Mixed Doubles: Political Hegemony, Urban Entrepreneurialism and the Australian Open Tennis Championships

Abstract

The National Tennis Centre in Melbourne, Australia, occupies a symbolic role in the repositioning of a once ‘rust-belt’ city as a place for ‘footloose’ capital and tourism. This paper explores the decisions that have been made by successive Victorian state governments between 1984 and 1998 to construct and upgrade the National Tennis Centre. Thematic content analysis of three daily newspapers, and one monthly tennis magazine, was undertaken to map political decisions and accompanying public discussion surrounding the foundation and upgrades of the National Tennis Centre. Successive state governments, representing both the left and right side of politics, have adopted an urban entrepreneurial approach to development and economic regeneration of Melbourne since the early 1980s. Targeting sport as a competitive advantage, significant public investments have been made to ‘sell’ this product to consumers identified as citizens and tourists. Worthy of note, and of particular concern, is the limited consultation with important interest groups, particularly environmentalists and the citizenry, when creating an elite sporting entertainment centre.

Le Centre national de tennis à Melbourne, en Australie, occupe un rôle symbolique dans le repositionnement de la ville d'un lieu d'immobilisme à un espace voué au capital et au tourisme. Cet article explore les décisions qui ont été prises par les gouvernements successifs de l'Etat de Victoria entre 1984 et 1998 pour construire et mettre à jour le Centre national de tennis. L'analyse de contenu thématique de trois quotidiens et d'un magazine mensuel de tennis, a été entreprise pour cartographier les décisions politiques et les débats d'opinion entourant la conception et la mise en place du Centre national de tennis. Les gouvernements des États successifs, représentant politiquement à la fois l'aile gauche et l'aile droite, ont adopté une approche urbaine entrepreneuriale du développement et de la revitalisation économique de Melbourne depuis le début des années 1980. En ciblant le sport comme un avantage concurrentiel, d'importants investissements publics ont été faits pour « vendre» ce produit aux consommateurs recensés comme locaux et touristes. Ce qu'il convient de noter, et qui est particulièrement préoccupant, c'est le peu de consultations menées avec d'importants groupes d'intérêt, en particulier avec les écologistes et les locaux, lors de la création d'un centre de préparation pour l'élite sportive.

El National Tennis Centre de Melbourne, Australia, desempeña un papel simbólico en la reconversión de una ciudad que había sido considerada parte del cinturón industrial decadente como un lugar adecuado para el turismo y el capital “vagabundo”. Este artículo analiza las decisiones que han ido tomando los sucesivos gobiernos del estado de Victoria entre 1984 y 1998 en la dirección de construir y mejorar el National Tennis Centre. Se ha llevado a cabo un análisis de contenido temático de tres diarios y de una revista mensual especializada en tenis con el objetivo de cartografiar las decisiones políticas, y su correlato en el debate público, relativas a la fundación y a las diversas mejoras del National Tennis Centre. Los sucesivos gobiernos del estado, tanto los de derechas como los de izquierdas, han adoptado una perspectiva de emprendeduría urbana en relación con el desarrollo y la regeneración económica de Melbourne desde principios de los años 80. El deporte se ha identificado como una ventaja competitiva, y se han invertido importantes sumas de dinero público para “vender” este producto a los consumidores, identificados como ciudadanos y como turistas. Es destacable, y especialmente preocupante, el escaso grado de interlocución con importantes grupos de interés, en especial los ecologistas y la ciudadanía en general, en este proceso de creación de un centro recreativo vinculado con el deporte de élite.

Das National Tennis Centre in Melbourne, Australien, nimmt eine symbolische Rolle in der Neupositionierung einer einstigen “Rostgürtel”-Stadt als ein Ort für ‘ungebundenes’ Kapital und Tourismus ein. Dieser Artikel untersucht die Entscheidungen, die durch aufeinanderfolgende viktorianische Landesregierungen zwischen 1984 und 1998 getroffen wurden, das National Tennis Centre zu konstruieren und auszubauen. Thematische Inhaltsanalysen von drei Tageszeitungen und eines monatlichen Tennismagazins wurden durchgeführt, um politische Entscheidungen und begleitende öffentliche Diskussionen um die Gründung und den Ausbau des National Tennis Centre zu entschlüsseln. Sukzessive Landesregierungen, die sowohl die linke als auch die rechte Seite der Politik repräsentierten, haben seit den frühen 1980er Jahren einen urbanen unternehmerischen Ansatz zur Entwicklung und wirtschaftlichen Wiederbelebung Melbournes verabschiedet. Auf Sport als Wettbewerbsvorteil abzielend sind erhebliche öffentliche Investitionen getätigt worden, um dieses Produkt an Verbraucher, als Bürger und Touristen bezeichnet, zu “verkaufen”. Bemerkenswert und von besonderem Interesse ist die begrenzte Abstimmung mit wichtigen Interessensgruppen, insbesondere mit Umweltschützern und der Bürgerschaft, bei der Erstellung eines Elite-Sport-Entertainment-Centers.

