Mega-events are a threat to low-income residents

Please chip in to support rabble's election 2019 coverage. Support today for as little as $1 per month!

Dr. Kris Olds served on the Advisory Committee for the Center on Housing Rights and Evictions, which issued the Fair Play for Housing Rights report. He visited Vancouver last week. Dr. Olds spoke with Am Johal for

Am Johal: What is the link between hallmark events, such as the Olympics, and evictions?

Kris Olds: These events magnify existing development paths. They are implicated [in evictions], but they are not the only factor. They are a key mechanism to spurring on change, particularly since the 1970s. There is clear evidence that they have played a role in generating evictions from place to place. Is it the only force? No, but an event of this magnitude does play a role, absolutely.

In Atlanta for the 1996 Olympics, it was social engineering to remove African American residents from the city center. There was more money, more wealth, more restaurants. Bistros opened up where existing residents couldn't afford to eat.

Do you think policies are in place today to prevent evictions in future host cities?

I understand that there have been changes since 1985-86 [Expo 86] in Vancouver. I imagine it might help somewhat. With respect to housing impacts, governments can't assume landlords will not try to profit or that the inner city will not be hit by speculation. Take the case of Expo 86. People were caught up in the sweep of the euphoria. All of the landlords lost their shirts. They were completely naïve. They were completely irrational. An event brings with it a heightened euphoria. It's not a normal time. It's an important time to bring in extraordinary measures to mitigate these negative impacts.

We need to adopt the precautionary principle. The positive impacts of these events are among specific areas, but the negative impacts tend to be in specific areas where people are not in a position to defend themselves.

Particularly if you look at Seoul or Beijing âe" they have played a role in generating evictions. In Atlanta for the 1996 Olympics, it was social engineering to remove African American residents from the city center. There was more money, more wealth, more restaurants. Bistros opened up where existing residents couldnt afford to eat. It is a regular pattern that unfolds differently in various places.

As a planning student at UBC, you studied the evictions of Expo 86. Can you speak to that?

First some context. The first time evictions came up as an issue for these types of events was in 1974 in Spokane, Washington, and in 1982 in Knoxville, Tennessee in relation to the world's fair. They held these events to revitalize their "skid rows." People were trying to bring these events into the city center.

In the North American context, they were trying to push things through and push through regulatory changes. They were concentrated on tenants in the lower income areas of the town. In Montreal during the 1976 Olympics, there were billboards hiding the public from seeing the poor.

Expo 86 was many years in the making. In the 1982-83 period, when Expo planning was underway, there were many changes occurring, including the loss of Single Resident Occupancy (SRO) hotels. The fair was held for six months in 1986. There were concerns that the Social Credit provincial government had an interest in cleaning up the neighbourhood. I ended up working with the planning department at the City, the Downside Eastside Residents Association (DERA), and university people to try to chronicle the debate. Given what happened, 550 to 850 people were evicted, and there were losses of hundreds of SROs. A number of people committed suicide in relation to those evictions.

What is happening in Beijing?

Like Seoul, they have tried to symbolize a transformation into the "modern" era and fast-track urban change. There are symbolic elements. It enables them to build facilities. They attempted to put themselves on the map. They are using these games to showcase China as a modern superpower. Yet, in the process, hundreds of thousands of evictions have taken place.

The interesting thing is that while there are massive relocations, at least in the Chinese case there is alternative housing but you wouldn't know as an evicted tenant when it's going to be available, where it is located, or what unit you will be placed in. You may be split from your neighbours as well. They are razing entire neighbourhoods for bridges, sports facilities and urban development.

In China, it's an even more authoritarian context. It is dangerous to be a critic. The research team had to be anonymous. They were monitored, and some critics of the displacement process have been jailed. Some bloggers were jailed for talking about the housing context of these games.

One of the arguments that comes up is that these events begin with a level of public investment to initiate the process and for the required infrastructure. The disproportionate beneficiaries of these events end up being tourism and real estate sectors. Would it be appropriate to temporarily tax these sectors to help fund social impacts?

These events could not take place without significant public investment. Architects of these events try to extract monies, in association with these games and other types of these hallmark events. With respect to the Vancouver Olympic Games, clearly the road improvements will benefit people who live in Whistler. There's going to be many positive benefits. So, it's a way to use public largesse to benefit certain groups. This is some of the reasons they try to do it. Though they are negatively impacted, they attempt to use these facilities to showcase their legacy. I think with the Paris Olympic bid, 40 percent of the Athletes' Village would go to social housing. It can be used to benefit people if the right creativity and thinking is put to it âe" but that rarely occurs.

I'd say they haven't really thought things through. Most people don't have experience in running these types of events. Historically, they haven't been very creative in spreading the benefits. The increase in value of Whistler condos could be taxed at a differential rate to help pay for some of the social implications of hosting these events.

I know you haven't studied Vancouver 2010 specifically, but what are some of your observations after being here the last few days?

I'd try to adopt the precautionary principle. People living in residential areas, who are tenants, could see evictions and demolitions. There needs to be policies in place so that this does not occur in the city. Even if it's a temporary thing, two months or even two days after the Games where things go back to normal, precautionary/preventative policies and laws need to be brought into existence.

Second, one of the big differences between the Expo 86 era and now is that the sheer cost of living in Vancouver has gone up. In a broader sense, it will certainly make it a more expensive place to live after 2010. Governments should try to keep the cost of housing low for its citizens. It's time to think creatively, buying SROs, to create affordable housing supply in a place of over-inflated property values.

The International Olympic Committee doesn't care about the cost of housing in Vancouver or whether it will enable or make it more difficult for young families to live here. Their objectives are to make sure that the sporting events occur smoothly, that television rights are properly handled, that they don't get involved in the social policy issues. In an overall sense I'd say the key thing is the City and the Province have to take on the leadership role.

Further Reading

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.