommends involving all stakeholders in Olympic planning (2021), which is the case for most of Paris 2024 Olympic cultural programme, where the distance with the IOC and OJOP may allow for a more sustainable bottom-up and cultural sector-led approach.
Contrary to the failed Paris candidacies in 2008 and 2012, managed by non-sports leaders, Paris 2024 candidacy and organizing committee have been led by the younger and charismatic Tony Estanguet, a triple Canoe Olympic champion, with experience of international sports administration and active in the IOC’s Sustainability and Legacy Commission, who defended ‘a new model for more spectacular, more responsible and more open Games’ (Paris 2024, 2020a). His multilevel lobbying involved the sports movement, civil society, and the public and private sectors, to include their specific agendas from the bid.
As a result, however, the Paris Olympics have been faced with diverse and sometimes contradictory legacy expectations and strong policy attachment, being used as a lever for development in varied sectors, from the environment, jobs and training, health, social cohesion, and integrated urban renewal (Doustaly, forthcoming 2). Estanguet also diversified the missions of the Athletes’ commission to put into practice sporting and Olympic values. In relation to cultural policy, the remit has expanded to co-designing the Athletes’ village, providing new ideas for celebrations, supporting sports practice and events (schools’ Olympic week; Olympic run day), and encouraging engagement projects as a tool for social inclusion and environmental education, in relation to the Cultural Olympiad (Paris 2024, 2020b, interviews).
The Olympic Games model, but also definitions of legacy and sustainability and how they could be applied to different sectors, has shifted over time (Chappelet, 2021) and most notably in the running for London 2012 and for Paris 2024. If organizing the Olympic Games has, since they were reinitiated in 1896, been associated with long-term benefits, ‘each age has seen the Olympic movement and their appointed host cities recasting the ways in which they have sought to achieve such outcomes in light of their own values and needs’ (Gold and Gold, 2014).
Originating in the 1990 s, the term ‘legacy’ was first introduced in the Olympic Charter in 2003, but several definitions coexisted since local host cities could articulate their own strategic vision. Increased scrutiny developed however as to the planning and delivery methods and the long-term impacts monitoring and measurement (UCL 2023, 28; UEL 2008-2015). Such evaluation methods can be challenged in general, and in particular, for the cultural sector (Doustaly, 2010). Setting clear goals can however limit ‘the manipulation over time of the concept of legacy before and after London 2012 […] facilitated by the vagueness of definitions of Olympic legacies more widely’ (UCL, 2022, 28).
The IOC eventually identified legacy outcomes along seven dimensions, one ‘cultural and creative development’ being the focus of this article, and closely interrelated with four others (my examples between brackets) - urban developments (new venues and neighbourhoods, tangible and intangible heritage); - human skills, network, and innovation (creation, architecture, and intercultural dialogue); - social development through sport (often articulated with culture); - economic development (tourism-culture sectors, local investment, and related jobs) (IOC, 2019, 7).
Multi-stakeholder’s governance is central in mega projects to pull resources and strengthen actor’s coalitions, particularly with a view to catalyze local development. It echoes cultural policy and planning practice (consultation, participation, and co-creation) in glocal contexts: Cities of Culture and UNESCO World heritage sites (Garcia, 2012; Doustaly, 2019). Direct organizational replicability is limited. Cities of culture have shared best practice to draw from local heritage and creation, which London and Paris have both been inspired by for their Olympics. Schematic map of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, London, 2023 (Map: Cécile Doustaly, 2023). Schematic map of Plaine Commune’s Olympic infrastructures (orange), city halls, and other landmark buildings (blue) (Cartography: Plaine Commune ; illustration: Sandrine Martin, 2023). Paris 2024 Athletes’ village: Cité du cinéma, with new housing behind (Photograph: Cécile Doustaly, May 2023).
London 2012 and Cultural Policy
Following its successful Olympic bid in 2005, based on a persuasive narrative interlocking economic, socio-cultural, and environmental benefits, the Department of Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) identified five key commitments to ensure a glocal sustainable legacy for London 2012. The sport dimension was both professional (‘Make the UK a world class sporting nation’) and amateur-educational-cultural (‘Inspire a new generation of young people to take part in local volunteering, cultural, and physical activity’). The games were also to have a clear economic and attractivity impact, to ‘demonstrate that the UK is a creative, inclusive and welcoming place to live in, visit and for business’ – one of the main messages of the opening ceremony. In urban terms, the games were to ‘Transform the heart of East London’ and ‘make the Olympic Park a blueprint for sustainable living’ (LLDC 2012a).
The 2012 London Olympics were generally hailed as a success. They were the first edition for which a legacy plan was drawn up before the event, in line with the London Plan, to achieve physical integration with social and economic benefits (LOCOG, 2013). Gold and Gold have analyzed how four central notions – memory, regeneration, sustainability, and legacy – underpinned the desired urban outcomes and increasingly structured the 2020 Olympic agenda afterwards (IOC, 2014) and its reliance on cultural policy and planning. In the case of London 2012, legacy superseded sustainability as an easier concept to promote. Rather than the announced ‘One Planet Games’, the regeneration legacy of East London prevailed (Gold and Gold, 2014). In line with historical evolutions, Paris has approached sustainability across the three notions of memory, regeneration, and legacy (see Doustaly, forthcoming 2).
