THE POST-OLYMPIC CITY Elliott Ballam
ARCO13
1
THE POST-OLYMPIC CITY Elliott Ballam The herd of “white elephants” left in Olympic host cities after the circus leaves town raises questions over previous approaches. How do we avoid this “post-Olympic curse”, has London cracked the code, and what is the future of Olympic Architecture? The following essay examines whether the architectural approaches installed at previous Olympic Games can be considered to have brought about bright futures for the cities that have played host to them, or have in fact ended up becoming future burdens. This review is timely given the recent London 2012 Olympic Games, and the new flexible architecture that was on display. The essay considers whether London has cracked the code, as it has been acknowledged that the venues look set to avoid the negative legacy that has become apparent in former host cities. In undertaking this exploration the essay takes in to account approaches taken by other grand temporary events, and investigates the argument put forward by Kronenburg about thbenefits of using temporary and portable architecture. The review also looks in to the work of Perryman, who suggests that reimagining the Olympic Games in a different format could help to prevent the “post-Olympic curse”. As a result of this study, the essay is able to suggest that the legacy planning and shift towards temporary venues and additional overlays seen at London 2012, as well as in the preliminary designs for Rio 2016, can be considered to significantly minimise the risk of host cities being left with expensive “white elephants” after the circus has left town.
3
Introduction Once the razzle-dazzle of the Olympic Games’ closing ceremonies fades, one question always pierces the post-Olympics hangover: can all that construction avoid being called a “white elephant”?1 I have chosen to concentrate on the Summer Olympics since Los Angeles 1984, not because the Games before them don’t matter, because they do, but it is after 1984 that the Olympic phenomenon has swollen enormously.2 Through analysing these previous host cities, I investigate whether enough care and attention was put into considering the post-Olympic usage, and legacy of the buildings that were constructed in order to host the games. The structures that have risen magnificently across the skyline from one host city to another, have offered a welcome to the athletes of the world and an invitation for their leaders to marvel at a city’s innovation. But, however awe-inspiring at the time, many of the buildings that have been created or modified for the Olympic Games have later fallen into disuse or have been used sporadically without generating a profit, and much less breaking even.3 I examine why these white elephants seem to be a common occurrence throughout postOlympic host cities, and look to other grand temporary events, such as music festivals and concerts, to see how they approach hosting events on such a vast scale yet avoid the negative legacy of redundant facilities. It is from these investigations into flexible architecture that I look at how we can apply these lessons to the Olympic movement, and whether the approach taken at London 2012 has cracked the code. Finally, alongside analysing the preliminary plans for the Rio 2016 Olympic Games, I explore and evaluate potential future approaches for the format of the Olympic movement which seek to eliminate the post-Olympic curse, and instead create sustainable futures for the cities and their venues. Ultimately, the essay looks to challenge the following statement... ‘Olympic architecture is by definition destined to outlive its purpose, no matter how sustainable or versatile the edifices may be. They are built expressly for the present—or rather, a present that happens every four years—and they ultimately have no meaning in the past or the future: the buildings embody singular instances of the Olympics writ large as soon as construction begins and ever after.’4 Let the Games begin! 1 Melinda Liu, ‘Architectural White Elephants: Beijing, London, and the Post-Olympics Curse’, The Daily Beast Newspaper [published 14 August 2012]. 2 Jonathan Kendall, ‘Event and memory: Olympic predecessors’, in East Side Story: Olympic Park (The Architects Journal: Emap, 2012), p.14. 3 Emily Mathieu, ‘Games Legacy: A herd of white elephants’, The Star Newspaper [published 30 January 2010]. 4 Ray Hu, ‘What happens to the Post-Olympic City?’, Core77 Design Magazine and Resource [published 14 August 2012]. POST-OLYMPIC CITY: Elliott Ballam
Bright Future or Future Burden? In the early days hosting the Olympic Games meant little more than assuming responsibility for providing the necessary venues for competition. But as the Olympics have developed over time into the quintessential mega-event, the number of cities seeking to develop such projects has expanded greatly. Macaloon states that the Olympics ‘represent a hybrid cultural form that contains elements of ‘festival’, ‘ritual’, ‘spectacle’, and ‘game’.’5 However, since the regeneration of the Games as a public, commercial and entertainment success after Los Angeles 1984, the element of “spectacle” has prioritised over the others. This shift in status has resulted in the Olympic Games becoming a fought after event, as acting as an Olympic city presents planners with a period in which they have an unparalleled shop window by which to represent themselves to the world.6 But alongside the exposure to millions of viewers around the globe, the re-conceptualisation of the Olympics as a vehicle for general urban development, has meant that ‘increasingly the Olympic Games are being viewed as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the host city to embark on a series of major development or redevelopment projects that have the potential to change the way in which the city operates and the feeling local citizens have for their city’7. Accommodating the spectacle has therefore become much more than just simply hosting the Games, and is now divorced from the conventional rationale that surrounds almost all other festivals. As Gold explains, ‘the right to host the Olympics represents the ultimate accolade that a city can earn on the world stage.’8 But as the scale of the Games themselves have increased over time, so have the ambitions of those that planned these events widened. As a result of this, host cities now shape and prepare ever more spectacular Olympic festivals, as they are in the sure and certain knowledge that their efforts will be compared to those of predecessors, and will in turn provide a new point of comparison.9 Smith explains how their wish to make a statement about the technological prowess and modernity of their host nation, has immediately translated into the generation of larger, more imposing, permanent iconographic architecture, with the view that ‘there’s no better way to empower a forward-thinking, progressive population than by constructing bold, progressively designed event spaces and
5 John MacAloon, in ‘Accommodating the Spectacle’ ed. by John Coaffe and Lorraine Johnston, in Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World’s Games, 1896-2012 ed. by John Gold and Margaret Gold (New York: Routledge, 2007) p.143. 6 John Coaffe, ‘Urban Regeneration and Renewal’, in Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World’s Games, 1896-2012 ed. by John Gold and Margaret Gold (New York: Routledge, 2007) p.151. 7 David Chernuhenko, ‘Sustainable Urban Development in the Beijing Olympic Bid’, in ‘Urban Regeneration and Renewal’ ed. by John Coaffe, in Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World’s Games, 1896-2012 ed. by John Gold and Margaret Gold (New York: Routledge, 2007) p.150. 8 John Gold and Margaret Gold, Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World’s Games, 1896-2012 (New York: Routledge, 2007), p.320. 9 Gold, Olympic Cities, p.9. 5
