Being awarded the organisation the Olympic and Paralympic Games (OG) implies that the host cities must tackle several major challenges: The mandatory delivery of the Olympic venues (sport, transport and athletes housing) by the date of the OPG, and the post-Olympic sustainability. Organising the Games demands exceptional urban planning and governance. This article analyses planning law amendments to be made for the OPG in various fields (environment, building permits, participation, etc.), and looks at the link between the level of waiver and the implementation of certain types of urban planning projects (sport venues and flagship projects of international scope). The study is based on a comparative approach to three Olympiads: Paris 2024, London 2012 and Athens 2004, each representing a different level of interaction between the urban project and the Olympic projects. Three aspects are addressed: (1) the political, legal and planning strategies of how to integrate the OPG project into urban mega-projects (which are ‘exceptional’ projects by nature); (2) the waivers and innovations in town planning law; (3) a critical analysis of the specific governance and the socio-economic impacts of these mega-projects on the local residents.
AgambenG (2005) State of Exception. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
2.
AndersonB (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
3.
AntheaumeBGirautF (2005) Le territoire est mort, vive les Territoires ! : une (re) Fabrication au nom du Développement. Paris: IRD éditions.
4.
ApostolopoulouEPanagiotaK (2021) Community gardening in Hellinikon as a resistance struggle against neoliberal urbanism: spatial autogestion and the right to the city in post-crisis Athens, Greece. Urban Geography43(2): 293–319.
5.
AppertM (2012) La Tour Orbit à Londres, faire-valoir des Jeux?Métropolitiques. Online.
6.
AppertM (2012) Les JO 2012 à Londres : un grand événement alibi du renouvellement urbain à l’est de la capitale. Géoconfluences. Online.
7.
AubyJB (1999) Le droit de l’urbanisme en Grande-Bretagne. Annuaire français du droit de l’urbanisme et de l’habitat. Paris: GRIDAUH, pp. 497–513.
8.
BacquéMH (2010) L’empowerment, en quête de pouvoir. In: Démocratie participative, impératif délibératif et empowerment. Val d’Oise: Pôle de ressources départemental Ville et développement social, pp. 9–14.
9.
BalampanidisDMaloutasTPapatzaniE, et al. (2019) Informal urban regeneration as a way out of the crisis? Airbnb in Athens and its effects on space and society. Urban Research & Practicen°3: 223–242. April.
10.
BessyO (2004) La durabilité, nouveau mythe des Jeux olympiques. Espace220: 14–16.
11.
BourbillèresHKoebelM (2019) Les processus de contestation dans le cadre des candidatures des villes européennes au Jeux olympiques et paralympiques 2024. Movement & Sport Science – Science & Motricité. Online.
12.
BraconnierS (2018) Urbanisme, construction publique et Jeux olympiques Paris 2024. Commentaire de la loi n°2018-202 du 26 mars 2018 relative à l’organisation des Jeux olympiques et paralympiques 2024. RDI: 312.
13.
BrennerN (2004) New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford: OUP.
14.
BruzeliusNFlyvbjergBRothengatterW (2002) Big decisions, big risks. Improving accountability in mega projects. Transport Policy9: 143-154.
15.
ChappeletJL (2022) Pourquoi donc organiser des méga-événements sportifs. Jurisportn°228: 37.
16.
ChasseriauA (2002) Les grands équipements au service de la régénération urbaine. Nantes: ESO, travaux et documents. n°18.
17.
CohenLMarchesiniG (2018) Institutions. Jeux Olympiques et paralympiques 2024 – L’influence de la lex olympica sur le droit national. Jurisport n°189: 38.
18.
ComoletADeconinckA (2001) Le principe d’intégration. Historique et interprétation. Revue Européenne de Droit de l'Environnement5(2): 52–167.
19.
DelladetsimaPM (2003) The Olympic village: a redevelopment marathon in greater Athens. In: MoulaertFRodriguezASwyngedouwE (eds) Globalized City: Economic Restructuring and Social Polarization in European Cities. New-York: Oxford University Press, pp. 65–90.
20.
DelladetsimaPM (2015) Jeux olympiques et installations olympiques. Athens social atlas. Online.
21.
DenzinNK (1978) The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New York: Praeger.
22.
EshuisJKlijnEHBraunE (2014) Place marketing and citizen participation: branding as strategy to address the emotional dimension of policy making?International Review of Administrative Sciences80(1): 151–171. Version française : Eshuis J, Klijn EH and Braun E (2014). Marketing territorial et participation citoyenne : le branding, un moyen de faire face à la dimension émotionnelle de l'élaboration des politiques ?Revue Internationale des Sciences administratives, 80(1): 153-174.
