An Olympics in the North should embrace the region’s polycentric DNA

For decades, the idea of the UK’s northern cities hosting an Olympic Games felt remote. Today, it is increasingly plausible and increasingly relevant. Yet, if the Games are to come north, they cannot be conceived as a smaller version of London 2012, they must be approached as something fundamentally different.

The North is not a region defined by a single dominant metropolis. Rather, it is a constellation of cities – Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle among them – each with its own identity, specialism and civic culture. This distinctive urban geography is the product of centuries of industry, innovation and governance.

The central question therefore is how can the Games can be designed to reflect and strengthen the North’s historic polycentric form?

The Games should amplify the region’s natural structure rather than attempt to override it

In essence, a Northern Olympics should be polycentric because the North itself is polycentric. The Games should amplify the region’s natural structure rather than attempt to override it.

The North’s urban pattern emerged from deep structural forces. Geography created multiple centres of power. Coal seams, fast-flowing rivers and access to ports were spread across the region, allowing industrialisation to take root in several places simultaneously.

Manchester became synonymous with textiles, Sheffield with steel, Liverpool with shipping, Leeds with wool and finance, and Newcastle with coal and engineering. No single city controlled all the ingredients of economic success.

The railways reinforced this pattern. Nineteenth-century rail connections linked cities to one another through routes such as Liverpool-Manchester, Manchester-Leeds and Leeds-Sheffield, creating a network of peers rather than a traditional hub-and-spoke system. Alongside this, each city developed its own institutions, culture and sense of civic pride. The North evolved as a family of siblings rather than a hierarchy.

Too often, a distributed Olympics is presented as a logistical compromise; however it represents a strategic advantage

This history matters because it explains why a northern Olympics should not attempt to replicate the model of a single-city Games. The region’s strength lies in its plurality.

Too often, a distributed Olympics is presented as a logistical compromise; however it represents a strategic advantage. A multi-city Games would showcase the North as it truly is – a collection of strong, interconnected urban centres, each contributing something distinctive to the wider whole.

It would also allow investment and legacy benefits to be spread more equitably across the region. Rather than concentrating regeneration in one location, a polycentric model could support housing, transport and public realm improvements across multiple places.

It would also demonstrate a new model for hosting major global events. As the Olympics continues to evolve, the direction of travel is increasingly towards distributed hosting, the reuse of existing venues and greater regional collaboration. The North is naturally suited to lead that shift.

At the same time, a Games designed around intercity connectivity could help to strengthen the North’s economic geography by accelerating long-delayed transport improvements and reinforcing the region as a single economic system.

In a polycentric Olympics, infrastructure becomes more than a supporting component; it becomes the organising framework. The success of the Games would depend on how easily athletes, spectators and visitors can move between cities, stations, airports and fan zones. This is where the opportunity becomes genuinely transformative.

A northern Olympics could provide the fixed deadline and shared sense of purpose required to advance modernised stations, reliable high-capacity east-west rail connections, integrated ticketing, seamless multimodal journeys and walkable, legible public realm around key transport hubs. The most important legacy could be a transport network capable of supporting productivity, investment and social mobility long after the Olympic flame has been extinguished.

Mega-events also reveal how people actually experience cities. Infrastructure, therefore, must be intuitive, legible and emotionally intelligent. Yet the North has an additional opportunity: to express its identity with confidence.

The journey from station to stadium should feel unmistakably northern. Industrial heritage can be reinterpreted through contemporary design.

Music, sport and culture can be woven into arrival sequences and public spaces. Lighting, landscape design and wayfinding can reflect local character rather than generic event branding.

The Olympics is, ultimately, a global broadcast, and streets, squares, waterfronts and transport hubs become part of the story. A polycentric Games would allow each city to recount its own chapter while contributing to a larger regional narrative.

Delivering a polycentric Games would inevitably require collaboration on an unprecedented scale

Legacy must sit at the heart of that narrative. It cannot be treated as a post-event exercise but must shape every decision from the outset.

Venues should be designed with long-term uses in mind. Athlete villages should become future housing. Public realm projects should reconnect fragmented districts. Green infrastructure should improve resilience, while transport investment should align with the everyday needs of communities rather than the temporary demands of an event.

The North already possesses many of the ingredients required for such success. It has strong urban centres, world-class universities, cultural institutions and a rich sporting heritage. The role of the Olympics should therefore be to accelerate existing ambitions rather than invent entirely new ones.

Delivering a polycentric Games would inevitably require collaboration on an unprecedented scale. National government, devolved authorities, transport bodies, investors and local communities would all need to work together. That represents a challenge, but it also presents an opportunity to strengthen regional governance and demonstrate a new model of delivery.

From experience, the most successful mega-events emerge from integrated systems thinking rather than isolated flagship projects and a northern Olympics would require a delivery model that is lean, collaborative and commercially intelligent, underpinned by clear phasing and transparent budgeting.

Looking ahead, it is increasingly clear that the Olympics of the 2040s will not resemble those of previous generations. Climate pressures, financial scrutiny and changing public expectations are already driving a different approach to major events. In that context, an Olympics in the North of England could become a global prototype for distributed hosting, reuse and retrofit, regional collaboration, decarbonised mobility and inclusive regeneration.

This should not even consider replicating London 2012 but instead be about demonstrating a different kind of ambition rooted in the North’s own history, identity and future potential.

Ultimately, the success of a northern Olympics should not be measured by opening ceremonies or medal tables. Its true legacy should be judged by whether it strengthens the North as a connected, confident and resilient region.

The question now is how boldly the region, and the UK as a whole, can unite around a shared vision and get cracking.