stadiums’.10 In essence it is fair to say then, that constructing venues for the Olympic Games has become a competition in itself. Consequently, the Olympic circus has left in its wake an array of sports buildings that, taken together, comprise the architect’s unique and indispensible contribution to the Games.11 But although in their diversity, these buildings have helped to bestow on each Olympiad a distinct identity and character, they have left host cities either transformed or crippled in their path. The problem is that once the events are over, the medals have been handed out, and the torch is extinguished, the cities must attempt to find productive uses for the dozens of extravagant venues that it has built.12 But as Barney, author of Selling the Five Rings explains, ‘the historical record of long-term benefit from Olympic-related sports facilities is one indelibly burdened by maintenance and operation costs that rise well above user fee revenue.’13 This is a problem that has intensified with the extension of Olympic status to a range of sports that has far from universal appeal. With few exceptions, unless Olympic sports facilities have great post-Games mass appeal, they are a losing proposition to a city, illustrating the darker side of accommodating the spectacle, as ‘Olympic venues have a nasty history of turning into expensive white elephants once the games wrap up and the crowds go home.’14 Bang, who is head of a study called Hunting White Elephants, explains how mega-events such as the Olympics are closely connected to the building of a number of iconic stadiums so that they look impressive on photos and create a spectacular stage for the event itself.15 But implementing memorable venues in this way is an inexact science at best, as there is no guarantee that by putting in these iconic architectural objects that the alluring longerterm gains desired from staging an event of such scale will materialize, as the experience of many host cities readily testifies. 16 Even if the Olympic festivals themselves pass off well, they can subsequently appear less satisfactory once the longer term reality sets in. As Gold explains, ‘the Olympics in Sydney 2000 and Athens 2004 provided festivals that were highly praised at the time but saw both cities saddled with the legacy of underused stadia and
10 Brandon Smith, ‘The Future of Olympic Architecture is Portable’, Mashable Blog Online [published 31 July 2012]. 11 Barclay Gordon, Olympic Architecture: Building for the Summer Games (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1983), p.172. 12 Andrew Zimbalist, ‘3 Reasons Why Hosting the Olympics Is a Loser’s Game’, The Atlantic Newspaper [published 23 July 2012]. 13 Robert Barney, ‘Planning Makes the Difference’ in ‘Do Olympic Host Cities Ever Win?’, The New York Times Opinion Pages [published 2 October 2009]. 14 Jordan Weissmann, ‘Empty Nest: Beijing’s Olympic Stadium is a Vacant ‘Museum Piece’’, The Atlantic Newspaper [published 31 July 2012]. 15 Bang, ‘Hunting White Elephants: New Study Questions Mega-Event Stadium Legacy’. 16 Smith, ‘The Future of Olympic Architecture is Portable’. POST-OLYMPIC CITY: Elliott Ballam
supporting facilities.’17 The reason for this was as a result of poor planning and mismanagement, as previous host cities have installed heavy focus on the short term event, and not the long term benefit that the Games could bring. Barney explains how this approach has resulted with ‘monuments built for the spectacle in the form of stadiums and sporting venues, shortly become little more than ghostly reminders of once glorious days.’18 I therefore support Bang in questioning whether, ‘such stadiums are fulfilling their promises of a long-lasting sport legacy and a bright future for the communities that invest heavily in them? Or are they in fact ending up becoming more of a burden when the party is over and the mega-event has moved on to the next willing host?’19 A photography project by Pack and Hustwit, called The Olympic City, looks in to the legacy of the Olympic Games in former host cities. Pack explains that some have led to the longterm regeneration of cities like in Barcelona, but in the majority of cases the legacy has been sterilised sites and debt, with ‘former Olympic sites sitting unused for decades and becoming tragic time capsules, examples of misguided planning and broken promises of the benefits that the Games would bring.’20 The image, shown in figure 1, depicts one of the venues left over from Athens 2004 which has been simply ignored to the effect of ruinous perdition, as with many of its venues which were developed with poor consideration of legacy. Only four years after the closing ceremony, the huge five-venue Olympic Park, was surrounded with a chain-link fence, and as many as 21 out of the 22 newly built venues lay abandoned.21 (figure 2) Dale explains how a lot of opportunities were lost in Athens as the organisers didn’t think that a plan for the day after tomorrow was necessary. Instead, they were ‘determined to show the world that a small country renowned for its disorganization was capable of world-class things.’22 If a gold medal, therefore, could be awarded for the Olympic “white elephant”, then Athens 2004 would surely be the recipient. However, although the neglected venues from Athens has led it to become a manual on how not to stage the Olympics23, not many host cities have fared much better in avoiding the “post-Olympic curse”. Gold explains how in Sydney 2000, the Olympic Park designed to be the showcase venue after the Games and the heart of significant and lasting urban transformation, closely resembles a ghost town.24 By putting all the main venues in Home 17 Gold, Olympic Cities, p.6. 18 Barney, ‘Planning Makes the Difference’ in ‘Do Olympic Host Cities Ever Win?’. 19 Bang, ‘Hunting White Elephants: New Study Questions Mega-Event Stadium Legacy’. 20 Jon Pack and Gary Gustwit, ‘The Olympic City Project’ [accessed 8 September 2012]. 21 Mark Perryman, Why The Olympics Aren’t Good For Us, And How They Can Be (London: OR Books, 2012), p.46. 22 Daniel Dale, ‘Why Athens has lived to regret hosting the Olympic Games’, The Star Newspaper [published 22 July 2012]. 23 Simon Usbourne, ‘After the party: What happens when the Olympics leaves town?’, The Independent Newspaper [published 19 August 2008]. 24 Gold, Olympic Cities, p.59. 7
figure 2: Athens 2004 Olympic Sports Complex locked up
figure 1: Athens 2004 Abandoned Softball Venue
Bush Bay, not particularly close to the centre of Sydney, they missed the opportunity to make the venues alive everyday of the year. But the main issue in Sydney is that the size of the permanent stadiums built for Olympic Games crowds, were not needed for other events in the future, as ‘other modern stadiums operating before the Games can handle all but a few of the sports matches and concerts which are viable in Sydney’s market.’25 This lack of pre- and post-Games events highlights the potential risks for host cities building specialized infrastructure for sporadic or once-only special events. 26 Beijing’s venues are also experiencing a post-Olympic woe from hosting the Games in 2008. Today, only five years on, there are worries that the raft of architectural icons constructed purely to impress with no long-term role in mind risk going to waste, with the National Stadium described as ‘suffering from empty-nest syndrome because it lags so far behind any notion of sustainable use.’27 Today the stadium stands unused apart from a smattering of mostly Chinese tour groups that trickle through the stadium, with Weissmann explaining how time has not in fact been so kind, as these days, ‘the Birds Nest is a mostly empty “museum piece”.’28 Although there is one success story with the Aquatics Centre finding an afterlife as a water park, most of the venues built lay under-used or abandoned, as there is no need for such facilities in Beijing’s sporting interests. (figures 3 & 4) Lim explains how the Olympics were ‘designed as a stage for China’s coming-out party, to send a message to the world. But in this land of government-backed vanity projects, this empty, echoing stadium now sends a very different message.’29 It is apparent then, that the under-used stadia and high debts that past Olympic host cities have been left to suffer, is as a result of short-term thinking and lack of consideration as to how these facilities would be used after the event. Usbourne explains how ‘when a city gets the Games, it should make a business plan for big changes and then decide what the country needs for the day after the Olympics.’30 This approach was effectively installed in Barcelona, where they consciously used the Games as a vehicle to realise plans they’d had since the 1960s to establish an urban legacy. Installing long-term and strategic planning, rather than piecemeal and area-specific interventions that is associated with many of the other Summer Games31, the “Barcelona Model” offers the conviction that Olympic legacies can be positive in terms of urban planning and regeneration if used properly. It is through analysing these post-Olympic venues that whilst the athlete’s progress, the places stand still and bear both the burden of time and that of space. Hu in his article, What 25 Glen Searle, ‘Uncertain Legacy: Sydney’s Olympic Stadium’, in European Planning Studies, Vol.10, No.7 (Carfax Publishing, 2002). 26 Searle, ‘Uncertain Legacy: Sydney’s Olympic Stadium’, p.857. 27 Liu, ‘Architectural White Elephants: Beijing, London, and the Post-Olympics Curse’. 28 Weissmann, ‘Empty Nest: Beijing’s Olympic Stadium is a Vacant ‘Museum Piece’’. 29 Louisa Lim, ‘China’s Post-Olympic Woe: How To Fill An Empty Nest’, National Public Radio [published 10 July 2012]. 30 Usbourne, ‘After the party: What happens when the Olympics leaves town?’. 31 Coaffe, ‘Urban Regeneration and Renewal’, in Olympic Cities, p.155. 9
figure 4: Beijing 2008 Abandoned Canoe/Kayak Venue
figure 3: Beijing 2008 Abandoned BMX Track
