Dissertation | MArch by Varvara Lazaridou

Manchester School of Architecure

Varvara Lazaridou | 2014

Designing for Prestige or Designing for Reuse? By Varvara Lazaridou A dissertation submitted to the Manchester School of Architecture for the degree of Master of Architecture Manchester School of Architecture University of Manchester Manchester Metropolitan University April 2014 Copyright © Varvara Lazaridou 2014 3

Declaration No portion of the work referred to in the dissertation has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning. Copyright statement (1) Copyright in text of this thesis rests with the author. Copies (by any process) either in full, or of extracts, may be made only in accordance with instructions given by the Author and lodged in the John Rylands Library of Manchester. Details may be obtained from the Librarian. This page must form part of any such copies made. Further copies (by any process) of copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the permission (in writing) of the Author. (2) The ownership of any intellectual property rights which may be described in this thesis is vested in the Manchester School of Architecture, subject to any prior agreement to the contrary, and may not be made available for use by third parties without the written permission of the University, which will prescribe the terms and conditions of any such agreement. (3) Further information on the conditions under which disclosures and exploitation may take place is available from the Head of Department of the School of Environment and Development.

0.1| Acknowledgments I would like to express my greatest gratitude to the people that have helped and supported me throughout this dissertation. I am grateful to my supervisor Amy Hanley for her continuous support, expertise, excellent guidance and inspiration on the topic. This dissertation would not have been possible without her mentoring. I would also like to thank all the people interviewed in the data gathering stage of this project. A special thank of mine goes to my parents for their belief and encouragement throughout my studies. I also want to thank Constantinos for his support and encouragement.

0.2| Abstract This dissertation focuses on the theory of reuse and the significant role it plays in terms of mega events such as Olympic Games. It also focuses on politics and how they are involved in the implementation of reuse. The theory of reuse and how it is affected by politics before, during and after mega events is demonstrated in the case study of the 2004 Athens’ Olympic Games. It draws on the Douglas and Langston theory of reuse. The Olympic Games started with a very strong ideology, the creation of a peaceful society where athletes from different countries respected each other and thereby contributed to the creation of a better world. Through the years, this ideology evolved as the Games’ worldwide visibility has made them politically sensitive. In the case of the Olympic Games in Athens, the hidden agendas are examined from the moment Athens applied to host the Games. The situation during the event is also examined; paying particular attention to a successful example of reuse that took place during the Games. However, as demonstrated by this dissertation, the current situation, ten years later, proves that the idea of reuse was not implemented after all. This dissertation concludes by providing ways in which the idea of reuse can still play an essential role in the afterlife of events that did not initially consider reuse, such as the case of the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens. Key words: Adaptive Reuse, Olympic Games, Athens 2004, Sustainability, Politics 6

1.0| Introduction 9

1.0| Introduction Olympic Games are about a celebration of sports, however, behind the scenes, lies a series of political, economic and social agendas. Just as the athletes compete with each other to win a medal, so cities are in a competition for hosting the Olympics and represent their nation on a global scale before the games even start. By winning an Olympic bid, what they actually win is global recognition, prestige, attention, focus and an opportunity to show the best side of their country. To achieve this goal they go beyond their limits in terms of the speed of construction and the money they invest in order to become the greatest ever Olympic Games (Ole Bouman, 2008: 4). “Wherever they take place, the Olympic Games leave a huge footprint; they can change the appearance of a city” (Riek Bakker, 2008). In the Olympic plan one of the most important factors is the architecture. Not only because the Games are taking place in these buildings, stadiums and arenas but also because the physical appearance of the buildings represent the rising modernity and the stabilization of the economy of each country. Having this in mind, cities are trying their best to impress the visitors from all over the world. In their attempt to achieve this, Olympic cities often build contemporary sporting arenas that follow similar design patterns designed by international architects (Ole Bouman, 2008: 5). One of the most famous examples in the case of the Olympic Games in Athens is the Olympic Stadium designed by the Spanish architect, Santiago Calatrava, which hosted the opening and closing ceremonies together with the athletics. (George Xenides, 2003) For the reasons mentioned above, these buildings are not usually compatible with the culture of the city and residents and are usually isolated from other buildings. They become disused and labelled ‘white elephants’, mainly because of their size and the difficulty of maintaining them. (Kees Christiaanse, 2008: 109) This dissertation will demonstrate this using the Athens Olympic Games as a case study. The Greek government saw the Olympic Games as an opportunity to attract funds and to raise the profile of the city. For these reasons they adopted strategies in order

to improve their economic attractiveness and improve the quality of the urban environment. Athens’ architectural identity could be characterized by small to medium-‐sized buildings. In order to be able to host the huge number of athletes and visitors, Olympic Stadiums are not compatible with the cultural and regional identity of the city; as a result we have massive buildings with an extensive infrastructure, which stand out, in a bad sense, from the rest of the existing buildings. (Andranovich, G., Burbank, M. J., & Heying, C. H., 2001) After the end of the Olympic Games when all the athletes, coaching staff and visitors have gone, the buildings are still there. After their 17days of international use, the Stadiums have to serve the needs of the city, the residents and local teams, which involve far fewer people. Stadiums are designed to host big events and their aim is to be used by local teams after the end of the Games. However, local teams usually favour other smaller, local, pre-‐existing fields as they are less maintenance-‐intensive. Therefore year after year the use of these stadiums is reduced. (Riek Bakker, 2008, 28) Furthermore, the stadiums discussed above, are stadiums where popular Greek sports, such as football and basketball, take place. A more pressing question concerns what happens to the stadiums and arenas where unpopular sports, such as hockey and softball, take place? If there are no Greek teams to use them, this means that their lifecycle is only 17 days. One solution that could have proved ideal is for the stadiums not to be built in the first place. This was the case in the Olympic Games in London where all Games that were not in the English culture were not approved by the committee and therefore were never built. (Olympic.org, 2006) Another solution is for these buildings and stadiums to be reused to provide different facilities. Reuse is a topic that should concern every city that hosts big

events such as the Olympic Games. Ten years after the Olympic Games in Athens and most of the buildings are little-‐used and some have been totally abandoned. This dissertation will be focused on the example of the Olympic Games in Athens where there was a failure to address the issue of the reuse of the buildings, stadiums and other infrastructure. It is important to highlight that this situation arose not because of ignorance or lack of staff, as there were a lot of successful examples of reuse in the past regarding this approach. Secondly one of the greatest examples of reuse took place during the Games, where, in only 4 days, the Olympic Stadium had to be transformed from a space that hosted the Opening Ceremony to the athletics stadium. Different types of reuse will be discussed mainly in terms of their political theme and how the scale of promotion, from global to local, influences them; the interest of the politicians and the amount of investment required. Other examples of Olympic cities have to be mentioned, as they had predicted the post-‐Olympic life of buildings, their time schedule and their initial targets. Reuse is a topic that is being considered for future Games or events and for ones that happened recently. Therefore it is important to study past examples, both successful and not, in order to understand how the ideal event, with the idea of reuse implemented, can take place. This can only be achieved if we look beyond the event itself and concentrate on a more political and social context. (Kees Christiaanse, 2008: 111) This dissertation will identify, through an analysis of the example of Athens, the mistakes that led to the current situation, and will pay attention to the life of the buildings after the Games. Subsequently, this will be related to the theory of reuse and how Olympic cities such as Athens can fulfil criteria in order for spaces to be able to be reused and not left abandoned and demolished. 12

2.0| Methodology 13

2.0| Methodology For the investigation of post-‐Olympic use of the Stadiums this dissertation will use primary and secondary sources within a qualitative case study method, in order to identify the full context in terms of the local circumstances and the theory of reuse. Secondary research will focus on the theories within the context of adaptive reuse and the evolution of the Olympic Games’ ideology. Taking into consideration books and articles from different fields, such as architecture, sports, politics and urbanism, found in the National Technical University of Athens (part of Architecture) and the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (part of Physical Education and Sport Science). The literature review presents a collection of different understandings of the field of the ‘Olympic Games’ and provides a framework for the empirical chapter. The primary research focused on people’s opinions and views on the current situation of the Olympic stadiums and arenas. Primary interviews assess the validity given to secondary resources like articles, journals etc. The interviews were with people living in the Olympic Village, or working in the Olympic Stadiums, some of whom had worked there since the construction of the facilities. Hence there is a scale of validity for the interviewers’ opinion. These gave a social perspective and because the interviews took place at the beginning of the research, they informed and developed the structure of this dissertation. They gave an idea of the social and political context in terms of reuse and informed the selection of the case studies (used in both the literature review and empirical chapters). (Fig. 1)