澳大利亚国家网球中心所在地墨 尔本，这个曾一度被认为是自由资本和旅游业的“无人问津”之地，现在占据重要的地位。本文探讨了1984至1998年连续几届维多利亚州政府关于建设及改进国家网球中心的决定，并选取三份日报和一份网球月刊作为主题分析内容，来阐述该政治决定和随之而来的关于对国家网球中心的建设和设施升级的公众议论。自二十世纪八十年代初 以来，代表左右两派政治势力的几届州政府采取了城市创业的方法，以发展和重振墨尔本经济。政府将体育运动设定为市场竞争的优势和有影响力的公共投资，并将其产品“出售”给那些被认定为游客和市民的消费者。值得一提且特别需要关注的是，当初建立这个精英体育娱乐中心的时候，政府很少与重要的投资团体，特别是环保人士及市民进行协商。

O Centro Nacional de Tênis em Melbourne, Austrália, ocupa um papel simbólico na realocação de uma cidade que já fora do “cinturão da ferrugem”, como um lugar para capital e turismo “footloose”. Este artigo explora as decisões que foram tomadas por sucessivos governos estaduais de Vitória entre 1984 e 1998, para construir e aprimorar o Centro Nacional de Tênis. A análise de conteúdo temática de três jornais diários e de uma revista mensal de tênis foi realizada para mapear as decisões políticas e acompanhar as discussões públicas ao redor da fundação e das melhorias do Centro Nacional de Tênis. Sucessivos governos estaduais, tanto de esquerda como de direita, adotaram uma abordagem de empreendedorismo urbano para o desenvolvimento e a recuperação econômica de Melbourne desde o início dos anos 1980. Apostando no esporte como uma vantagem competitiva, investimentos públicos significativos foram feitos para “vender” esse produto para consumidores identificados como cidadãos e turistas. É digno de nota, e de especial atenção, os limites da consulta a importantes grupos de interesse ao se criar um centro de entretenimento desportivo de elite, especialmente ambientalistas e os cidadãos.

オーストラリア・メルボルンの国立テニスセンターは、かつて「錆地帯」だった都市を、「出入りの激しい」資本と観光のための場所として刷新する上で象徴的な役割を果たしている。本稿は、国立テニスセンターを建設、増設するために、1984年から1998年にかけてヴィクトリア州政府が下した諸判断について扱う。日刊紙三紙と月刊のテニス雑誌一誌の主題内容分析を通じて、国立テニスセンターの創設と増設をめぐる政治的判断とそれに伴う公的議論について素描する。州政府は、政治的に左派のものも右派のものも、1980年代初頭以来メルボルンの開発と経済的再生に対して都市企業家的なアプローチを採用してきた。競争優位としてのスポーツに着目し、消費者、つまり市民や観光客にこの商品を「売る」ために、かなりの公共投資がなされてきた。エリートのスポーツ娯楽センターを作る上で、特に環境団体や市民団体などの重要な利益団体との協議が限定的であることは、指摘に値する興味深い点である。

Keywords:

• urban entrepreneurialism
• Australian Open
• politics
• tennis
• Melbourne

Keywords:

• entrepreneuriat en milieu urbain
• Open d'Australie
• politique
• tennis
• Melbourne

Keywords:

• emprendeduría urbana
• Open de Australia
• política
• tenis
• Melbourne

Keywords:

• städtischer Unternehmergeist
• Australian Open
• Politik
• Tennis
• Melbourne

Keywords:

• 城市企业主义； 澳网公开赛； 政治； 网球； 墨尔本

Keywords:

• empreendedorismo urbano
• Aberto da Austrália
• política
• tênis
• Melbourne

Keywords:

• 都市企業家主義、全豪オープン、政治、テニス、メルボルン

Notes

^1. Michie, Through the Roof, 11.