Happens to the Post-Olympic City?, states how ‘the former sites are a sort of anti-memorial, neither looking forward nor looking back.’32 For that reason, although the Olympic Games are a great way of attracting domestic and international investment, when it comes to the structures, the revenues that are returned for the occasional use of them just don’t measure up. The evidence suggests that pre-Games plans for post-Games use of Olympic facilities have historically contained a strong dose of wish fulfilment. So, presumed with this evidence, the question of how to turn lavish and large-scale facilities required for the Summer Olympics, into a sustainable legacy for the host city now needs to preoccupy the planners of future Olympics as much as issues linked to the preparation of the Games themselves.33 As Perryman, in his book Why the Olympics aren’t good for us and how they can be states, ‘grasp this and we can begin to understand the processes by which the Olympics has turned into what it has become, but also how they could yet be transformed into something better.’34
It’s Time to Rethink, Flexible Architecture? The words “Olympic Games” and “white elephant” have a habit of appearing in the same sentence, because when it comes to the architecture installed from one host city to another, ‘despite the ephemeral nature of the games, it has long been to construct weighty, gargantuan structures destined for inclusion on every tourist itinerary.’35 But as Wimmer rightly suggests, the creative ideas and bold experimenting which have become so amply evident in building for the Olympic Games during the last few decades, need not necessarily lead to excessive expenses on new permanent facilities.36 Instead we could explore other types of architecture which are potentially less expensive, and would prevent host cities being left with venues struggling to find a post-Games purpose. I therefore support Smith in asking, ‘Is it really worth it to build new, super slick buildings at the risk of their nearimmediate decay? Or is it smarter to build less impressive, yet transportable buildings? Is it as simple as sustainability versus grandeur?’37 Kronenburg, who is a guru in flexible architecture, explains how temporary and portable buildings ‘have been in use since humankind first began to build, yet because of their impermanent nature it is only recently that they have begun to be perceived as architecture.’38 It is consequently fair to say that architecture has therefore always been 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Hu, ‘What happens to the Post-Olympic City?’. Gold, Olympic Cities, p.46. Perryman, Why The Olympics Aren’t Good For Us, And How They Can Be, p.34. Samuel Medina, ‘Completed Olympic Arena Makes Case For Temporary’, Architizer News. Martin Wimmer, Olympic Buildings (UK: George Prior Publishers Ltd, 1976), p.75. Smith, ‘The Future of Olympic Architecture is Portable’. Robert Kronenburg, Portable Architecture (Oxford: Elsevier/Architectural Press, 2003), p.1. 11
synonymous with permanence, but Arieff questions whether it should be. She states how ‘we tend to view architecture as permanent, as aspiring to the status of monuments. And that kind of architecture has its place. But so does architecture of a different sort.’39 Instead, she explains that flexible architecture presents an undeniable opportunity in its ability to adapt and respond to a civilization in flux, which is exactly what hosts of a temporary mega-event experience. The problem however, is that the term “temporary architecture”, has a natural tension within it that makes the notion seem vaguely unstable.40 This is why historically, ‘prestige in architectural circles is believed to derive mainly from the design of large permanent structures rather than from what is more probably the commercial and practical reality of existing or temporary environments.’41 These preconceived notions about what buildings can and should be, gives reason to why previous host cities have employed permanent iconic monuments that will stand the test of time, as their main desire has been to create statement buildings that will impress the watching world. But Temel explains that although temporary uses may often be seen as provisional, they do have their own qualities and should not be viewed as merely a substitute for the fully adequate.42 One of the main benefits of using temporary architecture is its ability to still provide the necessary facilities for an event to take place, but without leaving a physical burden on the location when the event is over. This quality has meant that in an ever more dynamic society, we are moving towards an architecture in which the permanent is becoming a lot less permanent, a trend of which Siegal, founder of The Office of Mobile Design, has coined “New Nomadism”43. She explains how examples of this can be found at music festivals such as Glastonbury or the Burning Man festival, where in the latter a community of nearly 40,000 materialises in the middle of the desert for two weeks and then disappears again. Its temporary home at Black Rock City in Nevada, is constructed into a giant arc-shaped master plan of temporary structures, which then pack up and leave after the festival is over, as there is no need for such facilities between the annual event.44 This illustrates how if the facilities are only needed for a short period of time, that there is no need to build permanent structures, a situation which has strong relevance to Olympic host cities when considering how to cater for the more obscure sporting events that are within the Olympic Games programme. 39 Allison Arieff, ‘It’s Time to Rethink ‘Temporary’, The New York Times Opinion Pages [published 19 December 2011]. 40 Kelly Chan, ‘Pop-Up Populism: How the Temporary Architecture Craze is Changing Our Relationship to the Built Environment’, Blouin Art Info [published 8 May 2012]. 41 Frank Duffy, ‘Architecture, scenography and time: How the Games will help east London realise its urbanistic potential’, in East Side Story: Olympic Park (The Architects Journal: Emap, 2012), p.82. 42 Robert Temel, Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces (Birkhauser Verlag AG, 2006), p.5. 43 Jennifer Siegal, More Mobile: Portable Architecture for Today (New York: Pinceton Architectural Press, 2008), p.6. 44 Steve Rose, ‘Here today, gone tomorrow’, The Guardian Newspaper [published 16 August 2007]. POST-OLYMPIC CITY: Elliott Ballam
In addition to temporary architecture, portable structures can be used to meet the demands if the event is mobile, as they are specifically designed to move from place to place so that they can fulfil their function better. Kronenburg suggests however, that structures that are designed to relocate seem almost to be a contradiction to architecture, as buildings are historically viewed as one of the most permanent of our artefacts.45 But these movable buildings are still architecture in their own right, as they have the ‘same primary function as static architecture, which is to meet the user’s requirements in a wide range of practical and aspirational ways.’46 Tents are perhaps the most familiar and archetypal mobile buildings, and recent material innovations have dramatically expanded their potential. The Carlos Moseley Music Pavilion is a project commissioned in 1991, which is still in regular use today. The ability to create a portable structure that could still provide the facilities to make concert hall-quality music performances, meant that even though it was mobile, it still had the same impact on people that permanent architecture would achieve in identifying a sense of place and creating lasting memories. As Kronenburg explains, although the event may not necessarily be fixed at a specific geographical location, it still has a lasting and meaningful impact as ‘human experiences are filled with memories that stem from fleeting events yet leave a permanent presence.’ 47 Another example of where this architecture has been used, but on a larger scale, is for the U2 World Tour, where instead of building permanent stage structures around the world for one-off use, they used three 200-ton portable superstructures in rotation. Whilst one of the structures was being used for a performance, another was being erected in a different city, and the third was being dismantled and moved to the next.48 The ability of these portable superstructures to be there one day and gone the next, highlights another benefit of mobility, as it allowed them to make use of ‘environmentally or historically sensitive sites and to give people a taste of innovative architecture in a way that would not be possible for a permanent building.’49 But, alongside avoiding the burden of redundant facilities, these mobile and temporary structures also have another advantage in that they are ‘often freed of many of the constraints that weigh on the design of more permanent buildings and thus can allow architects a greater margin of creative freedom.’50 The experimentation and creativity that has become so prominent in recent Olympic Games could therefore still continue, but as Chan stresses, it is important that in this knowledge designing temporary should not be viewed in the throwaway sense, and that architects should not disregard the specifics of 45 46 47 48 49 50