Fig1|Timetable of the site visits | Lazaridou V. |2014

The initial research was conducted primarily through an extensive literature review, covering the topics mentioned above; these are the evolution of the Games through some specific events in the history of the Games which mainly involved politics. That is about seeing the overall strategy and seeing the idea of the Olympics within a timeframe and how reuse as a topic can be considered for future Games and events. Through the example of the Olympic Games in Athens and after their completion, there is a critique of the mistakes in terms of organization, masterplan, initial thoughts and timelines as seen from an architectural perspective which is different from those of the funders and the politicians. The aim of this dissertation is to demonstrate how the theory of reuse must be taken into consideration before and after mega-‐events, such as the Olympics. Although there were no plans for the post-‐Olympic period, there are some potential ways of reusing the context. The Athens’ Olympics can be used as an example of a city that hosted the Games without considering the post-‐Olympic period.

This dissertation would not have this structure if interviews and site visits were not conducted, particularly if they had not taken place early on since different resources have different levels of value that can lead to different conclusions.

3.0| Theory 17

3.1| Theory of the Olympic Games

3.1.1| Historical background – Ideology of the Games The Olympic Games were a series of athletic competitions held in honour of Zeus at Olympia as it was the home of the Greek Gods. Historical reports mention that the first Olympiad in 776BC lasted for a single day and consisted of one event, the footrace. Only Greek males were allowed to compete in these Games and, it is worth pointing out, during the Games no wars were allowed (John Bos, 2008: 68-‐69). The modern Olympic Games officially started in 1896, initiated by a Frenchman named Baron Pierre de Coubertin whose first mission was to attract French people into sports, as he believed that the Games could be a way to create a link between different countries and cultures. In 1894 he established the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the goals of which included the creation of a peaceful society (Malfas, 2004: 209) where athletes from different countries respected each other and thereby contributed to the creation of a better world (John Bos, 2008: 71). 3.1.2|A turning point-‐ the first appearance of political interest The International Olympic Committee (IOC) now consisting of 125 members from a wide variety of countries has the power to elect the host city. One of their responsibilities is also to decide the dates of the Olympic Games. Besides the IOC, which is the central power of the Olympic movement, there is also the National Olympic Committee (NOC) of the hosting country (Malfas, 2004: 210). The NOC in cooperation with a variety of units -‐ such as the IOC, the government of the country and some private sector organisations -‐ aims to achieve the best possible organization of the Olympic Games. The goals of the IOC for the Games started to evolve with the passage of time, which resulted in the goals of today being very different from those of the Greeks. This

gradual evolution of the Games can be better understood by looking at some specific events in the history of the Games which mainly involved politics. One of the first examples of an event that was overshadowed by political goals was the Olympic Games of 1936 in Berlin, where Hitler used them as a tool to promote his national-‐socialist ideology (John Bos, 2008: 68). The first television broadcasting of the Olympic Games in 1936 influenced not only the economy of the Olympic Games but also increased the number of the boycotts (John Bos, 2008: 81). The media is a very powerful tool and is usually used not only to promote the Olympic Games as a celebration of sport but also to promote the economy and the political issues of each hosting city. The importance of such Games can be understood by the fact that the sports section in newspapers now occupies more space than politics and the economy (Riek Bakker, 2008: 30). Another important event was in the Olympic Games of 1956 where, despite the fact that there was a war between some participating countries (Israel, France, Great Britain, and Egypt), the Games took place as prearranged. However the initial idea of the Olympic Games as promoting world peace and that athletics would be unaffected by political issues was far away from the reality (John Bos, 2008: 81). One of the most important events that reinforced the idea that the Games were affected by political and economic decisions and had little to do with their original ideas, were the Olympic Games of Munich in 1972, where, although 17 people died, the IOC president Avery Brundage vowed that “The Games must go on” (John Bos, 2008: 81). The 1984 Los Angeles’ Olympic Games was a turning point in the politicisation of the Games as it was the first time in the history of the Games that the organization of the Games was the responsibility of a businessman with large sponsors entering the Olympics (John Bos, 2008: 87). Since then, the financial investment has seen a dramatic increase and the appearance of the host city transformed by the erection of huge buildings (Malfas, 2004: 210).

The Olympic Games of 1992 in Barcelona saw the beginning of a commercialized period, as the Games were used as a tool to improve the city’s urban planning. This idea seemed to be more important than the actual Games. (Fig. 2) It is then not surprising to observe that 68 years after the first appearance of political interest in the Olympic Games, the Olympic Games of Athens 2004 were used as a political and economic tool by the national government to promote political goals. According to Riek Bakker, “Olympic Games have become a super tool for city marketing and branding, a political and economical (sic.) machine controlled by the IOC” (Riek Bakker, 2008: 30).

Fig2| Diagram of the turning points regarding the Olympic Games and political intentions | Lazaridou V. | 2014

Due to the pressure of public opinion on the Olympic Games, the IOC set some new goals for the Games after the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. After that period where emphasis was given only to the economics, the attention was to be shifted towards social issues (John Bos, 2008: 94). This change had begun at the international symposium from 14 to 16 November 2002 where the IOC stated “The possible long term effects, the benefits for the community of the Olympic Movement should be considered as key aspects” (Kees Christiaanse, 2008: 111). This evolution can be clearly understood by the idea of the situation of their Olympics that promoted each city before the bid. In the Athens Olympic Games in 1896 the motto was ‘brotherhood’, in Montreal 1976 it was ‘frugality’, in Barcelona 1992 it was ’Olympic 20

Games for the city and not the city for the Games’, in Beijing 2008 the motto was ‘human rights’ and in London 2012 ‘sustainability’. (Kees Christiaanse, 2008: 111) Due to the fact that the Athens Olympic Games were the last Games before the new goals set by the IOC, the current situation of the Olympic stadiums and the public spaces shows that no attention has been paid to maintenance (legacy) and some of them are now totally abandoned. This is not only a responsibility of the International Olympic Committee but of the host nation as well since, during this period, the national political interest diminished the influence of the IOC. To conclude, the large, world-‐wide TV audience for the Olympic Games has become a political issue, which resulted to some priorities being more important than the actual hosting of the Olympic Games. The Games have the power to promote a city on a global scale in terms of architecture, city marketing, city development, sports infrastructure, economy and tourism. The Olympic Games leave a huge legacy for the host city. Sometimes, this is successful and can be used after the Olympics adding to the city something of lasting quality, not only buildings, but infrastructure, public spaces and transportation. But in some more realistic cases they leave the city with white elephants. That is because they focused on short term results, such as the promotion and the economic growth of the country-‐city, which devalues the later use of the stadiums and venues as well as the whole appearance of the city (Kees Christiaanse, 2008: 111). 3.2| Classifications of adaptive reuse Due to the fact that ‘adaptive reuse’ refers to a ‘subject that keeps being developed’, many different technical definitions and understandings are often being used to describe the same phenomenon (Langston, 2008). According to Langston, reuse is “to use a building for a new purpose” (Langston, 2010). This means that the building’s initial use is no longer appropriate and the new use has to be different from the old one, to install a new programme into an existing