^2. Davidson, “Victorian Economy.”

^3. Turner, Making it National.

^4. Turner, Making it National, 16.

^5. Turner, Making it National, 17.

^6. See McKay, No Pain, No Gain.

^7. Turner, Making it National, 22.

^8. Rolfe, “Promise and Threat,” 192. Also note that the use of the term ‘Americanisation’ refers to the importation of American corporations and culture, but it is acknowledged that this is not a one-way process of cultural imperialism.

^9. Davison, Rise and Fall, 320.

^10. Davison, Rise and Fall, 321.

^11. Howe, “New Residents-New City.”

^12. Dingle and O'Hanlon, “From Manufacturing Zone.”

^13. Dingle and O'Hanlon, “From Manufacturing Zone”; Forrest, “Social impacts;” Sandercock and Dovey, “Pleasure, Politics.”

^14. Searle, “Changes in Producer Services.”

^15. Sandercock and Dovey, “Pleasure, Politics.”

^16. Harvey, “From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism,” 5.

^17. Hubbard, “Urban Design.”

^18. Harvey, “From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism.”

^19. Hubbard, “Urban Design.”

^20. Alomes, “‘Colonial’ Catastrophe;” Cahill, “Radical Neo-liberal Movement.”

^21. Harvey, “From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism;” Hall, “Geography, Marketing.”

^22. See Hall, “Geography, Marketing;” Harvey, “From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism;” Jonas and McCarthy, “Urban Management and Regeneration;” Low, “Regulation Theory;” Schimmel, “Sport Matters.”

^23. Hubbard, “Urban Design.”

^24. Harvey, “From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism,” 10.

^25. See Biddulph, “Urban Design, Regeneration;” Hubbard, “Re-Imaging the City;” Zukin, “Urban Lifestyles” for a discussion on the reproduction of city developments. See Meyer, City and Port, for a discussion on waterfront developments. Further discussion on commercial stadiums can be found in Dovey and Sandercock, “Hype and Hope;” Moore, “Sports Heritage;” Ramshaw and Gammon, “On Home Ground?;” Zinganel, “Stadium as Cash Machine.” See Harvey, “From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism” regarding the rendering of a competitive advantage.

^26. For example, see Sorkin, “Variations on a Theme Park.”

^27. Biddulph, “Urban Design, Regeneration,” 64–5.

^28. For a discussion on the enticement of highly skilled workers by civic boosters, see Hall, “Creative Cities;” Hall and Hubbard, “Entrepreneurial City;” Schimmel, “Sport Matters;” Shaw, “Place of Alternative Culture;” Zukin, “Urban Lifestyles.”

^29. See Biddulph, “Urban Design, Regeneration;” Harvey, “From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism; Hubbard, “Urban Design;” Macleod, Raco, and Ward, “Negotiating the Contemporary City.”

^30. Chapters in the collection edited by Vamplew and Stoddart, Sport in Australia, illustrate the organisational structure of a number of sports in Australia. In the collection edited by Stewart, Games Are Not the Same, several chapters provide a specific focus on the evolution of the various football codes in Australia. Hallinan, Hughson, and Burke, “Supporting the ‘World Game’ in Australia,” provide a critical analysis of the city-based structure of elite soccer in Australia.

^31. Cain, John Cain's Years; Considine and Costar, “Introduction.” Note that John Cain resigned as Premier in 1990 after a number of high-profile financial institutions collapsed. Joan Kirner was promoted to Premier and held office until the 1992 election.

^32. Shamsullah, “Politics in Victoria,” 11.

^33. O'Hanlon, “Events City.”

^34. Davidson, “Victorian Economy,” 36.

^35. Davidson, “Victorian Economy,” 36

^36. Davidson, “Victorian Economy,” 36, 37; O'Hanlon, “Events City,” 33.

^37. Considine and Costar, “Introduction,” explain that Labor's natural allies – the unions, welfare and education groups – were unsurprisingly consulted and considered in policy. In addition, previously hostile sections of the business community were also consulted in policy formation.