Kronenburg, Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Change, p.175. Kronenburg, Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Change, p.207. Kronenburg, Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Change, p.207. Phillip Jodidio, Temporary Architecture Now! (Taschen GmbH, 2011), p.178. Kronenburg, Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Change, p.207. Jodidio, Temporary Architecture Now!, p.18. 13
their sites and build freely and thoughtlessly.51 When it comes then to the higher expectations and the more complex strategic ambitions of a meeting such as the Olympic Games, the infrastructural arrangements and size of venues required could quite easily reach the level of complexity associated with permanent urban layouts in order to design for the temporary.52 However, one great example of where this architecture has already worked on an Olympic scale is at the AT&T Global Olympic Village that was used in Atlanta 1996. The various elements put together formed a ‘temporary city, enlivened by interactive communications and human activity, and constantly active during its limited life.’53 An integral part of the design concept was that it had the potential to be dismantled and perhaps reassembled in a different form at a different geographical location, a living fulfilment of the ideas had by architectural activists, such as Archigram, in the 1960s. A lot of comparisons, therefore, can be made between the work of Archigram and the Olympic movement. Their experimental design ideas and concepts to do with temporarility and mobility are traits that are embedded in the ephemeral nature of the Olympic schedule. A particular project called the Instant City, shows cities viewed as travelling festivals, made from fold-up buildings that could be packed up and relocated. Back then the idea of an ‘Instant City appearing from nowhere, and after the ‘event’ stage, lifting up its skirts and vanishing’54, was a kind of architecture that was unbuildable. But fifty years on, what seemed like a radical fantasy, is now eminently possible with the advancements in technology. Kronenburg explains how the physical size and operational ambition for this type of architecture is consistently advancing, stating that ‘it is the need for portable buildings that drives the demand for them, and the fact that they can now be made more easily or more efficiently simply makes them more attractive as an alternative to making wasteful disposable buildings in the same situation’.55 Thus considering these benefits that using temporary and portable structures can bring, it is not unreasonable to suggest that if applied to the Olympic movement they could potentially prevent host cities being left with “white elephants” after the Games are over. Therefore, it is important that this association of great architecture with fixed and timeless permanence is erased, and it is realised that temporary and portable architecture can still provide the statement buildings desired by host cities, but come without the burden of long term permanence.56 However, the blanket use of such approaches would no longer see the benefit of new sporting facilities, nor provide an urban improvement programme that has become an integral part of hosting the Olympic Games. Instead, these structures should be 51 Chan, ‘Pop-Up Populism: How the Temporary Architecture Craze is Changing Our Relationship to the Built Environment’. 52 Kronenburg, Portable Architecture, p.195. 53 Kronenburg, Portable Architecture, p.199. 54 Peter Cook, Archigram (London: Studio Vista Publishers, 1972), p.96. 55 Kronenburg, Portable Architecture, p.28. 56 Reena Jana, ‘Why temporary architecture could be an enduring trend’, Smart Planet [published 21 December 2011]. POST-OLYMPIC CITY: Elliott Ballam
exploited when buildings cannot justify being permanent, or easily reassigned to new uses once the Games are over. The idea then that perhaps all buildings shouldn’t aspire to permanence would represent a huge shift for Olympic architecture, but as Jana states, ‘letting go of past conceptions of architecture’s permanence might be the most enduring design phenomenon of the 2010s.’57 Architecture could instead be reusable, recyclable and sustainable, and recast in this way it could better solve seemingly unsolvable problems, and still succeed in creating a sense of place.58 It begs the question, ‘can more of the bag and baggage of the Games be disassembled and transported from one Olympic city to the next?’59
Has London Cracked the Code? Mindful of the legacy of neglect common among many earlier Olympic host cities, no “white elephant” buildings were allowed for London. The approach was different to previous Olympic Games, as the attitude taken was to start planning for the future beyond 2012, and to then work the Games back in to the legacy plan.60 Sheard, lead architect of the Olympic Stadium, explains how this meant that embracing the temporary became the modus operandi, and that it wasn’t a limitation on what they could do but an opportunity, stating that ‘it takes a confident city to stage an Olympics that’s not trying to compete on the same grand terms as a previous city.’61 There were three approaches: should the venue be temporary; could existing venues be used and enhanced for the Games; or, was a permanent venue justified. As a result of this, London 2012 was to be the knock-down Games, as ‘venues with no obvious long-term future were designed to be dismantled entirely, while others were to be shrinkable once the huge audiences for the Games dispersed.’62 The Olympic Stadium, (figure 5) in one building, encapsulates this new approach. The decision to employ a temporary, shrinkable structure not only speaks truthfully to the nature of the games itself, but also negates the common perception that permanency of structure equals monumental architecture.63 Sports architects are often asked to create athletic temples that will last for decades, but in London ‘the aim was not to be monumental, not to apply the architectural rules or judge the Stadium by the same values you would judge a coliseum’64. Instead this sustainable design approach of disassembly, so that the 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
Jana, ‘Why temporary architecture could be an enduring trend’. Arieff, ‘It’s Time to Rethink ‘Temporary’. Gordon, Olympic Architecture: Building for the Summer Games, p.180. Dyckhoff, T and Barrett, C, The Architecture of London 2012 (West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2012), p.240. Peter Wells, ‘London’s Olympic Venues’, Business Review Weekly [published 28 July 2012]. Hugh Pearman, ‘These Knock-Down, Shrinkable Games’, The WSJ [published 24 July 2012]. Medina, ‘Completed Olympic Arena Makes Case For Temporary’. Dyckhoff and Barrett, The Architecture of London 2012, p.60. 15
figure 6: London 2012 Temporary Beach Volleyball Arena
figure 5: London 2012 Olympic Stadium
80,000-seater stadium in legacy mode could be reduced to 25,000, was a clear intention to ‘avoid the inevitable neglect and uncertainty that befalls the largest, most grandiose of Olympic stadia.’65 However, this in-your-face example of a building that doesn’t need to be there forever, has led some people to say that it isn’t even a real building or an icon, as it will not stay in its original Olympic form post-Games.66 But I agree with the others in saying that it is a new kind of icon, a 21st-century icon. Alongside the Olympic Stadium this sustainable approach was visible across all the Olympic venues, with the Aquatics Centre also possessing the ability to shrink as additional seating was provided in the form of “wings” that are now being removed after the Games. But perhaps most noticeably the flexibility of the venues is best exemplified in the Basketball Arena, Water Polo Building and Shooting Range, all of which can be deconstructed, transported and re-used at other sporting venues to come.67 These structures epitomise the concept installed by London of viewing the Olympics as a travelling road show, as plans from the start were ‘to use the structures in future Games, with the idea that these might be less about permanent structures and more like a moveable festival made from an adaptable infrastructure, to reduce resource use.’68 Furthermore, London quite sensibly made use of the numerous world-class facilities and beautiful backdrops that already existed within the city. Venues such as Wimbledon and Wembley were used for the tennis and football, whilst other venues, for instance Lord’s Cricket Ground, were converted through temporary architecture to host different sports. In addition to this, purely temporary structures were also ingeniously used, by taking sporting events into arenas where they would not normally be considered, like the use of Horse Guards Parade for beach volleyball and Greenwich Park for equestrian.69 (figure 6) This conscious move, therefore, against the “iconic buildings” in the permanent sense, towards a principle of designing for the future, has successfully determined the architecture of London’s Olympic venues. I agree with Slavid, that this ‘widespread use of temporary buildings as sporting facilities was truly radical, part of a sustainability strategy that argues that it was wrong for a city to burden itself with facilities it didn’t need.’70 But whilst these temporary venues may prevent “white elephants”, it means that the architect’s work will vanish as rapidly as it appeared. This is noted by Sheard who stresses that the idea that some of the venues will exist as little more than a memory in a few weeks time, or will shrink in the coming years, doesn’t faze them. Rather, he says, ‘we are energised by the 65 Medina, ‘Completed Olympic Arena Makes Case For Temporary’. 