building. This definition includes only the building’s function and can be considered as too simplistic. However, adaptive reuse involves much greater changes. According to James Douglas, adaptation is “Any work to a building over and above maintenance to change its capacity (e.g. extension/partial demolition), function (e.g. conversion) or performance (e.g. refurbishment), any interventions to adjust reuse or upgrade a building to suit new conditions or requirements” (James Douglas, 2006: 1). These two definitions, although both referring to the same type of reuse, both concerned unplanned examples of reuse. Through these two definitions, it can be said that there is a difference between designing buildings and then adapting them for another function and designing in terms of adaptive architecture, which means to design something that can change its use after a certain period of time, like the Olympic stadiums after the Games. The first can be considered as unplanned and the second as planned. Therefore there are two categories emerging, based on the initial intention when the building was first designed. The above definitions refer to unplanned examples of reuse which will be the focus of this dissertation. ‘Unplanned’ means that these examples had not been designed with the awareness that their function may come to an end after a certain period of time. According to Langston, this happens because: “Designers only look at one form and one function: the facility design for the intended program. They do not design in consideration for the eventual end of the established program and the continued life of the building.” According to Langston, the question that should be asked before the design is: ”Is the lifecycle of a building longer than its conceptive function?” By asking this question all unnecessary actions can be avoided. In the case of the Olympic Games, which this dissertation focuses on, the answer ideally is positive, as the lifecycle of a building is longer than its conceptive function. This, however, is not a rule as you cannot always know the lifecycle of the function of a building. For instance, the High-‐Line in New York, which initially were railway 22

tracks, could not know that 50 years after the construction it would stop working. The High Line is an interesting example of unplanned reuse that now works in a new function with great success. This example will be analysed later on as a case study with many similarities to the Olympic Games’ facilities. In the case of the Athens Olympic Games, despite the fact that their duration was known, no plans had been made in advance for the post-‐Olympic period and this is the reason why it falls into the unplanned category. Another example of reuse is the ‘Proposal to Reuse Paris’ Unused Metro Stations’ which includes both aspects of this literature review: the political aspect and how it can influence reuse, and secondly as an example in which there were no pre-‐existing plans for reuse. This example has a lot of similarities to the case study of this dissertation (4-‐day reuse), as it demonstrates how reuse can be achieved during the Olympic Games that was under the pressure of a political interest. Therefore, based on these three examples, it can be added that the two definitions of adaptive reuse can occur at many scales from individual buildings to “Main Streets” to entire districts, so they refer not only to buildings but to spaces as well. 3.2.1| Criteria of Adaptation In the world of construction, there is a motto: “The greenest building is the one that is already built.” (Lloyd Alter, 2012) This means that if an existing building can be reused for a new purpose, it is better to do so than to try to build a new ‘green’ building from the ground up (National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2012). In this chapter the reasons why reuse is chosen as an ideal solution are analysed. These include the criteria that a building must have and the scale of adaptation that each building can tolerate. Building change occurs through a variety of influences, these influences may respectively be considered as a result of exogenous and endogenous changes. Exogenous changes primarily result from external factors such as the general 23

economic climate or market influences. Endogenous changes emanate from factors that relate directly to the building itself (Douglas, 2006). (Fig. 3)

Fig 3| Levels of Adaptive Ruse | Lazaridou V. |2014

If a building is left abandoned there are two options: either to reuse it or demolish it. There are many adaptability criteria that determine the decision. According to Langston, the basic criteria are: the date of original construction; the date of subsequent major refurbishment; a forecast of physical life; the obsolescence of physical, economic, functional, technological, social, legal and political criteria; the annual rate of obsolescence; the predicted useful life; the current Adaptive Reuse score and the trend Maximum Adaptive Reuse score (Langston, 2010) Some more categories formed by the scale of adaptation, “can range from basic preservation works at one end of the spectrum to almost complete reconstruction at the other” (Douglas, 2006). This influences the time needed and the life of the building. According to Douglas, there are 5 criteria that can define the adaptability of

a building: the Convertibility, Dismantlability, Disaggregatability, Expandability and Flexibility. The adaptation process is usually quicker than that of a new development. However, it is important to note that there is no guarantee that an adapted building will match the performance of a new purpose-‐built facility (Douglas, 2006). 3.2.2| Case Studies of Adaptive Reuse According to the basic characteristics of the case studies considered, they can be divided into different categories; some case studies may fall into more than one category. Some of these categories are: the reasons for adaptation, the owner of the building (government, private sector), who took the initiative for reuse (government, community, private sector) and the existence or not of a building. (Douglas, 2006) One of the case studies examined is the High Line, the railway tracks in New York. It has many similarities with the Olympic Games as it is a large-‐scale project with an extensive infrastructure. It has been unused for many years and so was under the threat of being demolished. (Fig. 6) It is an example that is government-‐owned yet does not include an actual building. The High Line is located on Manhattan's West Side. It runs from Gansevoort Street in the Meatpacking District to West 34th Street, between 10th and 11th Avenues. It is above the streets, among the buildings. It was built in the 1930s but since 1980 no trains have run. (Fig. 4-‐5) In the mid-‐1980s the historic structure was under threat of demolition. In 1999 a community-‐based non-‐profit group called “Friends of the High Line” was founded by Joshua David and Robert Hammond, residents of the High Line neighbourhood. Community support for public redevelopment for the High Line for pedestrian use grew and in 2004 the New York City government committed $50 million to establish the proposed park. This is a notable example of a bottom-‐up development process.

With guidance from a diverse community of High Line supporters, the design team of landscape architects James Corner Field Operations, with architects Diller Scofidio and Renfro, created the High Line's public landscape. (High Line official website) As the area in which the High Line is located used to be manufacturers’ warehouses and later became residential with no parks and open public spaces, elected officials and other supporters introduced the High Line as one of New York's most exciting public space projects. After the announcement, these are some of their words. “… wonderful opportunity to have a public space in the middle of Manhattan.” ” It’s like a paradise and it’s so amazing to think that we were about to lose this place.” (High Line official website)

Fig 4-‐5| Photos of the High Line before and after

Another example examined was ‘A Proposal to Reuse Paris’ Unused Metro Stations’. A French politician named Nathalie Kosciusko-‐Morizet has promised to transform the “ghost stations” of Paris, specifically mentioning the “Arsenal” station unused since 1939. In order to be able to do so she became a candidate for mayor eventually coming second to Anne Hidalgo in March 2014. She also promised to let the public vote on an array of designer-‐submitted ideas (a swimming pool, a green park, restaurant, disco, or theatre). (Eoghan Macguire, 2014) This can be considered as an

example of top-‐down development depending on the use of government power. This example highlights the fact that reuse can be achieved more easily if the government or a politician is involved. These examples show that pressure, either through time (as in the case of the Olympic Games), public opinion and/or elections, can act as a tool, which acts as a catalyst in order for reuse to take place.

Fig 6| Diagram showing the similarities of the case studies| Lazaridou V. |2014

3.3| Conclusion This paper will focus on the role adaptive reuse plays in today’s constructed environment. The influence of politics in reuse will also be examined as it affects the way buildings are planned and designed, their lifecycle and any potential opportunity for reuse.

4.0| Examining the Athens’ Olympic Games 29

4.0| Examining the Athens’ Olympic Games A key tool used by cities to go up in the hierarchy of urban competition is the so-‐ called mega-‐events. The mega-‐events encountered in the literature are events that appeal to a worldwide audience, that occur each time in a different city and are allocated through an application process. An important example is the Olympic Games. (Penelope Kissoudi, 2010) This chapter will explore some of the parameters associated with the organisation of the Games that led to the current situation of the buildings and infrastructure and also the current situation of the Greek economy (Nelson Alcantara, 2012). The faults are seen in subjects like the master plan, priorities, budget, time and schedule. 4.1| Goals 4.1.1| Initial goals In September 1997 the official announcement from the IOC named the city that would host the Olympic Games in 2004 as Athens. The decision was the result of a long and painstaking effort on the part of the Greek state which by the late 1980s had made its number one priority to host them. Especially after the unsuccessful effort to host the Olympic Games in 1996 named the ‘Gold Games’ as it would be 100 years after the first modern Olympic Games, the government of Greece had established some goals in order to win the bid for the Olympic Games in 2004. (Official report of 28th Olympiad, 2005) Capralos, the man initially responsible for the Olympic Games in Athens, said: "These Games are an enormous opportunity for us to combine our past, our present and our future". 4.1.2| National goals One of the main goals was to improve the country's geopolitical position. Hosting the Games would strongly promote Greece within international public opinion and indirectly upgrade its "power" at the diplomatic level. At the same time, it ensured 30