^38. Economou, “Greening the Garden State?”

^39. Economou, “Greening the Garden State?”

^40. Costar and Economou, “Preface,” vii.

^41. Hayward, “Financial Revolution?”

^42. Sandercock and Dovey, “Pleasure, Politics.”

^43. Engels, “City Make-Overs.”

^44. Sandercock and Dovey, “Pleasure, Politics.”

^45. Engels, “City Make-Overs.”

^46. Sandercock and Dovey, “Pleasure, Politics,” 158.

^47. Shamsullah, “Policy of Confidence.”

^48. Sandercock and Dovey, “Pleasure, Politics,” 159.

^49. Fewster, “Advantage Australia;” Kinross-Smith, “Lawn Tennis;” McCarthy and Frawley, “Should I Stay;” Senyard, “The Tennis Court;” and O'Farrell, “Unasked Questions,” provide a historical account of tennis in Australia and Melbourne's central role in the administration of the sport.

^50. See Grasso, Historical Dictionary of Tennis; and Foenander, Australian Open.

^51. See Bodo, Courts of Babylon; Bradshaw, Our Open; Galenson, “Does Youth Rule;” McCarthy and Frawley, “Should I Stay;” and Michie, Through the Roof.

^52. Tennis Australia has operated under a range of names, including the Lawn Tennis Association of Australasia and the Lawn Tennis Association of Australia. However, for the purposes of this paper, the organisation is referred to as Tennis Australia throughout.

^53. Byrne, “Deuce, Then Tennis Power Game Hots Up,” Age, February 22, 1980, 4; Yallop, “New Site Soon for LTAA?” Age, June 8, 1984, 28.

^54. “Whither the Australian Open,” Australian Tennis Magazine, January 1982, 6.

^55. “Kooyong Problems,” Australian Tennis Magazine, August 1983, 7–9.

^56. Yallop, “Around the States: Victoria,” Australian Tennis Magazine, December 1983, 62.

^66. Yallop, “Stadium Spells the End of Lawn Tennis,” Age, October 9, 1984, 48.

^57. It should be noted that the Herald and Sun newspapers amalgamated in 1990 to form the Herald Sun.

^58. A search through the monthly Australian Tennis Magazine from 1983 through until 1999 provided an overview of key events and the month or specific date in which announcements regarding the National Tennis Centre occurred. Public announcement events selected for analysis were the: consideration of locations for a tennis centre (March 23, 1984); a $100,000 feasibility study into Flinders Park as a location (June 8, 1984); Flinders Park confirmed as the location (October 6, 1984); $53 million of public funding approved for the tennis centre (June 27, 1985); Flinders Park renamed Melbourne Park and $23 million of public funding approved for infrastructure upgrades (May 4, 1995); and a $70 million upgrade to the tennis centre (May 21, 1998).

^59. Yallop, “New Tennis Centre Signals End of the Open on Grass,” Age, October 8, 1984, 3.

^60. “Tennis Topics: National Centre – Government Backs study,” Australian Tennis Magazine, July 1984, 17.

^61. Yallop, “Wimbledon Plea to LTAA – Keep Grass,” Age, June 27, 1984, 34.

^62. Yallop, “Kooyong: It's Game, Set and ‘Classic’,” Age, June 8, 1984, 30.

^63. Matthews, “Grass on the Outer?,” Sun, April 10, 1984, 71.

^64. “The Stars Have Their Say,” Australian Tennis Magazine, January 1985, 45.

^65. Yallop, “ATP Wants Open in January,” Age, April 10, 1984, 46.

^67. Trengove, “Start of a New Era,” Australian Tennis Magazine, January 1988, 14–15.

^68. See Hogan, “Premature Plan,” Age, October 16, 1984, 12; and Wilkie, “Cain Sugar for Tennis a Sticky Deal,” Sun, June 28, 1985, 8.

^69. See Frommer, “Tennis ‘Palace’ a Waste,” Herald, July 3, 1985, 7, for discussion on housing shortages; and Graham, “Spending money,” Age, June 28, 1985, 12, for discussion on poor health care.

^70. See Clarke and Slamet, “Tennis Centre Approved But Draws Fire,” Age, June 17, 1985, 5; Coyne, “Keep Our Top Tennis at Kooyong,” Age, October 13, 1984, 12; Lasry, “Advantage Kooyong,” Herald, July 5, 1985, 7; and Leamen, “Where the Money Should be Spent,” Age, June 27, 1985, 6.