The opening ceremony directed by Dany Boyle was lauded for its capacity to creatively narrate the history of Britain and make fun of stereotypes. It was effective and spectacular soft power, focused on the Nation rather than the local. Since Barcelona 1992, Cultural Olympiads have taken the form of a cultural pluri-disciplinary programme, but the UK-wide 2012 Cultural Olympiad included over 500 events nationwide, spread over 4 years, and culminating in the London 2012 Festival. Funding was mixed, provided by Arts Council England, Legacy Trust UK, and the Olympic Lottery. The Cultural Olympiad was mostly studied by Beatriz Garcia, also commissioned for the evaluation (Garcia, 2013). A few ethnographic studies have complemented this, with comprehensive views of cultural policy and planning (Gilmore 2014; Pappalepore and Duignan, 2016; Doustaly, forthcoming 1).
The historical background is also essential to compare the scope of the Cultural Olympiad, harnessed to reach legacy objectives. Indeed, during the drafting of the London bid, the cultural sector appropriated the instrumental approach, noticing that funding from the State and the national lottery was already diverted away from culture towards the Olympics. Such attachment strategy had been developed by the sector during the Labour head days of culture (1997–2010) when it resulted in increased funds but was accompanied by unintended effects in the form of ill-fitted New Public Management evaluation. The 2012 Olympics amounted to a short-term respite after the Greater London Authority (2008) and the national government (2010) turned conservative, and before years of austerity in public services and culture (Doustaly and Gray, 2010). The substantial budget for the Cultural Olympiad (£126,6 M., Garcia, 2013, 11) was matched by vast participation but partly replaced running funds for culture, with a fall in Arts Council England budget of around 1/5 (about £100 M.), worsened by up to 100% local cuts for culture in England in 2012 (HC, 2016, 5).
During the Olympics themselves, the London fan zones were unevenly spread, especially in the East End where some inhabitants felt left either out or invaded, with their usual activities at a stop (Doustaly, forthcoming 1). In 2022, Garcia regretted that Cultural Olympiads have tended to ‘prioritiz[e] iconic statements over widespread community consultation and build-up’ and to brand, homogenize, and centralize Olympic programme narratives rather than diversity them. As a result, the Cultural Olympiad has recently been steered more and more by the host cities (Garcia, 2022, 59–60).
The cultural programme however, mostly led by the cultural sector, was popular. London 2012 was the first edition to associate sustainable development and cultural ambition, inspiring later recommendations on culture in the 2020 Olympic Agenda (IOC, 2014), which made a commitment to ‘rethink the role of culture in the Olympic Games hosting process and overcome the programme’s traditional marginalisation. […] in line with the expanding debate over the need for “legacy,” sustainability and a “360 degree” Olympic management experience [IOC 2009, 27], a term that refers to the IOC’s ambition to better integrate all Games programming dimensions and ensure that the sporting competitions are rooted within each of the Olympic cities where they take place’ (Garcia, 2020, 418).
IOC, legacy, sustainability, and culture towards Paris 2024
The definition of sustainability by the IOC differs from Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2030 Agenda, 2015), as it is presented as method, when legacy would reflect results: ‘Legacy and Sustainability are interrelated and complementary, but distinct. While legacy refers to the long-term benefits, or outcomes, of putting the “Olympic Movement” vision into practice, sustainability refers to the strategies and processes applied in decision-making to maximise positive impacts and minimize negative impacts in the social, economic and environmental spheres’ (IOC, 2017a, 17). Sustainability as a method to reach positive legacies involves consensus and joint work between the Olympic movement and a territory: ‘Olympic legacy is the result of a joint vision made up of two separate visions – that of the Olympic Movement, which seeks to build a better world through sport, and that of a city (or a territory), which focuses on what a better world through sport looks like in a specific place and time’ (IOC, 2017b).
The Paris 2024 project was developed in a context where sustainability and Sustainable Development Goals were being inscribed across policy agendas and in national and EU legislation. Although this should be examined further, legacy and sustainability seem to have become synonyms in official narratives about Paris 2024, with the term sustainability being more often used than in London, and understood as both method and outcomes, and the notion of legacy implying a positive (sustainable) legacy in economic, social, environmental, and cultural terms. Paris 2024 project, reflecting a global trend, included SDGs and aligned with 2030 targets all over the board, from the event (offsetting pre-assessed carbon emission for the first time) to new builds innovations, transport, etc.
However, the Olympic movement has yet to create a coherent cultural policy framework – despite sport, culture, and education being presented as the pillars of Olympism and the strong cultural mandate contained in the Olympic Charter and detailed in the 2014 IOC Agenda 2020. This may explain why it remains an elusive reference for the public–OCOGs relying on the sports industry and commercial logics which tend to instrumentalize, managerialize, and standardize history, symbols, and heritage values (MacAloon, 2011; Garcia, 2016; 2022).
Faced with increased criticism, the IOC followed host cities orientations. As part of its 40 objectives, the closing report of the 2020 Olympic Agenda (2020) committed to ‘further blend sport and culture’ and address the limits of the sponsorship model by ‘extend[ing] access to the Olympic brand for non-commercial use’* (Paris 2024, 2021a; 69-72). Indeed, most local, voluntary, and cultural organizations, essential partners in ensuring sustainable games, cannot afford the Olympic logo restricted to commercial sponsors. The IOC Olympic Agenda 2020+5 15 recommendations, developed in collaboration with the Olympic movement, went further in drawing from Paris 2024 social and environmental approach to sustainability, introducing the notion of ‘solidarity’ (IOC, 2021b).