66 Wells, ‘London’s Olympic Venues: Now You See Them, Now You Don’t’. 67 Wells, ‘London’s Olympic Venues: Now You See Them, Now You Don’t’. 68 Dyckhoff and Barrett, The Architecture of London 2012, p.63. 69 Wells, ‘London’s Olympic Venues: Now You See Them, Now You Don’t’. 70 Ruth Slavid, ‘Pavilions and temporary building: While the permanent structures may have stolen the headlines, as much effort went into the temporary ones’, in East Side Story: Olympic Park (The Architects Journal: Emap, 2012), p.58. 17
challenge of creating facilities that will be used efficiently.’71 As Dyckhoff and Barrett rightly state, ‘why be stuck with an inflexible arena designed for thousands to watch Hockey during the Games, when you know in five years time it will be disused?’72 Only six months on from the Games it is hard to comment on whether these futuristic designs will see London avoid the post-Olympic curse, as many of the venues are still in the process of being dismantled or adapted into their legacy modes. But concerns do linger about the future of the Olympic Stadium, as the ongoing talks with West Ham Football Club have still not come to a conclusion.73 Additionally to this, the Basketball Arena, which was long claimed to be packed up and shipped to Rio, where it would be used for the next Olympics looks to have fallen through, with the Brazilians reluctant to trust a different company, leaving its fate also unknown. But despite these cases, I believe that the legacy planning that was in mind from such an early stage in London, combined with the flexible hybrid of facilities, looks to serve as a good model for future Games to follow. Although so many of these Olympic scale pop-up structures are fleeting now the Games are over, I support Jana in stating that they have illustrated that less expensive, more environmentally friendly pop-up architecture can be scaled up.74 These temporary venues are no longer only possible in the domain of small events, but can now accommodate large, urban crowds that could prove to become a lasting trend after this year’s Games. 75 I therefore agree with Wells that ‘it has made people, not just in the Olympics, but all walks of sport and leisure, reassess and say do we need to do it quite so big?’76
Future of Olympic Architecture The recent enthusiasm for each host city to create ever more spectacular Games is one that can certainly continue. But the previous approaches of building the most ambitious and extravagant new facilities from scratch, have over and over again proved to result in grossly underused stadia almost as soon as the Games are over.77 Instead if we are to eliminate the “post-Olympic curse”, and create sustainable futures for the cities and their venues, perhaps we need to investigate alternative ways in which the Games could be run. As Perryman states,
71 Wells, ‘London’s Olympic Venues: Now You See Them, Now You Don’t’. 72 Dyckhoff and Barrett, The Architecture of London 2012, p.28. 73 Owen Gibson, ‘London 2012’s legacy: diggers and a potential white elephant in the stadium’, The Guardian Newspaper [published 12 February 2013]. 74 Reena Jana, ‘Temporary Architecture in London: taking ‘pop-up’ to Olympic Levels’, Smart Planet [published 20 June 2012]. 75 Jana, ‘Temporary Architecture in London: taking ‘pop-up’ to Olympic Levels’. 76 Wells, ‘London’s Olympic Venues: Now You See Them, Now You Don’t’. 77 Adrian Pitts and Hanwen Liao, Sustainable Olympic Design and Urban Development (New York: Routledge, 2009), p.70. POST-OLYMPIC CITY: Elliott Ballam
‘this is not a process that is irreversible and if the Games were organized on a different basis, many of those broken promises could instead be kept.’78 A potential future for reimagining the Olympic Games could be to decentralize them, hosting them across a nation as opposed to just in one city. As Perryman argues, ‘the Olympics only come around once in a generation, so why do we restrict it to just one city?’ 79 Furthermore, the problem of finding legacy-use for these new facilities built is exacerbated from their concentration in one place where they are not necessarily most needed. Gordon, back in 1983, first suggested the idea of breaking the Games apart into separate components, then staging each, either sequentially or simultaneously, in a different host city. He stated that with ‘an imaginative programme for the games it would result in few new facilities needing to be built, and the nation making the best use of existing resources across the country.’ 80 This proposal has recently been put in place for the 2020 UEFA European Football Championship, where the event will be staged in thirteen cities across the continent because in a time of economic uncertainty, UEFA didn’t want to burden a country without sufficient infrastructure with hosting the competition.81 But although I am in agreement with Perryman and Gordon, that ‘almost all the broken promises of the modern Games flow from this centralization and all the alternatives are facilitated by its opposite, decentralization’82, I question whether this fragmented approach would damage the Olympic spirit, and the mini-Olympics that resulted would become no more than just World Championships in their respective sports that already occur. Alternatively, another option for the Olympics would be to create a permanent site for the Games in Greece, near their ancient roots. This idea initially came about ‘in the 1990s, when concerns started to be raised about the mounting debts incurred by Olympic host cities stuck with facilities of no obvious continuing use.’83Although this would reduce the burden on many cities, I concur with Gordon who states that, ‘what but a Roman numeral would distinguish one Games from the next, and what challenges would be left for Olympic organizers, planners, and architects?’84 Beyond this issue he explains how creating a permanent home would not alter the problem of after use or between-the-Games use except, perhaps, to make it worse. Finally, a different future approach for the Games could be to have a flat-pack Olympics held in temporary and reusable buildings. Perryman states how the International Olympic Committee could not just be a global guardian of access to and participation in sport, but 78 Perryman, Why The Olympics Aren’t Good For Us, And How They Can Be, p.15. 79 Perryman, Why The Olympics Aren’t Good For Us, And How They Can Be, p.70. 80 Gordon, Olympic Architecture: Building for the Summer Games, p.178. 81 James Riach, ‘Euro 2020 to be hosted across Europe, Uefa announces’, The Guardian Newspaper [published 6 December 2012]. 82 Perryman, Why The Olympics Aren’t Good For Us, And How They Can Be, p.66. 83 Perryman, Why The Olympics Aren’t Good For Us, And How They Can Be, p.118. 84 Gordon, Olympic Architecture: Building for the Summer Games, p.178. 19