^71. See “Managing Crown Land,” http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/property-titles-and-maps/managing-crown-land/managing-crown-land-fact-sheets/managing-crown-land-fact-sheet-managing-crown-land; and “National Tennis Centre Act, 1985,” http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/hist_act/ntca1985233/, 546–7.

^74. Gabriel-Jones, Sustainability and Public Land, 12.

^72. Gabriel-Jones, Sustainability and Public Land, 11.

^73. Gabriel-Jones, Sustainability and Public Land, 11.

^75. Hogan, “Premature Plan,” Age, October 16, 1984, 12.

^76. Austen, “Tennis Plan is On – Cain,” Sun, May 23, 1998, 11.

^81. Yallop, “Around the States: Victoria,” Australian Tennis Magazine, September 1985, 84.

^77. Clarke and Slamet, “Tennis Centre Approved But Draws Fire,” Age, June 17, 1985, 5; Lasry, “Advantage Kooyong,” Herald, July 5, 1985, 7.

^78. Rzesniowiecki, “Park Threat,” Age, July 3, 1985, 12.

^79. Cited in Merrigan, “Tennis Centre Plan Slammed,” Sun, June 27, 1985, 11.

^80. Dunstan, “Tennis Site Forgets the Riverside Orators,” Sun, July 11, 1985, 8.

^82. Ray, “Peace Pact,” Australian Tennis Magazine, April 1988, 6.

^83. Bellamy, “Undervalued,” Australian Tennis Magazine, October 1988, 6; Smith, “Letter to the Editor,” Australian Tennis Magazine, December 1988, 6; Reid, “Letter to the Editor,” Australian Tennis Magazine, December 1988, 6. Quote from Smith's letter.

^84. See Rados, “New Name to Boost Reputation,” Herald Sun, May 4, 1995, 5; and Gettler, “Flinders Park to be Renamed Melbourne Park,” Age, May 4, 1995, 8.

^85. See McDonald, “Tennis Centre,” Age, July 10, 1985, 12.

^86. See Rados, “New Name to Boost Reputation,” Herald Sun, May 4, 1995, 5; and Gettler, “Flinders Park to be Renamed Melbourne Park,” Age, May 4, 1995, 8.

^87. Das, “Melbourne to Get $70 m Sports Stadium,” Age, May 21, 1998, 12; Owen and Hansen, “$65 m Arena Gets Green Light,” Herald Sun, May 21, 1998, 3.

^88. Cited in Owen and Hansen, “$65 m Arena Gets Green Light,” Herald Sun, May 21, 1998, 3.

^89. Lee, “Where the Money,” 12; Russo, “Letter to the Editor,” Herald Sun, May 26, 1998, 20; Sale, “Letter to the Editor,” Herald Sun, May 25, 1998, 20, discuss hospitals. Bell, “Letter to the Editor,” Sun, May 23, 1998, 24; Monbulk, “Letter to the Editor,” Herald Sun, May 29, 1998, 20; Scarce, “Letter to the Editor,” Herald Sun, May 28, 1998, 20, discuss schools. Sale, “Letter to the Editor,” Herald Sun, May 25, 1998, 20, discusses permanent employment.

^90. Owen and Hansen, “$65 m Arena Gets Green Light,” Herald Sun, May 21, 1998, 3.

^91. See “Melbourne Named Most Liveable.”

^92. Higginbottom, “$500 m Secures Our Open,” Herald Sun, January 27, 2009, 12.

^93. Wright, “Taxpayers in Dark Over Costs to Keep the Australian Open in Melbourne.” Herald Sun, July 13, 2012, http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/taxpayers-in-dark-over-costs-to-keep-the-australian-open-in-melbourne/story-e6frf7kx-1226424867620.

^94. Trengove, “Editorial,” Australian Tennis Magazine, October 1985, 5.

^95. Cited in Owen and Hansen, “$65 m Arena Gets Green Light,” Herald Sun, May 21, 1998, 3.

^96. Johnston, “$360 m Lift for Home of Tennis,” Herald Sun, January 20, 2010, 8.

^97. Pine and Gilmore, Experience Economy, 2–3.