Paris 2024 and Cultural Policy
In the cases of the London and Paris Olympics, the national level also played an important role above the host city (or host territory for Paris) 1 In France the DIJOP body coordinates all actors for the State, and the National Assembly working group on the Olympics is part of the cultural and educative affairs commission. Since London, the approach to Olympic sustainability and legacy has evolved from a retrospective concept, focused on what is left after the event, to a prospective and dynamic one inscribing the event in a range of long-term stakeholder’s interactions (Girginov, 2018; Doustaly, forthcoming 2).
The French State Legacy plan for the Paris 2024 was designed in 2019 by the inter-ministerial Delegate for the Olympic and Paralympic Games (DIJOP, 2019) and the French Ministry of Sport, to target six major outcomes, directly or indirectly associated to cultural policy and planning, while not referring directly to the creation of new neighbourhoods (put forward in the concerned local authorities’ plans): - ‘encouraging sports participation; - harnessing innovation and culture to have a global reach; - accelerating the environmental transition; - nurturing Olympic ambitions; - building tomorrow’s infrastructure, and; - getting people involved in the Games’.
All the main stakeholders and local authorities then drafted their own legacy plans. The City of Paris consulted 10,000 Parisians, resulting in a project aiming to benefit ‘all Parisians’, with a Paris that would become ‘more: sustainable, beautiful, egalitarian, sporty and civically engaged’*. The plan included common projects with the Seine-Saint-Denis Department to abolish borders and inequalities through education and sport and spread the Cultural Olympiad to popular neighbourhoods (Mairie De Paris, 2019, 30, 68).
The SOLIDEO, the public body responsible for the Delivering Olympic facilities and villages, identified four legacy objectives (notably for the Seine-Saint-Denis which amounts to 80% of its investment): sustainable urban areas; 150,000 new jobs and local economy; universal accessibility; innovation and technology. The Seine-Saint-Denis Department goal was to ‘leave a meaningful, lasting and balanced legacy behind for the entire area and its inhabitants’*. For one of its three sub-areas, Plaine Commune, central to the Olympics and home to the Stade de France and the athletes’ village: ‘Hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2024 constitutes an outstanding urban, economic and social development opportunity […]. The Games will leave behind not only new sports facilities, an eco-district by the Seine and new bridges built to break down regional divides, but also upskilled local companies, innovative training courses and new jobs. Plaine Commune has already begun building its legacy to ensure the Games are a celebratory, united and ethical event’* (Paris 2024, 2021a; PC, 2021).
In terms of cultural policy too, Paris 2024 was designed in a different context from London, with the cultural sector traditionally being better supported in France than in many Western countries. The level of funding was stable or increased in the past decade, although it evolved towards a more mixed model, with higher tax revenues and lowered direct support. During Emmanuel Macron’s presidency, there has been a raise of over 22% for culture – mostly for heritage conservation and education programmes – which received a stable proportion of the State budget at 0.6%, while 0.1% extra was earmarked for the Olympics in 2023. In 2022 and 2023, the Ministry of Culture (and media) budget rose by around 7% to reach around 11B. euros, including 4.2B. euros for culture. For 2023, the increase will be limited by an inflation expected at around 5% and includes 3M. euros for the Cultural Olympiad (Etat Français, 2023; CC, 2023) 2 .
The limited 2024 OCOG and State budget for the Cultural Olympiad is therefore partly compensated by the Olympic labelling of existing programmes, use of running funds, and sponsorship (still to be calculated).
For Paris 2024, the Cultural Olympiad budget of the main funders reaches over 30 M€. Force is to say that the OCOG budget of 11.9 M€ (down from 15 M€ planned) is limited, with 9 M€ from the Ministry for Culture, 6 M€ from the Paris municipality, 4 M€ from the Seine-Saint-Denis Department, and €670,000 from the SOLIDEO. It is complex to compare London and Paris’ Cultural Olympiad budgets, considering the different policy frameworks, context for culture, and length. In Paris, some public institutions will generate revenues by privatizing space (Petit Palais, Palais de Tokyo; parc de la Villette), while a drop in the number of tourists and visitors to museums and sites is evaluated at 20% (as in London). The biggest negative impact will concern live arts and festivals whose usual premises and audiences will not be free (Le Monde, 2023b; interviews, 2023).
Paris 2024 only gradually started the Cultural Olympiad programme in 2022. This was due to COVID pandemic disruptions, notably delayed plans for final competitions venues (already modified in 2020 to make better use of existing venues and showcase Paris historical heritage to boot), and instability in the Paris 2024 culture team (Paris 2024, 2022, 2023). Paris 2024 limited culture budget and context explains the Ministry of Culture steering both national and decentralized programming, and other events led by a myriad of culture and sport stakeholders throughout France, notably cultural institutions, the Olympic and Paralympic sports movement, and ‘Land of the Games’ (Terre de jeux 2024 partnership of over 500 localities with Paris 2024). Only launched in 2023, the programme will run until the closing ceremony in September 2024 to valorize French culture, share it, and explore sport and culture joint Olympic values, such as excellence, diversity, inclusion, and universalism (Paris 2024, 2023a; TJ, 2023). The nationwide Cultural Olympiad will involve enlarged versions of already well-established national Events (‘grands Rendez-vous’), notably the very popular European Heritage Days and Musique Fête which attract over 10 M. visitors a year in France. Over 2000 projects have been recorded all over France and its overseas territories or are currently being labelled, notably through an open call for projects and cultural institutions. Projects will be set in public and natural spaces, sports halls, stadiums, theatres, museums, and secret spots off the beaten track (MC, 2023). Similar to London 2012, the Paris 2024 Cultural Olympiad was co-designed with cultural actors and is free. It also has a potential for local development and outreach towards French and foreign publics, with increased attention to collaborate with sport and voluntary actors.