also a kind of giant global hire shop too, with staff trained to help facilitate the Games wherever they take place in a way that best suits the needs of the host.85 Glancey, in his article The Flatpack Olympics, explains how ‘not only would this save cities from debt, redundant venues and white elephant awards, it would also mean that the Games could be held in those with precious little money to throw away.’86 But, although I agree with both Perryman and Glancey that this low-cost travelling Olympics would take the Games beyond the richest countries, and see the elimination of “white elephants”, I believe that organising the Games in this way would considerably reduce the potential gains that are available for a host city. The idea of there being no lasting sporting facilities, or physical legacy that the city ever played host to the Games, would be far from an attractive proposition, and alongside this, the creativity and experimentation so evident in creating ever more spectacular Games would be no longer, as each Olympiad would become the same, just in a different city. If reimagining the Olympics then, to be organized on a different basis does not look to be beneficial, and we are to remain with the same format where the Games are to be hosted by a different city every four years, it is essential that the shift made by London 2012 towards a more sustainable approach to Olympic design, and consideration of post-Olympic usage continues. Pitts and Liao, in their book Sustainable Olympic Design and Urban Development, explain how it is important, that like in London, host cities should only consider building new facilities when there is a legacy demand in the post-Games period, and that completely temporary venues should be explored if the sport has no post-Olympic appeal.87 As well as this, they explain how it makes sense to ‘fully utilise existing facilities wherever possible as the redevelopment of an old venue is a better solution than the launch of a new one.’88 But whereas once a clear distinction existed between an event’s permanent and temporary venues, over time these lines have become blurred. Technological advancements have meant that permanent buildings now have the ability to have temporary overlays added to them, enabling them to grow and shrink for an event.89 In the case of Olympic venues this is valuable, as installing such an approach allows a city to still be left with the physical legacy and facilities from hosting the Games, but without the burden of over large stadia. In light of this, Pitts and Liao stress that today, ‘the most important decision in planning a new Olympic venue, or converting an existing one, is the number of spectators to be accommodated.’90 They state that the design capacity should be conceived from the outset not as one, but as two figures, where consideration should be made to the number of permanent seats needed for post-Games crowds, as well as the maximum capacity needed to fulfil the Olympic 85 Perryman, Why The Olympics Aren’t Good For Us, And How They Can Be, p.118. 86 Jonathan Glancey, ‘London 2012: The Flatpack Olympics’, The Guardian Newspaper [published 12 June 2011]. 87 Pitts and Liao, Sustainable Olympic Design and Urban Development, p.149. 88 Pitts and Liao, Sustainable Olympic Design and Urban Development, p.186. 89 John Barrow, ‘Trends Towards Temporary’, Populous [published June 2012]. 90 Pitts and Liao, Sustainable Olympic Design and Urban Development, p.161. POST-OLYMPIC CITY: Elliott Ballam
demands.91 As Jopson states, ‘the big difference with temporary architecture today, is that it’s now factored in from the very start and integrated into the design.’92 Alongside avoiding overlarge empty stadia, financial reasons illustrate another argument in favour of temporary architecture and overlays, as they provide considerable savings over the lifecycle of a building. Even though complicated temporary structures may not necessarily save cost and resources in procurement and use, they do reduce the burden of venue operation and management after the Olympics. However, it is important that if these ‘temporary facilities are to be effective they also need to be standardised and modular to allow for reuse.’93 Looking ahead then to future Olympics, the preliminary design for the Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic Park illustrates how the Games are definitely continuing their turn towards sustainability, as once again the city is incorporating planning for a ‘Games Mode’ and a ‘Legacy Mode’. Hopkirk explains how the design looks to be following in London’s footsteps as they have used as many temporary venues as possible, and included temporary additions in all of the proposed permanent venues to accommodate for the Olympic crowds94. The scheme currently involves the creation of six temporary venues and only nine permanent ones, which are to be constructed around existing stadia, so that after the Games these new permanent facilities will provide an Olympic Training Centre to discover and develop new sporting talents.95 Consequently, the nature of these sporting venues being proposed for Rio 2016, illustrate how designing temporary is now being seen as a way to minimise the risk of being left with expensive over-sized redundant stadia, and therefore avoiding the negative legacy experienced by former host cities. It can be said then, that ‘the 2016 Olympic games in Rio de Janeiro will be the most temporary games in history!’ 96
Conclusion Throughout this essay it has become clear that the under-utilisation historically experienced by Olympic venues post-Games, has been as a result of former host cities focusing on building new and lavish venues for the spectacle, and not properly considering their longerterm legacy. These differences that have existed between the sports facilities needed by the 91 Pitts and Liao, Sustainable Olympic Design and Urban Development, p.161. 92 Barrow, ‘Trends Towards Temporary’. 93 Pitts and Liao, Sustainable Olympic Design and Urban Development, p.65. 94 Elizabeth Hopkirk, ‘Rio to copy London Olympics’ temporary approach’, Building Design [published 13 August 2012]. 95 Damian Holmes, ‘Olympics 2016 – Rio de Janeiro Brazil – AECOM’, World Landscape Architect [published 16 August 2012]. 96 Lidija Grozdanic, ‘AECOM Unveils Their Masterplan for the Rop 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games’, Inhabitat [published 9 March 2012]. 21
host city, and that required for the Olympic Games, has meant that the construction of new permanent venues for every sporting event has not been a viable or sustainable approach. It is therefore important that we continue to introduce temporary and portable structures which are evident in other grand temporary events, as well as in the most recent Olympics, to alleviate the burden of redundant venues post-Games. As in London 2012, the approach taken by future host cities needs to be one that uses existing venues as a first priority, builds new venues only when there is a legacy demand and identified post-Games use, and seeks temporary solutions for those venues required for the Games but without a post-Games appeal.97 We also need to ensure that the host city already has a plan for sustainable urban development, within which the Games can fit in to and operate effectively and efficiently, as this will prevent venues being built purely for the spectacle.98 It is imperative then, that we design for the future and aim to ‘incorporate these principles at the very outset of a project so that the architectural solution is fully resolved for the event, the overlay and the legacy requirements’.99 I consequently believe that the key to achieving this is in striking the right balance between a permanent core of facilities and a super-flexible complement of temporary additions, which will allow the host city to not only gain all the benefits available from staging the Games and be left with World-class sporting facilities, but will see them avoid the burden of “white elephants” post event. Temporary architecture in the form of whole venues or additional overlays is therefore where I deem the future to lie, as building on its current foundations of flexibility, sustainability and the ability to create the extraordinary; it is a discipline with an exciting future and one that can allow a city to create a sustainable and workable legacy.100 With the Olympic Games being a unique situation where the two ideal forms of ambition, architecture and sport, come together in one common undertaking101, it is important that we continue to push the boundaries of sporting architecture. After the popular memory of the Games has faded, it is the architecture and the landscape of the park that always inspires102, and with this important role in mind, we must continue in this move towards a more sustainable Olympic design that will see bright futures being created for the cities that play host to the Games. I therefore, support Gordon in stating that if we maintain this shift, ‘the long and mutually beneficial relationship between architecture and the Olympic movement can almost certainly continue. If not, architects will have lost a field for experiment that has been remarkably fertile, a field in which their contribution has been exciting, rewarding, and increasingly decisive.’103 Let the Games continue! 97 98 99 100 101 102 103
Pitts and Liao, Sustainable Olympic Design and Urban Development, p.113. Pitts and Liao, Sustainable Olympic Design and Urban Development, p.219. Barrow, ‘Trends Towards Temporary’. Barrow, ‘Trends Towards Temporary’. Winny Mass et al., NL28 Olympic Fire Future Games (Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2008), p.7. Dyckhoff and Barrett, The Architecture of London 2012, p.256. Gordon, Olympic Architecture: Building for the Summer Games, p.180.