FlyvbjergBStewartA (2012) Olympic Proportions: Cost and Cost Overrun at the Olympics 1960-2012, Saïd Business School Working Papers. Oxford: University of Oxford.
25.
FlyvbjergBBruzeliusNRothengatterW (2014) Megaprojects and Risk. An Anatomy of Ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
GoldJRWardSV (1994) Introduction. In: GoldJRWardSV (eds) Place Promotion: The Use of Publicity and Public Relations to Sell Towns and Regions. Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 1–17.
27.
GoldJRGoldMM (2008) Olympic cities: regeneration, city rebranding and changing urban agendas. Geography Compass,2/1 (2008): 300–318.
28.
GouguetJJLepetitC (2017) JOP Paris 2024 : l’enjeu de l’héritage. Jurisportn°178: 42–45.
29.
GrixJHoulihanB (2014) Sports mega-events as part of a nation’s soft power strategy: the cases of Germany (2006) and the UK (2012). The British Journal of Politics & International Relations16(4): 572–596.
30.
HayesGHorneJ (2011) Sustainable development, shock and awe? London 2012 and civil society. Sociology45/5: 749–764.
31.
HenryA (2005) Projet Urbain et Jeux Olympiques : le cas d’Athènes 2004. Dijon: Université de Franche-Comté, p. 376.
32.
HillerHH (2000) Mega-events, urban boosterism and growth strategies: an analysis of the objectives and legitimations of the Cape Town 2004 Olympic Bid. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research24(2): 449–458.
33.
HillerHH (2012) Host Cities and the Olympics: An Interactionist Approach. London: Routledge.
34.
IOC (2005) Host City Contract-Games of XXX Olympiad in 2012. Lausanne: International Olympic Committee.
35.
IOC (2017) Contrat ville hôte, Principes, Jeux de la XXXIIIe Olympiade en 2024. Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, p. 45.
36.
IOC (2020) Olympic Agenda 2020, 20+20 Recommendations. Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, p. 25.
37.
Kassens-NoorE (2012) Planning Olympic Legacies: Transport Dreams and Urban Realities. London: Routledge.
38.
Le BosséY (2003) De l’“habilitation” au “pouvoir d’agir” : vers une appréhension plus circonscrite de la notion d’empowerment. Nouvelles Pratiques Sociales16/2: 30–51.
39.
Luna FreireL (2016) Les Jeux Olympiques pour qui ? Les actions du comité populaire de le Coupe du monde et des Jeux Olympiques de Rio de Janeiro contre un modèle urbain d’exclusion. Problèmes d’Amérique Latine 4, n°103: 95–117.
40.
MaloutasTSouliotisN (2019) Jeux Olympiques d’Athènes : quel héritage après dix ans de crise ?Métropolitiques. Sept. Online.
41.
MarieS (2020) Le permis à double état : la première pierre à la construction de la réversibilité des usages des bâtiments. RDIn°3: 129.
42.
MarmayouJM (2015) Le contrat de « ville hôte » pour les Jeux Olympiques. In: Maisonneuve M Droit & Olympisme - Contribution A L’étude Juridique D’un Phénomène Transnational. Aix-Marseille: PUAM, pp. 113–168.
43.
MillerRLessardDR (2008) Evolving strategy: risk management and the shaping of large engineering projects. In: PriemusHFlyvbjergBVan WeeB (eds) Decision-Making on Mega Projects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 145–172.
44.
Moraes e SilvaM (2020) Les jeux de Rio, l’occasion manquée. Jurisport: 30.
45.
NativelC (2011) Mobilisations urbaines et espaces de résistance aux Jeux Olympiques de Londres et de Vancouver. Observatoire de la société britannique11: 191–221.
46.
NyeJS (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New-York: Public Affairs.
47.
OCDE (2021) Mettre en œuvre la recommandation de l’OCDE sur les manifestations internationales et le développement local, p. 89.
48.
OngA (2006) Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship. Durham, London: Duke University Press Books.
49.
PastorJM (2023) Une loi d’exception pour un évènement sportif hors norme. Actualité Dalloz. Online.
50.
PoynterG (2009) The 2012 Olympic games and the reshaping of East London. In: ImrieRLeesLRacoM (eds) Regenerating London: Governance, Sustainability and Community in a Global City. London: Routledge, pp. 132–150.
51.
PreussH (2004) Calculating the regional economic impact of the Olympic Games. European Sport Management Quarterly4: 234–253.
52.
PuigP (2015) La lex Olympica. In: MaisonneuveM (ed) Droit & Olympisme - Contribution A L’étude Juridique D’un Phénomène Transnational. Aix-Marseille: PUAM, pp. 27–42.