For the first time in Olympic history, the opening ceremonies will involve a 6-km parade along the Seine in Central Paris, about 7 times more than in a stadium (Paris 2024, 2021b). If the capital iconic monuments will also be centre-stage for many competitions and itineraries, Plaine Commune will also feature and expect positive local impacts from it. Joined to Paris by land and river, the closing ceremonies are indeed planned in its Stade de France. It has been proactive in co-designing local Cultural Olympiad that would reflect its unique cultural landscape, far from the stereotypes that may crop up in COJOP and other major events (see map). The parallel work the city of Saint Denis carried out in its bid for French European City of Culture 2028 proved useful. Although it was not pre-selected, notably for failing to articulate how participation could be managed effectively, especially with the OPG in between, the evaluation underlined strong points in creative content, local support, and sense of place (EC, 2023).
Sustainable Olympics as cultural policy: Linking cultural programming and cultural planning
Approaches to regeneration have continually evolved, with programmes attempting to reverse post-industrial decline, transform wastelands, boost entrepreneurship, and develop new activities. Since the 2000 s, even more than sport, culture has moved to the centre of the regeneration agenda (cultural events, infrastructure, and industries) as an important growth sector not only for local economic development and tourism attractivity but also social inclusion (Evans, 2001; Doustaly, 2008). However, many such ventures have attracted criticism as too commercial and unsustainable (Doustaly, 2022; Garcia, 2012; Wilks-Heeg and North 2004). The association of regeneration with sustainable development has led to a new paradigm articulating regeneration, investment, and enterprise to target lasting social and economic impacts (Smith, 2012; Wise and Whittam 2015). The links among cultural policy, new infrastructures, and place making to ensure local appropriation and development deserve more research.
London Olympics 2012: The birth of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park
The games were to be a catalyst to redevelop a polluted 226 ha site with public and private investment, into a Park with homes, jobs, public and leisure amenities, and transport, to improve the local deprived communities’ quality of life. The 2007 Legacy masterplan boasted the biggest new urban park in Europe for 200 years, focussing on outdoor recreation and biodiversity in the northern part, with the southern part around the Olympic Stadium and Westfield Shopping Centre dedicated to leisure. The project articulated legacy with sustainability (LLDC 2012a; Smith 2012).
There was a clear break when Boris Johnson replaced Ken Livingstone (2008) as the Mayor of London and the national government also shifted from Labour to Conservative (Doustaly, forthcoming 1). Instead of ‘sustainable Games’ and ‘sustainable communities’, the terminology shifted to regeneration for economic growth, for the benefit of the whole of London, rather than just East London (DCMS, 2007; Gold, 2023). Indeed, in the rhetoric of the Games, ‘regeneration played a much more prominent role in the nation’s mind than sustainability by the time the Games arrived, embodying a more pragmatic approach to the project and expressing tangible outcomes in terms of legacy’. However, sustainability remained important in framing the planning and delivery (Gold and Gold, 2016; LLDC 2012b). In 2010, to defend East London’s interests, six ‘host boroughs’ around the Park 3 developed a ‘convergence’ strategy with the objective that ‘within 20 years, the communities which host the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games will enjoy the same social and economic chances as their neighbours across London’ – clearly prioritizing local economy before or as a way to socio-cultural outputs (LA, 2007). Local aspirations for increased jobs and leisure proved difficult to address so close to the event. The limited job legacy in the building industry or for local entrepreneurs partly resulted from lack of preparation (Poynter, et al. 2016; 2017).
Means for place appropriation were overlooked. Academic research commissioned in 2010 to plan community development and sustainability for the site was little heeded (Bell, 2012). Having parts of the community working on the building Park would also have allowed a familiarity with the place.
Jones et al is right to point that ‘the 2012 London Cultural Olympiad took great efforts to use existing widespread spaces, from the alternative to the iconic as well as the historic’ (Jones et al., 2022); however, for a long time, the Park itself was not accessible to locals and restricted to building works or Olympic participants and ticket holders during the games. The only cultural ‘legacies’ other than architecture became a public art trail (Garcia 2014). Conversely tangible and intangible heritagization practices have been found to reduce uncertainty and risks which abound in Olympic mega-urban projects and improve benefits for local communities (Doustaly and Zembri-Mary, 2019). Longer-term cultural policy would have helped meet the promise of stitching the Park to East London and develop place appropriation – notably through participatory planning consultations or cultural programming (Doustaly, forthcoming 1), but it was also the local economic development model which came in contradiction with initial promises and produced today’s border effects, with Stratford in particular.
After the 2012 games: Shifting the Olympic Park’s project
After the games, a further step away from the original objectives meant that the Park functions gradually evolved with the top-down creation of an international quarter and a cultural destination hub (called East Bank). The goal was to associate retail and business with sport, cultural, and academic events and institutions, with a view to attract further property buyers, tourists, and activities. The market-led model of the LLDC meant the proportion of social and affordable housing was lowered, green spaces reduced by about half, to 45 acres, and luxury towers on the borders with Stratford added, creating further disconnection. English heritage and local associations’ views were largely ignored in the associated planning consultations (LLDC 2012a; 2015b; UCL 2022; Doustaly, forthcoming 1). The expanded LLDC area became a place for all Londoners, international visitors, and investment and in many ways ‘repositioned as a development asset rather than a public or environmental good’ (UCL/Katz, 2022, 18–30; see map below). Rather than addressing locals, the ‘topological politics of the Olympics’ acted more and more as a ‘deterritorialising force’ (Allen and Cochrane, 2014) (Figure 1).