POST-OLYMPIC CITY: Elliott Ballam
Bibliography Books Bale, J and Christensen, M, Post-Olympism? Questioning Sport in the Twenty-first Century (Oxford: Berg, 2004). Bishop, P, and Williams, L, The Temporary City (New York: Routledge, 2012). Cook, P, Archigram (London: Studio Vista Publishers, 1972). Dyckhoff, T and Barrett, C, The Architecture of London 2012 (West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2012). Gold, J.R, and Gold, M.M, Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World’s Games, 1896-2012 (New York: Routledge, 2007). Gordon, B, Olympic Architecture: Building for the Summer Games (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1983). Jodidio, P, Temporary Architecture Now! (Taschen GmbH, 2011). John, G, and Sheard, R, Stadia: A Design and Development Guide (Oxford: Architectural Press, 2000). Kronenburg, R, Portable Architecture (Oxford: Elsevier/Architectural Press, 2003). Kronenburg, R, Transportable Environments 2: Theory, Context Design and Technology (London: Spon Press, 2003). Kronenburg, R, Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Change (London: Laurence King Publishing, 2007). Mass, W, Joubert, M, Salij, T, Bouman, O, NL28 Olympic Fire Future Games (Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2008). Minton, A, Ground Control (London: Penguin, 2012). Perryman, M, Why The Olympics Aren’t Good For Us, And How They Can Be (London: OR Books, 2012). Pitts, A, and Liao, H, Sustainable Olympic Design and Urban Development (New York: Routledge, 2009). 23
Provoost, M, The Stadium: The Architecture of Mass Sport (Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2000). Sheard, R, Sports Architecture (London: Spon Press, 2001). Siegal, J, More Mobile: Portable Architecture for Today (New York: Pinceton Architectural Press, 2008). Temel, R, and Haydn. F, Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces (Birkhauser Verlag AG, 2006). Thompson, P, Tolloczko, T, and Clarke, J, Stadia, Arenas & Grandstands (London: E&FN Spon, 1998). Wimmer, M, Olympic Buildings (UK: George Prior Publishers Ltd, 1976).
Articles from Books and Journals Abrahams, Tim, ‘Designing the Masterplan’, in East Side Story: Olympic Park (The Architects Journal: Emap, 2012), pp.24-26. Chernuhenko, David, ‘Sustainable Urban Development in the Beijing Olympic Bid’, in ‘Urban Regeneration and Renewal’ ed. by John Coaffe, in Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World’s Games, 1896-2012 ed. by John Gold and Margaret Gold (New York: Routledge, 2007) p.150. Coaffe, John, ‘Urban Regeneration and Renewal’, in Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World’s Games, 1896-2012 ed. by John Gold and Margaret Gold (New York: Routledge, 2007) pp.150-162. Coaffe, John and Johnston, Lorraine, ‘Accommodating the Spectacle’, in Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World’s Games, 1896-2012 ed. by John Gold and Margaret Gold (New York: Routledge, 2007) pp.138-149. Duffy, Frank, ‘Architecture, scenography and time: How the Games will help east London realise its urbanistic potential’, in East Side Story: Olympic Park (The Architects Journal: Emap, 2012), pp.82-88. Kendall, Jonathan, ‘Event and memory: Olympic predecessors’, in East Side Story: Olympic Park (The Architects Journal: Emap, 2012), pp.14-19. MacAloon, John, in ‘Accommodating the Spectacle’ ed. by John Coaffe and Lorraine Johnston, in Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning and the World’s Games, 1896-2012 ed. by John Gold and Margaret Gold (New York: Routledge, 2007) pp.142-143. POST-OLYMPIC CITY: Elliott Ballam
Searle, Glen, ‘Uncertain Legacy: Sydney’s Olympic Stadium’, in European Planning Studies, Vol.10, No.7 (Carfax Publishing, 2002). Slavid, Ruth, ‘Pavilions and temporary building: While the permanent structures may have stolen the headlines, as much effort went into the temporary ones’, in East Side Story: Olympic Park (The Architects Journal: Emap, 2012), pp.58-59.
Videos Olympic Architecture: After the Circus leaves town (London: BBC 4, 29 March 2006). Dyckhoff, Tom, What is the Olympic Archigram legacy? (London: BBC 2, 11 July 2012).