that during the preparation period, bilateral relations with Turkey would be smooth. The commitment of the Olympic Games also created straight connections through the return of the Games to their ancient home and further stimulated the sense of Greek national pride, which was likely to be translated into direct benefits for the government, as it would be undertaking the organisation. It also considered the general intention for the economic development of the country by attracting business and investment through the projection of an upgraded tourism product. (Official report of 28th Olympiad, 2005) 4.1.3| Growth goals The importance given to the connection with the race to achieve economic growth is shown by the fact that a law was passed to regulate key aspects of the Olympic Games (N2730/1999). The first article states that “the hosting of the Olympic Games 2004 Athens constitutes a work of major national importance that promotes economic development and international promotion of the country ..." and that the Games are designed "... to strengthen the country's competitive presence in international and European space ...". (Official report of 28th Olympiad, 2005) Through the Games, the city would have the ability to upgrade its infrastructure. Most of the networks of the basin (communication, traffic, etc.) were dysfunctional and substantial upgrading was essential and linked with the business and economic development of the city which would leave the city with a rich building capacity. These actions would upgrade the city's infrastructure and operations, which will then, in turn, improve the quality of life of residents. On this argument, the organizers invested heavily to persuade the residents of Athens to 'embrace struggles'. However, the environmental consequences were not evaluated bearing in mind the public interest (Pipinis, 2002). This growth would make the city an even more attractive tourist destination, as it would look more friendly and easy to use for the tourists and enhance the power of Athens’ archaeological wealth. 31

It can be said that in the list of priorities for the output of the Olympic Games, the goals targeting the benefit of the country were further down this list. It can be characterised as a move which was primarily driven by personal ambitions and benefits. This can also be seen by the motto of the Games, which was ‘Olympic Games Welcome Home’ (Olympic Games Organizing Committee, 2005) in comparison to that of Barcelona which was “the Games for the city and not the city for the Games”. (Acebillo J., 2009) Lastly, it needs to be mentioned that most of the initial targets were not met and some were changed during the preparation period. This will be analysed in the next chapter. 4.2| Economic The short-‐term strategy does not justify the massive amounts that Greece expended for the hosting of the Games. It is noteworthy that the Greek embassy didn’t publish the official amount that was spent for hosting the Games. According to the Greek embassy, the initial amount was 4.5 billion euro. This amount did not include the cost of projects that were completed or which had been planned for construction regardless of the Games and whose construction had been accelerated due to the Games. Those projects included the Attiki Road highway, Athens' new Eleftherios Venizelos international airport, the tram system and the suburban railway (Alcantara, 2012). Despite the fact that there is no official figure for the cost, reports claim that the total cost was 10 billion euro which differs considerably from the initial estimates. According to Dr. Stephen Wenn, Professor, Kinesiology & Physical Education, at Laurier, Canada the amount was even larger. (CNBC, 2012) A further analysis of the expenses the Greek government had to pay shows that some issues were not estimated correctly like, for example, the fear of any terrorist attack after the event of 11th of September 2001 compelled Greece to increase its

security budget to 970 million euros, something that was not included in the budget of 4.5 billion euros. The construction of the Olympic Village cost around €270m. (Οι Εμπλεκόμενοι, 2008) As Mrs. Zamba, a contractor that worked in the construction of the Olympic village added, “The pressure of time gives ground to phenomena of corruption as those described above and usually results to bad quality projects costing a fortune to the Economy of the country and the individual citizen.” The time pressure can be an additional reason for the increase of the cost, which will be discussed in the next chapter. More than 3 billion euros were spent for the Stadiums, while many of the buildings needed already existed (Athens info Guide, 2006) (Fig. 7)compared to London’s Olympic Games 2012 that spent less than two billion euro for the whole construction of the stadiums. (The Guardian, 2012)

Fig 7| Photo of Olympic Stadium |

For the Greek nation the cost was underestimated and the economic benefits were overestimated. Greece ended up paying for an event it could not afford, and this is translated into Greek people paying high taxes up to the present date, and some

believe that this was the first step towards the Greek economic crisis (CNBC and BBC news). Any inflated project budgets should be translated into even greater social benefit. “...For Greece, hopefully the Olympics will earn a return on its investment" (Zillgitt, article USA Today, 2004). The response to this will be given in the next chapter showing the current situation and the ways in which the money spent influenced the post-‐Olympic period and how the use of this money could generate a return. 4.3| Time schedule The announcement of the winning bid was seven years before the actual event, so, during these years, Athens had to take big decisions to organise and to finish the whole procedure in order to host the Games. However, political and economic controversies in Greece in 1998 caused big delays to the construction in Athens. (Fig. 8)

Fig 8| Timeline of the Olympic Games | Lazaridou V. |2014

In 2000, Athens received a warning from the IOC. Juan Samaranch, the President of the IOC, said in an unusual public warning that the Greeks were in danger of losing the Games unless dramatic progress was made; this caused panic within the Greek Olympic Committee. (abc, 2000) 34

“Today, the embattled Greek committee organizing the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens is facing another marathon of sorts, one that is vital to the prestige of the home of the original Olympics” (Collins, 2000). “Discount of the quality and completeness of the infrastructure and increasing of the budgets because of the growing shortage of time, with only one goal, to be ready for the summer of 2004” (Pipinis, 2002). As Mrs. Zamba added, “Many changes were made to the original specifications we had set, mainly by the contractors without the approval of the architects, but surprisingly with the agreement of the government appointed supervisors” which further supports the argument that the correct procedure was overlooked, in order for the organisers to be ready on time. This pressure of time which resulted in this procedure being overlooked led to the quality of the buildings being inferior to that proposed in the initial design. This made the option of any other future reuse even less possible. The long preparation for the 2004 Athens Summer Games was characterized by significant delays in both assignments and studies and in tendering and construction projects. The original study by Calatrava for the Olympic Stadium was presented in 2001. However, many changes were to happen during the next couple of years. (stadia.gr, 2005) (Fig. 9)

Fig 9| Model of Calatrava -‐ Olympic Complex |2001

Although the Equestrian Centre, Panathinaic Stadium and the Aquatic Centre were completed by the end of 2003 and some other Stadiums in January 2004, the completion of most of the constructions took until early August 2004. (Athens Info Guide, 2006) (Fig. 10)

Fig 10| Timeline showing the month of completion of each stadium for the Games | Lazaridou V. |2014

4.4| Master plan After the failure to host the Olympic Games of 1996, the second bid for the Olympic Games of 2004 proposed a master plan which was similar to the first one in that it was based on the separation of the facilities into three main poles. In the first pole was the sports facilities being broken down into two spatial units, one in the Olympic Stadium and the other at the Faliro coastal zone. Fewer facilities were to be located scattered within the urban web which shows the shift in the creation of strong hyper-‐local poles. The second pole was to be installed at the Olympic Village in Acharnes as planned. The third pole was the seating accommodation and reception for the Olympic family (Official report of the 28th Olympiad, 2005). (Fig. 11) 36

Fig 11| Map showing the 3 poles | Lazaridou V. |2014

53% of the sports took place in facilities different from those initially planned. (Official report of 28th Olympiad, 2005) The reasons behind this decision are the following: All necessary facilities for the Games, presupposed the existence of large areas of land but this proved difficult because of the density of development in Athens. Thus it was hard to find suitable available land and especially given the constraints of time, economic and social cost. In some situations, some of the sites were declared to be unsuitable as they had legal limitations on their use. (Official report of 28th Olympiad, 2005)

During the planning of the Games, the local authorities were applying pressure by claiming to secure the interests of their citizens, but this was really because they feared what the potential political costs to themselves would be if they were not seen to be trying to defend their voters. (Pipinis, 2002). According to the regulations of the IOC, the federations had to provide appropriate facilities for each sport with each federation considering its own sport to be extremely important. Examples are the facilities for shooting in Markopoulos, which are among the largest in the world, for a sport with very little popularity in Greece. The space offers very few opportunities for alternative use. (Official report of 28th Olympiad, 2005) With the final changes, the stadiums were scattered around Attiki. The technocrats in Athens seem to have disregarded Olympic success stories from past events such as Barcelona, preferring to experiment with an innovative model of a polydispersed development. (Fig. 12)