The short time allowed for the LLDC to become financially independent has put pressure on the legacy promise, gentrification leading to displacement and worsening living conditions for pre-games local communities. Today, despite the objective to ‘stitch’ the Park with neighbouring boroughs, it is underused by them and partially disjunct from local heritage and identity.
A 2014–2015 cultural programme, created to develop local ownership, was not repeated. It aimed to explore how ‘the Park could be used in the future, and […] continue to make and nurture local connections’ through 16 projects and 354 days of activity, co-created with locally based organizations and individuals (events, workshops, walks, performances, and installations), and involved over 31,000 Park visitors. According to its organizers, it showcased the ‘wealth of community, talent and creativity based in East London’ and ‘proved’ culture’s transformative powers: ‘people make the place, with activities designed to bring people together, capture imaginations and to inspire. The projects encouraged exploration and ownership of the Park’s landscape through being on the ground and actively taking part, and reinforced some of the physical routes and connections to the surrounding neighbourhoods’ (LLDC, 2015a). There is little to criticize about the intent and the method, except insufficient regular funding was invested on such programmes, which limits are the proportion of visible minority employees at the LLDC department, neighbouring publics attending and pre-games publics living onsite (and no longitudinal methodology to track these, ‘locals’ being a constantly evolving category). However, programming towards diverse youth has fared better and been developed in most existing Olympic venues, from Here East, to the Copper Box and the Velodrome (Doustaly, forthcoming 1).
Longer-term cultural programming has been implemented by some of the new cultural and academic institutions associated as ‘East Bank’, supported by the Foundation for Future London (public and private funds, including Westfield and the LLDC). The Foundation was created in 2015, to ensure local communities in Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets, and Waltham Forest would benefit from learning, training, and employment opportunities associated to East Bank’s arts, education, culture, innovation, and placemaking and provide ‘equitable opportunities and fair regeneration’ (FFL, 2023). In the absence of borough authority, this can be interpreted as a late move to balance LLDC power and compensate its lack of local impact. UCL East, whose motto, ‘disruptive thinking’ is branded around its campus, started local engagement 10 years before opening the site this year. Its current exhibitions critically examine local heritage, urban change, and empowerment: ‘social practice, activism, collective memory, urbanisation and community engagement’ (UCL, 2023; Melhuish et al., 2022). The V&A East project has also addressed local engagement and economy from the outset, creating co-curating programmes and training opportunities for local youth. If East Bank rebalances the cultural offer east of London, it can also be seen as reinforcing the weight of ‘outsiders’ locally (ethnography and interviews 2012–2023).
From the UCL review of the literature long list of challenges, the following can apply to Paris 2024: - the threat of an ‘encroaching urbanism’ - ‘the failure to make the Park itself an asset to long-term residents of East London’ (UCL 2022).
The other issues identified do not apply, showing the persistent idiosyncrasies in such complex local economic development, away from the global uniformity sometimes noted – notably the LLDC governance and commercial model to create ‘a new urban neighbourhood that is a net benefit’ and the underfunded and central-London steered cultural infrastructure, community institutions, and new ‘knowledge economy’ (i.e. East Bank) (UCL, 2022).
To balance this later view, John Gold underlines the importance of another 2022 detailed analysis of the Olympic Park project based on a longer historical planning perspective, which unveils the sheer complexity of regenerating such a huge site and finding investment and a financial model for it and reminds us that most mega urban projects objectives evolve: ‘whatever the assurances initially offered by developers, renewal tends to offer little to existing communities and much to gentrifying newcomers’ (Gold, 2023). While the London games attracted more academic literature than any other games, it is less the case, now but the complexity of the Olympic village development deserves further interdisciplinary scrutiny.
Lebeau raised similar strong concerns on sustainable legacies for Plaine commune locals (2018). It is too early to say, but as detailed below, Paris 2024 less complex stakeholder, financial and governance model, its public and local steering, and associated cultural policy approach may allow to remain closer to the original plans.
Plaine Commune’s long experience in associating local development and cultural planning
The inter-municipality (EPI) Plaine Commune, gathering 9 municipalities and currently presided by the socialist Mayor of Saint-Denis, was until the 2020s one of the last red suburbs of Ile de France. It is responsible for the inter-district planning and associated regulations (PLIi, Agenda 21), territorial strategy, and management and is also an urban project operator (Plaine Commune Development).
In the 1990s, it effectively attached its dynamic cultural policy and planning not only to its social but also economic and political goals. Communist reformers introduced an ‘entrepreneurial turn’, echoing the ‘creativity’ paradigms found in many local economic strategies. This set the grounds for a city-making strategy based on cultural policy, which aimed to offer an alternative to stereotypical global economic development models around ‘creative industry clusters’ or ‘creative cities’. Plaine Commune has also openly used culture politically to articulate communist activism and beliefs and to valorize working class suburban heritage through bottom-up programmes about built heritage and cultural diversity, associating the public and not-for-profit sectors. It has developed a strong expertise on valorizing local majority and minority heritage values, gaining the Ministry of Culture label ‘City of art and history’ in 2014, and also supported the creation of a diverse creative ecosystem. The two approaches were fused to create a ‘cultural planning’ approach (Evans, 2001) and were supported by the long-term vision and leadership of Patrick Braouzec for almost 30 years (2016).