53.
RacoM (2014) Delivering flagship projects in an era of regulatory capitalism: state-led privatization and the London Olympics 2012. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research38/1: 176–197.
54.
RobertsP (2000) The evolution, definition and purpose of urban regeneration. In: RobertsPSykesH (eds) Urban Regeneration. A Handbook. London: Sage Publications.
55.
RoultSLefebvreS (2010) Reconversion des héritages olympiques et rénovation de l’espace urbain : le cas des stades olympiques. Géographie Économie Société12/4: 367–391.
56.
SánchezFBroudehouxAM (2013) Mega-events and urban regeneration in Rio de Janeiro: planning in a state of emergency. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development5(2): 132–153.
ScandizzoPPierleoniMR (2017) Assessing the Olympic games: the economic impact and beyond. Journal of Economic Surveys32(3): 649–682.
59.
SmithM (2008) When the games come to town: host cities and the local impacts of the Olympics. A Report on the Impacts of the Olympic Games and Paralympics on Host Cities. London East Research Institute Working Papers, December.
60.
SmithA (2012) Events and Urban Regeneration: The Strategic Use of Events to Revitalise Cities. London: Routledge.
61.
SmithA (2013) “De-Risking” East London: Olympic regeneration planning 2000-2012. European Planning Studies22/9: 1919–1939.
62.
SmithAMcGillivrayD (2020) The long-term implications of mega-Event projects for urban public spaces. Sport in Society: 1–17.
63.
SochonR (2020) Les évolutions du droit de l’aménagement et de l’urbanisme avec les JO de 2024. LPA. Online.
64.
SouliotisN (2009) Stratégies culturelles et régénération urbaine dans le centre historique d’Athènes : conditions locales et tendances mondiales (Cultural strategies and urban regeneration in the historic center of Athens : local conditions and global trends). In: KotzamaniBKugolosABeriatosH, et al. (eds) Proceedings of the 2 Th Panhellenic Conference on Urban Planning, Spatial Planning and Regional Development, Volis, 24-27 September 2009 : 665-674. Volos, Greece. Department of Engineering of Spatial Planning, Urban Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly, University of Thessaly Publications, vol. 2.
65.
SouliotisNSayasIMaloutasT (2014) Mega-projects, neoliberalization and state capacities: assessing the medium-term impact of the 2004 Olympic games on Athenian urban policies. Environment and Planning C: 731–745.
66.
StavridesS (2010) The Athens 2004 Olympics: modernization as a state of emergency. In: International Conference on Mega-Events and the City, Niteiroi, Brazil: Federal Fluminense University.
67.
StreblerJP (2018) Protection des paysages contre les intérêts financiers : les batailles perdues. Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif: 1530.
68.
SwyngedouwECoxK (eds) (1997) Neither global nor local: ‘Glocalization’ and the politics of scale. In: Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local. New-York: Guilford Press, pp. 137–166.
69.
SwyngedouwEMoulaertFRodriguezA (2002) Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: large-scale urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode34/3: 542–577. 06/2002.
70.
ThiardP (2007) Attractivité et compétitivité : offre territoriale, approches marketing et retombées. In: L’attractivité des territoires : regards croisés. Paris: PUCA, Actes des séminaires, pp. 47–48.
71.
ViguierJ (2014) Continuité juridique et innovation juridique. In: La (dis)continuité en Droit. Toulouse: Presses de l’Université Toulouse Capitole. Online.
72.
VuignierR (2016) Place marketing and place branding: a systematic (and tentatively exhaustive) literature review. Working Paper de l’IDHEAP, 5/2016.
73.
WattP (2013) It's not for us. City17/1: 99–118.
74.
WiseNHarrisJ (eds), (2017). London: Routledge.Sport, Events, Tourism and Regeneration.
75.
WiseNMaguireK (eds) (2022) A Research Agenda for Event Impacts. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
76.
Zembri-MaryG (2019) Project Risks: Actions Around Uncertainty in Urban Planning and Infrastructure Development. London: ISTE/John Wiley & Sons.
77.
Zembri-MaryG (2023) Can post-Olympic Games urban regeneration be spontaneous and unplanned? The case of Athens Olympic Games (2004). Journal of conventions and event tourism24(2): 156–181.
78.
Zembri-MaryGDoustalyC (2019) The role of heritagisation in managing uncertainties linked to major events and mega urban projects: comparing the Olympic Games in London (2012) and Athens (2004). In DelaplaceMSchutPO (eds) Hosting the Olympic Games. Uncertainty, Debate, Controversy and Learnings for Paris 2024. London: Routledge: 93-106.