Fig 12| map showing the polydispersed development | Lazaridou V. |2014

The only criteria that seem to dominate the logic of Greek government are ease and speed. Having these priorities, some of the new stadiums selected were already-‐ existing stadiums scattered around Athens. This could be one solution which would minimize the risk of creating new sites but maximise the distances between the stadiums and the Olympic Village. Therefore, the closest to the Olympic Village is the Olympic Stadium which is at a distance of 14,5km, the Faliro coastal zone is 25 km from the Olympic Village and all the rest vary from 30 – 43km from the Olympic Village with the most distant stadium being the Olympic Equestrian Centre. (Athens Info Guide, 2006) (Fig. 13) 39

Fig 13| Distances from the Olympic Village | Lazaridou V. |2014

This approach also had other difficulties, such as the decision about which event was going to be hosted in which stadium; the changes then had to be approved by the IOC. One example is that of the Olympic Stadium. According to a member of the security service who was working there during the construction “before the construction for the Olympic Games, there were 3 open athletic stadiums in a very good situation but [these were] demolished and 2 of them rebuilt because they had to be in exactly the same conditions for training as those for the race in the big Athletic Stadium.” (Fig. 14)

Fig 14| Photo of the Olympic Complex -‐ 7/1/1980

Another parameter that could reduce the post-‐Olympic use is that the area where the Olympic Stadium is placed had already been upgraded and was one of the most expensive areas to live. In contrast, the successful example of Barcelona placed the Olympic Stadiums in a poor, pre-‐industrial area so as to help it to be developed. (Fig. 15) Similarly, the recent example of London placed the main Olympic Park in an industrial area of London for the same reasons. This panic move shows that Athens tried to find solutions in such way that the Olympic Games had little effect on the life of the people while, for example, in London and Barcelona the British and Spanish organisers tried to take advantage of the opportunity offered by the Olympics to upgrade their cities. (Riek Bakker, 2008).

Fig 15| Land Value of Attiki | Lazaridou V. |2014

Something that has to be mentioned in this chapter is that London refused to host the sports that did not fit the UK culture and showed no interest in games such as softball and baseball. (Riek Bakker, 2008) This is not mentioned as the perfect solution but as a way of showing that the post-‐Olympic usage was the primary concern of the UK government, which tried to avoid constructing buildings that were not to be used after the Games.

Fig 16| Photo of the Olympic Complex | 2004

4.5| Conclusion Greece, which ironically was the country to invent the Olympic Games and their ideology, became one of the major examples of political exploitation of this cultural and sports event. Political conflicts resulted in huge delays, which resulted in increasing the Games’ costs. The effort for promotion through a short-‐term plan instead of a long-‐term strategy caused the city to lose an opportunity for real change.

Despite the fact that some buildings already existed and only a few changes had to be made, Athens managed to complete all the work at the last moment in contrast to many other cities which started building from nothing, such as London. By looking at the background of the Athens’ Olympic Games, one can see that the idea of reuse is completely absent. First of all, the initial targets of the organisers did not include any future use of the buildings after the completion of the Games. This was reflected in the masterplan which scattered all the buildings in seemingly random locations. Time pressure also worsened the situation as standard procedures were overlooked which had an effect on the buildings’ quality and durability. All these factors set the foundations for the failure of any potential reuse, which is confirmed by the current situation and demonstrated in the next chapter. 44

5.0| Olympic Games

5.0| Olympic Games – Athens 2004 On the 13th of August 2004 the spotlight turned onto Greece and especially the capital city, Athens, for to the Olympic Games’ Opening Ceremony. Despite much criticism and especially the double warning from the IOC, a country of 11 million, took great pride in managing to complete something that for many seemed impossible. (Olympic Games Organizing Committee, 2005) (Fig. 17)

Fig 17| Olympic Stadium during the Opening Ceremony |2004

All the facilities were perfectly arranged for the big event and everything was under control in order to avoid any mistake that could ruin the good image of the Greek organization, that image that was to be created in a period of 17 days. This worldwide attention is one of the main reasons why many countries make great efforts to host the Games, as the Olympics are considered the most important of all mega events. (Riek Bakker, 2008) The country itself will not be the only beneficiary from this event, as there are many other actors that should be considered. One of them is the political parties that are in power before and during the event, as they can use a successful Olympic Games as part of their future election campaigns. Construction companies also play a big role as they profit the most from the construction of stadiums and arenas, while many national and international investors want to make a quick profit out of it. (Fig. 18) 46

Fig 18| Beneficiaries of Olympic Games| Lazaridou V. |2014

However, the success of the Olympic Games as a 17-‐day event hides the incidents that happened backstage that lead to this success. Due to the pressure to be ready on time, there was no focus on the process, the decisions and the costs. The Greek citizens paid for this neglect by the authorities as no attention was given to how this event and the facilities that came with it could meet the needs and demands of the people whilst becoming an investment for the future instead of an extra burden. There is a striking contradiction in terms of planning and readiness to make the Games into a success and the period after the Games where there was no interest by the authorities in further reusing the facilities. Before and during this 17-‐day event, thousands of crews and contractors had to work simultaneously under a strict schedule. (Olympic Games Organizing Committee, 2005) No matter what the conditions were, their only target was to achieve and to manage the Olympic Games on time. 5.1| Reuse in 4 days In many cases during the Games, stadiums or arenas are reused, in order to house a combination of different events. One example of such reuse was the Olympic Stadium which had to be transformed in order to host the Opening Ceremony and the athletics in less than four days. (Olympic Games Organizing Committee, 2005) This example shows the remarkable capabilities in terms of timing and efficiency when under pressure. But situations like this do not usually respect people’s lives as

they make them stretch their skills and capabilities to the limits in order to achieve their purpose. The Olympic Stadium was designed in such a way that it would be able to host the two Ceremonies -‐ the Opening and the Closing -‐ and also the athletics. So it had to be prepared for two different events with totally different requirements. (Olympic Games Organizing Committee, 2005) (Fig. 19) For the Ceremonies, several special constructions were needed: the rigging, the lake, a huge shaft in the middle of the Stadium, an underground lift, a tunnel, the altar, lighting the Olympic rings, to name only a few. Support structures for the lighting and the audio systems and broadcasting coverage as well as for the production control were needed as well as the Stadium and the stands. (Olympic Games Organizing Committee, 2005) In the field of play, the lake was a major construction for the Opening Ceremony. It was 145m long and 85cm wide, covering 9,500sqm of the field where the turf had been removed. The football pitch had to be placed 30cm lower than the track in order to accommodate the lake. 2,126 m3 of water turned it into a real lake during the Ceremony. The second largest construction was the shaft. It was 23m deep and 25m wide and was used to lift the theatrical elements of the Ceremony to the lake’s surface. A lift 10m across and able to lift 45tons was built on the inside. (Olympic Games Organizing Committee, 2005)

Fig 19| Requirements of the two different events | Lazaridou V. |2014

After the end of the Opening Ceremony and when the spectators left, the inside area of the Olympic Stadium turned again into a construction site. Dozens of crews and contractors had to work simultaneously with focus on detail, and around the clock for four days without a break to prepare the field of play for the Athletics. In the first two days, all the elements required for the Opening Ceremony -‐ such as the stage, the lake and suspension cables and wires -‐ were removed and disassembled to avoid problems during the javelin event. Also, more than the half of the lights was removed. (Olympic Games Organizing Committee, 2005) (Fig. 20)

Fig 20| The transformation process from the Opening Ceremony into the athletics stadium | 2004

On the third day the transformation for the requirements of the Athletics events started. The synthetic track, the turf, the timing systems and scoreboards are just some of the elements that had to be installed. (Olympic Games Organizing Committee, 2005) (Fig. 21)

Fig 21| Construction of Stadium, preparation for the Athletics | 2004

This is a crucial example of reuse as it was planned and was part of the design. This meant that the facility was ready to be adjusted in such a way that it could accommodate both events. In order to achieve this, however, it had to have the government’s support and pressure from the investors and the committee, combined with the overall fear that a possible failure could expose the country to international embarrassment and ridicule. 5.2| The current situation The Games were considered as a success, according to the then IOC president, Dr. Jacques Rogge, which filled the Greeks with pride and satisfied the politicians (Official report of 28th Olympiad, 2005). However, after the end of the Games Athens stopped being the centre of attention and interest, and therefore the pressure from investment and the committee stopped together with the government’s support. (Fig. 22-‐23)

Fig 22| the conditions before, during and after the Games | Lazaridou V. |2014

As the sporting event finishes, the evaluation begins. The current situation reflects the initial targets set by the government when planning the Olympic Games. From a national political perspective, the Games were successful not only as a sporting spectacle but mainly because they managed to project a good image about the efficiency, organisation and ability of the Greek government and also because the country managed to project the culture, the history and the beauty of Greece. 51

From an architectural perspective, the success of the Games can be criticised only with time. It will depend on the changes that the Games offered to the city in terms of urban infrastructure, function of the buildings and transportation.