Going further, its current cultural planning and policies articulate glocal with alternative economy, and are characterized by their ‘participatory dimension, involvement within the social and solidarity economy and construction for ideally all inhabitants’*. Even if Plaine Commune’s policies alternative dimension therefore remains ambivalent, they circumvented the dominant way creative agendas were using culture and managed to push its wider local agenda on place appropriation, sense of pride, and identity against an expanding metropolis gentrification (Cousin et al., 2015). The strategy allowed local actors to access public and private funds while retaining their priorities.
A similar logic infuses Plaine Commune’s strategic plan for the Olympics (PC, 2020). Recognizing that it was found to feed gentrification by valorizing the area, its local planning regulations, extending national ones, limit gentrification more than in the UK (PC, 2023d).
Around the London games, cultural co-production with locals was still a recent practice, and the exceptional governance and financial model of the LLDC were also obstacles to share common goals with the surrounding boroughs. What both deprived localities share is a strategy to increase local revenues to fund their social policies, Stratford being open about using the Park to attract wealthier inhabitants.
Cultural programming for Olympic sustainable legacy in Plaine Commune
Most of the Paris 2024 Olympic urban and transport developments concern Plaine Commune and target physical connections, activity and housing, place appropriation, and sustainability. The size of the Paris 2024 athletes’ village (see Figure 2) is less than a quarter of London’s Olympic Park. It will count 25% of affordable housing, half the percentage of Plaine Commune (and around twice the proportion of London’s Park) (PC, 2022, 2023d, UCL, 2022). The village is only 2,5 km from the Stade de France and the Olympic Aquatics centre opposite the only major new sports infrastructure while the media village will help develop a sports hub in an existing park, a further 7 km away. This separate but close layout and an intermediate housing and activities profile (no luxury projects as yet) aim to provide easier economic, social, and cultural integration and increased benefits for the larger area (Figure 2).
The Olympics are also an opportunity to combat territorial prejudice and change negative representations (criminality, drugs, and unemployment) the Seine-Saint-Denis and Plaine Commune have long been associated with, regardless of partial gentrification. Local actors have seized the Olympics to enhance their reputation, with associated local economic and social impacts. To do this, they reinforced the promotion of their diverse cultural assets, mostly located in Plaine Commune: the Seine banks and industrial canals, home to Street Art Avenue (4), the Basilique-cathédrale de Saint-Denis (French Kings burial site), a convent, the Stade de France (3), the Cité du cinema (1), the 6B (a brownfield turned artist residency), the museum of art and history, and Saint-Ouen Flee market. A 2020 survey concluded that these sites were better identified and that the games were already having a positive influence on Seine-Saint-Denis’ image, especially on Parisians (Gignon and Delaplace, 2021).
This will be reinforced by the Cultural Olympiad from Summer 2023. Plaine Commune's programme, announced in June 2023, is eclectic, often set in public spaces and participatory, aiming to encourage dialogue between Olympic values, sport and cultural actors, targeted at local audiences, in particular young people and families. It will celebrate France’s ‘rich artistic life’ with a series of ‘popular and fun events’ open to all and mostly free: performances, concerts, exhibitions, digital creation, dance shows, parades, films, circus, workshops, walks, parties, etc., also managed by diverse stakeholders (associations, collectives, sports clubs, and local authorities).
The Cultural Olympiad relies on locally anchored long-term co-creations between artists and sportspeople, high and alternative arts, for instance, the Symphonic Orchestra Divertimento with the breakdance company Käfig, the travelling show ‘Hand Hop’ (puppets and breakdance), and a griot artist (‘Le voyage musical de la Cité des marmots’). In 2024, the Cultural Olympiad will also provide overlaps among people, areas, and art forms, allowing publics to: - watch over and document their territory in photos, texts etc., from local high points, finishing at the athlete’s village (‘Les Veilleurs’), - engage in fun dance and comedy games (Philippe Découflé, ‘Spores Mous’), - meet a travelling circus (‘Fratellini circus tour’), - cycle to create optical and kinetic art (‘Cycloscopies’), - join reading and music activities around the themes of sport and gender equality in the 21 libraries (‘Éclats de sports’).
The local Olympic iconic project is Street Art Avenue. Created in 2016, it is an urban art itinerary along the canal between the Stade de France and Porte de la Villette with over 30 works from well-known artists and collectives (Guate Mao, les sœurs Chevalme, Alexandra Arango, Marko 93, etc.). It will host activities organized by cultural providers and associations to develop links among artists (6B), the sites, and canal users and even create boats for a parade (‘L’Odyssée’). A majority of projects find inspiration in the local diverse cultures to appeal to the local public. As for the Cultural Olympiad nationally, many co-produced events are a continuation of existing successful projects (PC, 2023a; 2023b; 2023c; interviews, 2023).
Athlete’s Villages: Which role for culture in sustainable urban regeneration?
In contrast with London’s Olympic Park, Paris 2024 Athletes’ village is only 52 ha and better integrated with adjoining multicultural neighbourhoods and the Natura 2000 site. It offers more shared public amenities (schools in particular), public and green spaces, local industrial and intangible heritage valorization, and social and environmental innovation. The three municipalities – Saint-Denis, Saint-Ouen, and the Île-Saint-Denis – have retained authority on the area. The public SOLIDEO coordinates planning and delivery on the publically and privately owned plots (contrary to London, see above).