Websites Arieff, Allison, ‘It’s Time to Rethink ‘Temporary’, The New York Times Opinion Pages, www. opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/its-time-to-rethink-temporary [published 19 December 2011]. Bang, Soren, ‘Hunting White Elephants: New Study Questions Mega-Event Stadium Legacy’, The Stadium Business Summit, www.stadiumbusinesssummit.com/hunting-whiteelephants-new-study-questions-mega-event-stadium-legacy/ [published 19 October 2011]. Barney, Robert, ‘Planning Makes the Difference’ in ‘Do Olympic Host Cities Ever Win?’, The New York Times Opinion Pages, www.roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com /2009/10/02/doolympic-host-cities-ever-win [published 2 October 2009]. Barrow, John, ‘Trends Towards Temporary’, Populous, www.populouslondon2012.com /2012/06/ trends-towards-temporary [published June 2012]. Chan, Kelly, ‘Pop-Up Populism: How the Temporary Architecture Craze is Changing Our Relationship to the Built Environment, Blouin Art Info, www.artinfo.com /news/story/802841/ pop-up-populism-how-the-temporary-architecture-craze-is-changing-our-relationship-to-thebuilt-environment [published 8 May 2012]. Dale, Daniel, ‘Why Athens has lived to regret hosting the Olympic Games’, The Star Newspaper, http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1229485--why-athens-has-lived-toregret-hosting-the-olympic-games [published 22 July 2012]. Davies, Caroline, ‘What next for Olympic Stadium, the Velodrome, and the Copper Box?’, The Guardian, www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/11/olympic-venues-stadium-velodromeregeneration [published 11 August 2012]. 25
DePillis, Lydia, ‘Temporary is the New Permanent’, Washington City Paper, www. washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2012/04/25/temporary-is-the-newpermanent [published 25 April 2012]. Gibson, Owen, ‘London 2012’s legacy: diggers and a potential white elephant in the stadium’, The Guardian, www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/12/london-2012-legacy-olympics [published 12 February 2013]. Glancey, Jonathan, ‘London 2012: The flatpack Olympics’, The Guardian, www.guardian. co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/12/travelling-olympics-flatpack-games-world [published 12 June 2011]. Grozdanic, Lidija, ‘AECOM Unveils Their Masterplan for the Rop 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games’, Inhabitat, www.inhabitat.com/aecom-unveils-their-masterplan-for-therio-2016-olympic-and-paralymic-games [published 9 March 2012]. Holmes, Damian, ‘Olympics 2016 – Rio de Janeiro Brazil – AECOM’, World Landscape Architect, www.worldlandscapearchitect.com/olympics-2016-rio-de-janeiro-brazil-aecom [published 16 August 2012]. Hopkirk, Elizabeth, ‘Rio to copy London Olympics’ temporary approach’, Building Design, www.bdonline.co.uk/news/rio-to-copy-london-olympics-temporary-approach/ 5041041.article [published 13 August 2012]. Hu, Ray, ‘What happens to the Post-Olympic City?’, Core77 Design Magazine and Resource, www.core77.com/blog/exhibitions/what_happens_to_the_post-olympic_ city_23143.asp [published 14 August 2012]. Jana, Reena, ‘Why temporary architecture could be an enduring trend’, Smart Planet, www.smartplanet.com/blog/design-architecture/why-temporary-architecture-could-be-anenduring-trend/2887?tag=content;siu-container [published 21 December 2011]. Jana, Reena, ‘Temporary Architecture in London: taking ‘pop-up’ to Olympic Levels’, Smart Planet, www.smartplanet.com/blog/design-architecture/temporary-architecture-in-londontaking-8216pop-up-to-olympic-levels/7124 [published 20 June 2012]. Lim, Louisa, ‘China’s Post-Olympic Woe: How To Fill An Empty Nest’, National Public Radio, www.npr.org/2012/07/10/156368611/chinas-post-olympic-woe-how-to-fill-an-empty-nest [published 10 July 2012]. Liu, Melinda, ‘Architectural White Elephants: Beijing, London, and the Post-Olympics Curse’, The Daily Beast, www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/14/architectural-white-elephantsbeijing-london-and-the-post-olympics-curse [published 14 August 2012]. POST-OLYMPIC CITY: Elliott Ballam
Mathieu, Emily, ‘Games Legacy: A herd of white elephants’, The Star Newspaper, www. thestar.com/business/article/757961--games-legacy-a-herd-of-white-elephants [published 30 January 2010]. Medina, Samuel, ‘Completed Olympic Arena Makes Case For Temporary’, Architizer News, www.architizer.com/en_us/blog/dyn/22410/completed-olympic-arena-makes-case-fortemporary [published 10 June 2011]. Orwall, Bruce, ‘A House Designed to be Brought Down’, The Wall Street Journal, www. online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444873204577536971299444622 [published 23 July 2012]. Pack, Jon and Gustwit, Gary, ‘The Olympic City Project’, www.olympiccityproject.com [accessed 8 September 2012]. Pearman, Hugh, ‘These Knock-Down, Shrinkable Games’, The Wall Street Journal, www. online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303754904577532921054250902 [published 24 July 2012]. Riach, James, ‘Euro 2020 to be hosted across Europe, Uefa announces’, The Guardian, www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/dec/06/euro-2020-across-europe-uefa [published 6 December 2012]. Rose, Steve, ‘Here today, gone tomorrow’, The Guardian, www.guardian.co.uk/ artanddesign/2007/aug/16/architecture [published 16 August 2007]. Smith, Brandon, ‘The Future of Olympic Architecture is Portable’, Mashable Blog, www. mashable.com/2012/07/31/olympic-architecture/#709018-Temporary-Basketball-Stadium-London [published 31 July 2012]. Usbourne, Simon, ‘After the party: What happens when the Olympics leaves town?’, The Independent, www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/after-the-party-what-happens-whenthe-olympics-leave-town-901629 [published 19 August 2008]. Walker, Tim, ‘The pop-up buildings that leave a legacy’, The Independent, http://www. independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/architecture/the-popup-buildings-that-leave-alegacy-8216915.html [published 20 October 2012]. Weissmann, Jordan, ‘Empty Nest: Beijing’s Olympic Stadium is a Vacant ‘Museum Piece’’, The Atlantic Newspaper, www.theatlantic.com/ business/archive/2012/07/ empty-nestbeijings-olympic-stadium-is-a-vacant-museum-piece/260522 [published 31 July 2012].
27
Wells, Peter, ‘London’s Olympic Venues: Now You See Them, Now You Don’t’, Business Review Weekly, www.brw.com.au/p/lifestyle/sport/olympics/london_olympics_venues_ now_you_see_ f17UdoCFuO1OSTT8Ry7p3K [published 28 July 2012]. Williams, Richard, ‘Permanent Olympic home can avoid these repellent spectacles’, The Guardian, www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/mar/25/comment.sport [published 25 March 2008]. Zimbalist, Andrew, ‘3 Reasons Why Hosting the Olympics Is a Loser’s Game’, The Atlantic Newspaper, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/3-reasons-why-hosting-theolympics-is-a-losers-game/260111 [published 23 July 2012].
Image References Abstract Image: authors own image created from editting source ‘Olympic.org Official website of the Olympic Movement’, http://www.olympic.org [accessed 18 February 2013]. Figure 1: authors own image created from editting source Rouf, Aqil, ‘Abandoned Olympic Sites’, Limitless Magazine, www.limitlessmagazine. com/4319-abandoned-olympic-sites [published 19 August 2012]. Figure 2: authors own image created from editting source Alexander L, ‘Athens Olympic Stadium’, flickr, www.flickr.com/photos/22213055@ N08/7652602552/in/set-72157630766510574 [published 26 July 2012]. Figure 3: authors own image created from editting source Culwulla, ‘Home Bush Bay site of the finest Olympics ever’, Skyscraper City Forum, http:// www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=235110 [published 17 July 2005]. Figure 4: authors own image created from editting source Rouf, ‘Abandoned Olympic Sites’. Limitless Magazine, www.limitlessmagazine.com/4319abandoned-olympic-sites [published 19 August 2012]. Figure 5: authors own image created from editting source ‘London Olympic Stadium: Building Information + Images’, e-architect, www.e-architect. co.uk/london/london_olympic_stadium.htm [published 12 November 2012]. Figure 6: authors own image created from editting source ‘London 2012: bikinis, beers and Benny Hill at the beach volleyball’, The Telegraph, http:// www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/london-2012/9435445/London-2012-bikinis-beer-andBenny-Hill-at-the-beach-volleyball.html [published 29 July 2012].
POST-OLYMPIC CITY: Elliott Ballam
29
For general enquiries about the School please contact us directly: School of Architecture, Design and Environment Faculty of Arts University of Plymouth Drake Circus Plymouth PL4 8AA Telephone: email:
+44(0)1752 585150 l.c.saunders@plymouth.ac.uk
DISCUSSION
ARCO: Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License