Fig 23| People’s interest for the Stadiums since 2004 | Lazaridou V. |2014

Today, 10 years after the Games and the time seems to have stopped at 29th of August 2004. This proves that the Games were based on short-‐term strategies approved by the NOC and IOC. The condition of the buildings can be divided into three categories: those which are used on a small scale keeping their function, those which are used for another function and finally those which are totally abandoned. (Fig. 24)

Fig 24| Current use of each stadium | Lazaridou V. |2014

The planning of the Athens Olympic Sports Complex (AOSC) was undertaken by the famous Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava. The Athletics Stadium was initially the home ground for the two major football teams of Athens, Panathinaikos and AEK, but year after year it is limited to national or international events. (Fig. 25)

Fig 25| Photo of the Olympic Complex | Lazaridou V. |2014

Similar to this is the use of the pools, according to people that are working to maintain the space despite that there being 10 pools in the Olympic Complex, only 3 of them are at the moment in use. One of them is the one that hosted the aquatics events during the Games. At the moment this is used by schools, national teams and also for national and international aquatic events. The others are used by the members who are paying to be able to use them. The rest of the stadiums are used in similar ways mostly for big national events. (Fig. 26)

Fig 26| Photo of one of the pools during and after the Olympic Games 2004 | Lazaridou V. |2014

The indoor sports centre part of the Olympic Complex, which was used for the training of the athletes during the Olympics, is now rented to different individuals, which use it for different gymnastic classes and as an indoor beach volleyball stadium. It is worth mentioning that the public gives life to the external spaces as the locals use them as a park and so prevent them from being abandoned, however, there is insufficient maintenance. (Fig. 27-‐28)

Fig 27| Photo of the external spaces of the Olympic Complex | Lazaridou V. |2014

Fig 28| Photo of the external spaces of the Olympic Complex | Lazaridou V. |2014

The badminton stadium has been converted into the Badminton Theatre and is being well-‐used since many performances are taking place in it. (Fig. 29-‐30)

Fig 29-‐30| Photos of Badminton Stadium during and after the Olympic Games|

The image that someone draws when visiting Agios Kosmas’ site, is a very disappointing one, as it reminds them that they had to pay though their taxes for what is today a wasteland with the sound of the broken pieces moved around by the wind. (Fig. 31) The stadiums have remained closed up from the moment the local 56

authority disagreed with the ministries regarding their ownership, which was at the same time that the government was examining their post-‐Olympic use (Athens Info Guide, 2006). (Fig. 32-‐33)

Fig 31| Photos of the current situation of Elliniko Olympic Complex| Lazaridou V. |2014

Fig 32| Photos of Hockey Stadium in Elliniko Olympic Complex| Lazaridou V. |2014

Fig 33| Photos of Baseball Stadium in Elliniko Olympic Complex| Lazaridou V. |2014

George Kandylis had set as a goal "to open a link of Athens, Piraeus to the sea, as did Barcelona“. With 1/3 of the Faliro free coast being behind concrete constructions and stadiums, the connection with the beach certainly is not something understood by residents. Moreover, the whole procedure did not work as expected. (Fig. 34)

Fig 34| Photos of Faliro Coastal zone| Lazaridou V. |2014

The beach volleyball venue part of the Faliro Coastal zone is also abandoned and that is because the game usually takes place on an actual beach. (Tony Manfred, 2012) It is worth mentioning that during the construction of the stadiums, different politicians had promised that after the Games finished they would be maintained and given for the public to use at no cost. (Athens Info Guide 2006) The Olympic Village is an area of 1240 acres, where only two shops, two schools and a hospital exist; it is not in a very good condition. The venues within the Village that were designed for the Games had no maintenance after the Games and hence are now totally abandoned. According to people that live in the Olympic Village, 30 % of the houses are not in use and the whole area is isolated from the rest of the city in terms of transportation etc. The residents declare that they are disappointed by the condition of these houses, which were given to them after the Games.

Fig 35| Photos of Olympic Village-‐today| Lazaridou V. |2014

Fig 36| Photos of the Olympic Village-‐today, showing the nice exterior appearance of the houses| Lazaridou V. |2014

Fig 37-‐38| Photos of the Olympic Village-‐today| Lazaridou V. |2014

As one of the residents said, the situation of the houses when taken over by the residents was desperate, furthermore: “we needed to spend a lot of money in order to be in a liveable condition. They also need some repairs in terms of the construction and plumbing of the whole Village”. This derives from the superficial approach of the authorities as the houses were designed in such way as to accommodate the different athletes during the Games but not for permanent residents since this would have required much higher criteria. These houses were designed to accommodate low-‐paid people as an act of compassion by the government; however, this now seems to the residents to be a “superficial gesture born of ignorance and incompetence”. The municipality considers the Olympic Village to be ‘a foreign matter’ as it is completely isolated from the rest of the city. 5.3| Conclusion To conclude, according to the current situation of the buildings and the scale to which they are used, we come back to one of the initial problems addressed in the previous chapter, which said that local teams favour the smaller, pre-‐existing stadiums for their training as the Olympic venues are expensive and difficult to maintain. In addition to that, the culture of the city plays a role in the post-‐Olympic life of the buildings.

6.0| Reuse proposal 63

6.0| Reuse proposal Through the example of Athens and after examining the current situation, it becomes evident that reuse of the buildings is the only way to avoid demolition and abandonment. This chapter refers to cities that are in the same situation as Athens. Although there were no plans for the reuse of the stadiums, there are some potential ways of reusing the context after that, although there is no pressure of time, from investors and the government. According to the theory of reuse and the categories presented in Chapter 3 adjusted for the case of the Olympic Games in Athens, any further use of the buildings after the completion of the Olympic Games can be considered a reuse. The buildings and venues will only be used once in their lifetime for the hosting of the Olympic Games, and therefore inevitably need to be adjusted to the needs of the country after the Games have finished. So any use of the buildings and venues is going to be different to the initial use for which they were designed. It can further be divided into two categories. The first category will concentrate on who took the initiative for reuse (government, community, private sector). The second category is based on the level of reuse, as mentioned in the literature review. There are three levels of reuse beginning from maintenance (level 1) to reconstructions (level 3) in order to avoid demolition. Based on first category can be divided into bottom-‐up examples such as the ‘High Line’ and the top-‐down such as the ‘Proposal to Reuse Paris’ Unused Metro Stations’. According to the research carried out in the case of the High Line and interviews conducted for the case of Athens, it is clear that there are many similarities. The Olympic facilities have a direct influence on the everyday life of the residents of the Olympic Village as it is where people live. In addition to that, the Olympic Stadium is a place that people learn to love. Similar to the High Line example, in Athens the architects can play an active role to start such an initiative by using their knowledge and expertise on the subject. Similar to the High Line, the initiative gained a lot of support, which in the end led to the government being convinced that demolition 64

should be ruled out and that the High Line should be reused in the best way possible. (Fig. 39)

Fig 39| Photos showing the support of the people for the Olympic Complex| Lazaridou V. |2014

Another option is the top-‐down approach to reuse the facilities. Taking as an example the ‘Proposal to Reuse Paris’ Unused Metro Stations’ and how a mayor has the power to take some decisions which no other individual can take, this approach can be adjusted to the case of Athens. There, the power of such individuals can be seen in the example of the local authority using its influence to veto the first master plan, which had proved unsuitable for the municipalities. The second category can be divided according to the level of reuse of the stadiums: a. to add new buildings in the area that relate to the basic use of the stadiums (level 1), b. to use the stadium with an alternative programme without any construction changes (level 2), c. to use the stadium with an alternative programme with construction changes (level 3). 65