Also contrary to London, the land was only partially a wasteland before being redeveloped for the games. In 2009, a 65,000 sqm mixed-development zone (ZAC) turned an old electric powerhouse into a cinema production hub (‘Cité du cinéma’) mostly rented by EuropaCorp, a company then owned by well-known director Luc Besson. The hub facing economic hardships, it was chosen to accommodate the Athletes’ village canteen (600,000 daily meals), sports training halls, and to provide a landmark heritage asset. The future of the complex is still unknown as its renters, including the public cinema school ENS Louis Lumière, will be evicted. The latter, a technical school of excellence, is expected to be split into several sites, breaking down its entire pedagogy based on the collaboration of the sound, cinema, and photography departments. In this case, the Olympics are superficially using heritage venues, rather than supporting long-term regeneration to sustain an already strong cinema ecosystem (SOLIDEO 2023, PC, 2020, 2022; Le Monde, 2023c; fieldwork, 2023) (Figure 3).
In 2018, the respected architect and urbanist Dominique Perrault produced the design of the Athlete’s Village’s master plan in line with Paris 2024 s candidacy, adapting to what he defined as a complex and overlooked site. Perrault came with strong credentials, having a long experience of iconic and large-scale planning and architectural projects worldwide and in Paris along the Seine (Bibliothèque Nationale de France; Redevelopment plan for the Île de la Cité). The Village was to illustrate state-of-the-art planning allowing it to be repurposed within 3 years into a new eco-responsible, functional neighbourhood for the benefit for 6000 residents, 6000 workers, and the local community. The plan was to metropolitanize the area by re-anchoring it to Paris and to the Seine’s history and geography. A new instrument, the 2-phase planning permit, was used to embed the legacy stage from the outset (interviews, CC, 2023).
The SOLIDEO plans, finances, and supervises 14 operators and 41 architects. Started in 2021, the works should be delivered on time, by early 2024, to provide lodging during the Olympics for around 14,000 athletes, 8000 paralympic athletes, and up to 206 delegations. For the first time in the games, in-depth interviews and consultations of athletes with previous experience of the games were carried out by the Athletes’ Commission of Paris 2024. The resulting manifesto (Paris, 2020b, 2024) is aligned with current best practice for inclusive and sustainable neighbourhoods and SOLIDEO’s view of the legacy, focused on convivial, safe, and green spaces for work and leisure characterized by high environmental standards (47% less carbon use compared to traditional build). A mixed-funded urban art programme on the theme of nature, ‘Fertile currents’, curated 15 works to reflect this vision (SOLIDEO, 2023). For Garcia, the public art trail in London’s Olympic Park has allowed a dialogue between publics and ‘Olympic signs and ideas’ (Garcia, 2014). An Arts centre (‘Cité des Arts’) call for tender also opened in June 2023: ‘At the heart of the Athletes’ Village eco-district, under the planning project management of Plaine Commune Development, a 5-storey building covering 1,500 m2 will be a space dedicated to freestyle and urban cultures, all disciplines combined’* (SOLIDEO, 2023). This differs from the global ambition of London’s East Bank, but could add a relevant space where the village, surrounding neighbourhoods, and visitors could meet, these arts forms being currently popular with most backgrounds.
The village new builds have been attached to other legacy promises. The job programme to support local economy was challenging to implement, as in London, but the SOLIDEO was under heavier scrutiny and planned ahead. It already reached its quantitative objectives (notably 10% of all worked hours for job integration; 25% for social enterprises and SMEs). Even though structural obstacles may restrict a long-term employment impact, such links limit symbolic exclusion from the future area (Le Monde, 2023a; Doustaly, forthcoming 2; fieldwork 2023). A cultural approach to architecture as aesthetic, innovative, and sustainable has been harnessed by a SOLIDEO advertisement to appeal to ethnically diverse youths who make up a large proportion of northern Paris unskilled unemployed. An impressive SOLIDEO video conveys a positive multicultural message to encourage them to be part of a ‘unique experience’. The video shows athletes running in the athletes’ village and iconic Parisian monuments, then follows a mixed-race baby growing, training in a top of the art college, signing up an apprenticeship in a beautifully renovated old building, becoming a confident worker on the most impressive village new builds, falling in love with a partner from a different ethnicity, and, in a circular message, rousing the admiration of a child (SOLIDEO, 2023; fieldwork, 2022–2023). Other local jobs that lack attractivity in event, tourism, and security may become more attractive, within similar limits, thanks to the games.
Cultural policy and planning in all its forms have therefore been used to render the Olympic legacy more sustainable than in previous games, with the support of London’s best practice and IOC’s evolutions.
Conclusions
From a cultural policy perspective, the Olympics under study have been an opportunity to create new artistic propositions, urban forms, and management methods, continuing a long history of mega cultural events spearheading urban and socio-cultural change around new cultural quarters, starting with the 1851 Great Exhibition (Doustaly, 2013; Gold and Gold, 2014). The symbolic and inter-relational dimension of culture means it has been attached as a tool to policies of glocal appropriation and intercultural dialogue which support local activity and social cohesion. Culture is also a mixed economic sector, rightly identified by public, private, and voluntary actors as growing and non-transferable – a precious asset in post-industrial areas. Culture therefore runs transversally across local economy matters. Being heavily reliant on cooperation, critical distance, and public values, its processes can be found more sustainable (Doustaly, 2019), with no guarantee of course (Belfiore, 2012).
This article discussed the evolution of Olympic legacy and sustainability frameworks as the IOC started aiming for improved games’ respectability and acceptability. It then analyzed the diverse cultural policies attached to these objectives in the case of London 2012 and Paris 2024 and their athletes’ villages. It concludes that if the IOC defends its capacity as an organization to introduce positive multi-scalar change (IOC New Norm, 2018), the implementation of this change has increasingly relied not only on host territories and countries’ orientations but also resources (human, capital, etc.). Faced with a lack of candidates, the IOC offered Los Angeles to be host in 2028 (it lost to Paris in 2024), and a new selection process focussing on legacy was introduced for Brisbane in 2032, giving increased importance to such local resources and stakeholders (Castejon et al., 2023-2024).
The cultural sectors have showed ‘defensive instrumentalism’ in the past (Belfiore, 2012), seizing funding where it was by overstating the impact of culture, because policies of legitimation and the sector struggled to make the case for culture by articulating its intrinsic value (Doustaly, 2013). In the case of Paris and London, one may note instrumentalism. However, many cultural and local actors have carved independence from Olympic and national systems to defend their own agendas and ‘progressive, universalist, or humanistic’ values which the IOC has striven to represent (Liberation/Clastres, 2012; Cohen and Watt, 2017). This may explain why the IOC framework has become less prescriptive in the cultural programming between the London and Paris editions.
In terms of cultural planning, the new London Olympic Park was little articulated to it neighbouring community or industrial heritage and authorized a series of luxury buildings disconnected the east of the Park with poorer Stratford. Paris 2024 long-term territorial strategy in Seine-Saint Denis has favoured smaller sized and separate Paris Athletes’ and Media villages and is harnessing cultural policy to develop its local economy with a view to ensure sustainable legacies for the existing local population while remaining attractive to investment and newcomers, a complex balancing act not unlike today’s SDG requirements.
From the IOC perspective, the ‘return on investment’ may be safer in this distanced form, even if limited by the resulting lose linkage with Olympic brand and values. Such obstacle was noted by the European Union in its EU Cities of culture scheme before being better addressed (EC, 2023). Indeed, in glocal events, the national and local narratives tend to be better understood. One of the other obstacles is physical: the restricted use by the wider public of Olympic venues and villages, only accessible to ticket holders and Olympic actors during the games, limits appropriation. The recent development of multi-stakeholder co-production, around several host cities or territories, as exemplified in Paris 2024 and Milano Cortina 2026 (Jones et al., 2022), could also offer a better link-up with OCOGs.
It is too early to conclude on the long-term effects of the Paris 2024 project, trying to organize ‘open’ games not only by locating many ceremonies and competitions in already appropriated heritage sites or public spaces but also by setting up inclusive fan zones. Its cultural programme may prove more sustainable in that it relies on an already strong ecosystem, limited but longer-term budget, and clear legacy objectives. The OCOG let go of cultural steering with the French Ministry of Culture taking up its usual dual role of organizing large-scale iconic ‘built up’ events and support smaller ones through its decentralized entities or local stakeholders. Relying on existing programmes and institutions could allow to improve Olympic values linkage within popular rituals. The OCOG’s cultural programming might however signpost a historical moment of glocal celebration or also approach French identity in its complexity.
For future editions, it would be useful to clarify cultural competencies to co-create further, and either approach the whole Olympics as a cultural policy project, which would imply to modify its commercial model, or protect culture from direct Olympic actors’ interference through arm’s length management.
Although this was Garcia’s starting perspective (2004), further research is needed to analyze how Olympic cultural programming interacts with urban planning, place appropriation, and local legacy. Such exploration would benefit from ethnographic and a detailed knowledge of local cultural dynamics, as mapped in the HERITRISK matrix (Doustaly and Zembri-Mary, 2019) and also draw on later frameworks (Jones et al., 2022).
Embedding evaluation from the beginning of the project, now common practice in glocal cultural projects, would support legacy and sustainability objectives. Universities are central partners to critically examine projects, inform decision making, and provide qualitative analysis unavailable in impact studies’ evaluation. London 2012 initially supported dynamic academic research, with a sharp decrease 10 years on (UCL, 2022). Paris 2024 has little solicited academic support, contrary to public actors (notably the DRAC Ile de France and Plaine Commune) (Castejon et al., 2023-2024; DRAC, 2023).
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Ethnographic and documentation work has been carried out in London and Paris for over 20 years, on the Olympics from 2010. All my thanks to the professionals, civil society members, and academics who shared their expertise during informal conversations and formal interviews carried out between 2015 and 2022, in particular Plaine Commune (Céline Daviet, Head of Olympic Games); Paris Ile de France Regional Tourism Office (Emmanuel Blum, Head of partnerships); the Maison du projet (Léa Marie, SOLIDEO), the Ministry of Culture, the Mairie de Paris, firms, and associations involved in Paris 2024. Research in Paris and London for this article was facilitated through two Cergy Paris Université projects I jointly coordinate: HERITRISK 4 with Geneviève Zembri-Mary, and OCC ‘Olympic Cities and Culture’ 5 , with Vanessa Castejon and Charlotte Gould.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: CY Cergy Paris Université, Université Paris Nanterre, Sorbonne Paris Nord Université, Plaine Commune, MSH Paris Nord; HERITRISK & OCC Projects.