In the first level belong examples where new buildings are being added close to the stadiums aiming at the best possible use of the stadiums. An example of this category is the reuse of the Olympic stadiums in London by establishing some of the University of Loughborough course of sports classes on the site of the 2012 Olympics. In this way the venues are going to have an everyday use and maintenance. The London changes are planned to be ready in 2015 (BBC news, 2013). The importance of the ‘use value’ was recalled in 1964 by the Venice Charter saying that: “... the conservation of monuments is always facilitated by making use of them for some socially useful purpose” (ICOMOS, 1964, Article 5). In the second level belong all types of reuse that apply a different programme in a building at minimal cost for their transformation. In this way the stadium is being maintained and there is no chance of abandonment. An example that belongs in this category is the Athens Olympic Athletics Stadium that, besides the races, is being reused as a space that hosts very big national or international events. The only disadvantage to this example is that the size of the stadium does not allow other smaller events to take place, which decreases the potential for reuse. (Fig. 40)

Fig 40| Photos showing another use of the Olympic Stadium|

In the last level belong the Stadiums that are undergoing some construction changes in order to acquire another use different to that for which they were designed. These are examples where money had to be spent in order to be able to make the changes. In this category belongs the Badminton Stadium of Athens, after the end of the Olympic Games the Stadium is being reused as a space to host conferences, presentations, dance performances and musicals and large-‐scale concerts or theatrical events. The decision for its reuse was decided in 2006 and the reuse construction began in 2006 and had a one-‐year duration. (Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, 2005) Having as a goal to achieve the ideal programme in a stadium, which would be adjusted according to the culture of the city, the third level is related to cities with master plans similar to London’s where all the stadiums are placed within the same area. For the example of Athens, the stadiums are scattered over a huge area. The ways for reuse are between the last two categories, which is reusing each stadium individually. So, for example, some stadiums that were abandoned since the very first day of the post-‐Olympics period are the stadium of softball, hockey and

baseball. For these, the proposed reuse is as an open stage for concerts as it is something that is very well suited to the Greek culture. The weather in Greece allows this use and open concert stages in Athens are limited and highly requested. In this way, stadiums that do not fit the Greek culture and are doomed never to be used again as stadiums, can be used and maintained daily, especially during the summer period. 68

7.0| Conclusion 69

7.0| Conclusion The Olympic Games are a good opportunity that can be used to produce some changes in the hosting city, although not all the cities manage to take advantage of the potential opportunities that this event can provide. To be able to do so and keep the city high in the hierarchy of competing cities, the primary need is to have a vision of what might be done and an in-‐depth knowledge of the practices that led to success or failure of other cities combined with the ability to design a top-‐quality, long-‐term, strategic plan. (Penelope Kissoudi, 2010) However, the organization of the Olympic Games and other mega-‐events acts as a catalyst within the process of developing urban projects, especially the upgrade of the infrastructure. Greece is the smallest country which until now has ever undertaken the organization of the Olympic Games, without even having previous experience of urban regeneration projects on this scale. Thus, the effort needed to succeed is much bigger than for some strong cities with experience in design, such as London. A city that has the size and the economic ability to support big investments can take the risk more easily. For this reason, many small cities that become impressed by the ease with which they can promote themselves end up in the same situation as Athens, namely with a short-‐term plan with no awareness of the day after the Olympics. The wrong decisions that Greece took about the hosting of the Games and the failure of the leadership of the city to make projects with quality that would leave a legacy overlooked the post-‐Olympics life of the stadiums and venues. This is what each city has to know before taking the big decision of trying to host such a big event. The cities have to be prepared for the consequences of a short-‐term plan that concentrates only on the 17-‐day event. This essay suggests different ways of reuse, based on the pre-‐existing theory. It categorises reuse into who took the initiative for reuse and its implementation (bottom-‐up, top-‐down), and the different methods, according to each scenario, 70

reuse can take place (level 1-‐3). All these were adjusted in the case of the Olympic stadiums, buildings and infrastructure in Athens, and suggested ways in which this can be successful. According to this essay, even the short-‐term plans can be corrected, despite the departure of the athletes and the investors, the pressure of time and the support of the government. Solutions and proposals exist for each case, the city only needs to understand the problems in time and not leave the buildings to their own fate. Reuse is a subject that has a lot of potential for future research, as it plays a fundamental role in the life cycle of buildings. In the case of mega-‐events, such as the Olympic Games, it must be taken into consideration as it proved that its omission could have huge effects in the life of the citizens and the economy of the country as demonstrated in the case of Athens. The theory provides a range of ways and proposals in which reuse can be readjusted for cases that did not initially include it, and how even the worst examples, such as Athens after the Olympic Games, can be turn into successful ones.

8.0| Appendices 73

8.1| Interviews 8.1.1| Interview with a construction manager in the Olympic Village Question: Can you please tell us about your experience in specifying and supplying materials in the Olympic projects? Answer: I went through the whole procedure, as I was involved from the early stages when all specifications were set to the architectural designs of the Olympic projects. My occupation is a Civil Engineer but for many-‐many years, I specialize in the interior and exterior structures / finishes of the buildings. I work as a supplier or subcontractor where I first specify and later on supply and install various architectural materials in projects. These materials include all kind of ceilings, façade cladding, interior and exterior sun protection produced by a leading manufacturer worldwide known for its innovation and high quality products. During 2002 and 2003, it was the period that we had to give our offers to the final Contractors in order to get the job and supply the specified materials. It was the period we had to face and deal with so many peculiar, difficult and unexpected situations. Many changes were made to the original specifications we had set, mainly by the contractors without the approval of the Architects, but surprisingly with the agreement of the government appointed supervisors. The result was to install materials of lower quality and price. As an example, instead of the predefined metal ceilings, mineral tile ceilings were finally installed at the same price, whose actual cost, however, was 70% lower. In other cases we realized that some specifications were leading to a specific supplier. It was so hard and sometimes impossible to give quotations for materials of similar or even better quality at a better price, as supervision would invent ways to reject them. A personal experience was the Sun Louvres project in the Olympic Village. The specifications were set by a Greek producer at a cost of 23€/m2. Following, an invitation to tender by contractors, we offered sun louvers produced by the top European firm, fully certified, with better installation system, much thicker aluminium, better colour coating, at only 16€/m2. The supervision invented various ways to reject our product all of which were totally unjustified. We had to go through hell and fight hard to convince them that our products were ideal for the specific project and any more attempts to reject them would only expose the system and the country. At the end and after a real unnecessary battle we managed to get a part of the project. Unfortunately, many similar incidents took place during the construction period of the Olympic projects which were caused mainly due to the bad planning as many big projects were under construction simultaneously. The pressure of time gives ground to phenomena of corruption as those described above and usually results to bad quality projects costing a fortune to the Economy of the country and the individual citizen.

8.1.2| ST Kosmas premises-‐Guard Me: Everything seems to be abandoned. Is there any activity going on as I can see team flags?? Guard: Everything apart from the basketball arena which currently serves as the home ground of various basketball teams. This arena is sometimes used for exhibitions. Some of the other buildings are used as stock areas. Me: Is the area open for the crowd? Guard: Yes from 8:00-‐18:00 Me: Thanks a lot for the info 8.1.3| OAKA Olympic Complex (warming up area and gymnastics area)-‐guard Me: Have you been a guard here for a long time? Guard: Yes I have been here since the construction of the buildings for the Olympic Games. I keep a record of photos of each stage of construction. Me: Which changes took place in the area just for the Olympic Games? Guard: Before the games there were 3 open stadiums in exactly the same location which were relatively new and in a very good condition. Nevertheless, they were demolished and these 2 new ones were built on the same level with the official ATHLETICS main stadium so as to maintain exactly the same conditions between warming up and actual racing. Me: Any other changes? Guard: Well, the tennis courts were existed but were renovated. The anti doping control building was a new addition. It is still used to test all athletes. The ATHLETICS STADIUM was existed since 1980 but was thoroughly renovated and together with the construction of the famous CALATRAVA canopy, maintains the aesthetical result of today. A few changes were made on the existing before the games basketball stadium and as far as swimming installations are concerned, only one new water polo swimming pool was built thus making 10 swimming pools in total. The velodrome building is totally new construction. 75

8.1.4| Olympic village-‐resident Me: What is your opinion about the Olympic Village, how is the life here what difficulties do you face, what is missing? Resident: Many basic things are missing. I would in general say that the residential buildings were built in a hurry and the whole village was not planned in an ideal way. Today the society in the village varies significantly and still tries to find its identity. Me: The exterior look of the buildings is quite impressive. Resident: Externally they look good, however, functionally they are problematic. Apart from the construction, the plumping is poor too. Only the electrical are well set. Me: Is there anything else in the village apart from houses? Resident: There are 2 mini markets, one hospital, one farmacy, one police station, and one fire brigade station. When we first moved in they had promised us that the buildings at the entrance would become shopping malls. As you can see nothing happened and I believe that is going to happen. Me: How long have you been living here? Resident: Since 2006. Me: How do you become an owner of a house in the Olympic village? Do you buy it? Resident: The buildings here are considered/characterized as “labor residence”, therefore the applicant should have already collected certain “insurance/pension stamps” in order to get the approval..The price is about 1000euros/m2 which is not very cheap if you consider that we had to make quite few additions/changes. You have an allowance of 30 years time period to buy it out. Me: Do you take care of the maintenance? Resident: Yes, we do not have any special treatment on that issue. Me: How many schools are there? Resident: There are 1 lyceum, 1 high school and 2 primary schools. Me: I have read that only 60% of the village is inhabited. Is that so? Resident: There are quite few vacant due to pending legal court cases. Me: What is the nr of houses and how big are they? Resident: There are about 2500 houses of 80-‐110m2 each which in total house about 10000people. 76

Me: Therefore, if you allow me to summarize you have a proper society which had a certain plan but built in a hurry and using relatively cheap material. Resident: Yes. I have to add that during construction a high scale material theft was reported due to bad material procurement bad management. Surprisingly, no contractor project budget signs were apparent anywhere in the village. 8.1.5| Olympic village-‐mini market (25 years old) Me: Do you live in the Olympic village? Mm: Yes since 2006 as most of us. Me: You are daily in contact with a lot of residents. Are they happy living here? Mm: With the houses they are not happy. When we moved in they were in bad state. They were constructed to look good for the games. After the games a lot of the materials were removed like sun louvers etc. Just to give you an example most of the doors were destroyed. We all had to make a lot of repairs, additions and general changes before we moved in. One of the problems we face today is the poor and slow transportation means. Me: Is it always that busy around here as today? Mm: It depends on the time of the day. There were more mini markets but they had to close. Me: Why did they close? Mm: Because they could not afford the rent. The mini markets were auctioned but the bids were quite high resulting consequently to losses. 8.1.6| Olympic village-‐girls14 years old Me: Do you like the place? G1: I like it here, I have many friends, everything is within walking distance. G2: I like it too here. I do not care that there not any shops, because I enjoy walking around with my friends. 77

8.2| plan of the current use of Badminton Stadium

Source by http://www.badmintontheater.gr/badminton/theater/#theater-‐plans

9.0| List of Figures 79

10.0| Bibliography 83

10.0| Bibliography Alcantara, N. (2012) 2004 Athens Olympics: Greece’s greatest mistake?, Available at: http://www.eturbonews.com/27938/2004-‐athens-‐olympics-‐greece-‐s-‐greatest-‐mistake (Accessed: March 2014). BURBANK M. J., ANDRANOVICH, G., CHARLES H. H. (2001) 'OLYMPIC CITIES: Lessons Learned from Mega-‐Event Politics', JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, 23(2), pp. 113-‐131. ABC Online (2000) Athens struggling to prepare for 2004 Games, Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s125481.htm (Accessed: March 2014). Andranovich, G., Burbank, M. J., & Heying, C. H. (2001) 'Olympic cities: Lessons learned from mega-‐event politics', Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(2), pp. 113-‐131. Athens Info Guide (2006) 2004 Olympic Summer Games venues in Athens, Available at: http://www.athensinfoguide.com/olympicvenues.htm (Accessed: January 2014). Badminton (2006) ADaM productions (Arts Dance and Music Productions), Available at: http://www.badmintontheater.gr/en/badminton/adam-‐productions/ (Accessed: April 2014). BBC News (2004) Olympics 'may cost Greece dear', Available http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3770981.stm (Accessed: April 2014).

at:

BBC News Leicester (2013) Loughborough University to open London Olympic Park campus, Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-‐england-‐leicestershire-‐21946046 (Accessed: March 2013). Bullen, P. and Love, P. (2009) 'Factors influencing the adaptive re-‐use of buildings', Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 9(1), pp. 32-‐46. CNBC (2012) Olympic Cities: Booms and Busts,Athens, Greece (Summer, 2004), Available at: http://www.cnbc.com/id/45943877/page/5 (Accessed: April 2014). David Kincaid (2002) Adapting Buildings for Changing Uses, 1st edn., London: Spon Press 11 New Fetter Lane. Eoghan Macguire (2014) From grotty to glorious: Ghost stations of Paris could get a stunning second life, Available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/10/travel/paris-‐ metro-‐station/index.html?hpt=hp_c4 (Accessed: February 2014). 84

Hellenic Republic Ministry of Culture and Sports (2005) Press Release, Available at: http://www.yppo.gr/2/g22.jsp?obj_id=5055 (Accessed: April 2014). International Olympic Committee (2013) Olympic Charter, Lausanne: DidWeDo S.à.r.l.. io9 (2012) Eight years after the Athens Olympics, some venues have been left to rot, Available at: http://io9.com/5931898/eight-‐years-‐after-‐the-‐athens-‐olympics-‐many-‐ venues-‐have-‐been-‐left-‐to-‐rot (Accessed: February 2014). James Douglas (2006) Building Adaptation, 2nd edn., Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd. Kissoudi, E. (2010) 'Athens' Post-‐Olympic Aspirations and the Extent of their Realization', The International Journal of the History of Sport , 27(16-‐18), pp. 2780-‐2797. Langston, C., Shen, L. (2010) 'Adaptive reuse potential: An examination of differences between urban and non-‐urban projects', Facilities, 28(1/2), pp. 6-‐16. Lloyd Alter (2012) Proof that the Greenest Building is the One Already Standing Released in New Report from Preservation Green Lab, Available at: http://www.treehugger.com/green-‐architecture/proof-‐greenest-‐building-‐one-‐already-‐ standing-‐released-‐new-‐report-‐preservation-‐green-‐lab.html (Accessed: February 2014). Malfas, M. (2004) 'Impacts of Olympic Games', Municipal Engineer, 13568(ME3), pp. 209-‐220. Mark Johanson (2014) ‘Ghost Stations’ Of Paris Metro Envisioned As Subterranean Entertainment Complex, Available at: http://www.ibtimes.com/ghost-‐stations-‐paris-‐ metro-‐envisioned-‐subterranean-‐entertainment-‐complex-‐1554785 (Accessed: February 2014). NAI, MVRDV (2008) NL28: Olympic Fire, Future Games, 1st edn., Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. National Trust for Historic Preservation (2012) Preservation Green Lab Releases New Report on the Environmental Value of Building Reuse, Available at: http://blog.preservationnation.org/2012/01/24/preservation-‐green-‐lab-‐releases-‐new-‐ report-‐on-‐the-‐environmental-‐value-‐of-‐building-‐reuse/#.U1vZ1GeKCN0 (Accessed: February 2014). NOC (2005) Official report of 28th Olympiad,organisation and functioning, 1st edn., Athens: .

The Guardian (2014) London Olympic Games 2012 land will be public parkland by spring, Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-‐news/2014/jan/15/london-‐olympic-‐ games-‐2012-‐land-‐parkland (Accessed: April 2014). the guardiant (2004) 'Athens games were a success' As the sporting event finishes, the evaluation begins, Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2004/aug/31/athensolympics2004.olympicgames (Accessed: April 2014). The High Line () High Line Design, Available at: http://www.thehighline.org/design/high-‐ line-‐design (Accessed: March 2014). Theodoraki, E. (2010) Olympic Event Organization, 1st edn., Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.. voteGreece (2011) Olympic Village before and after, Available at: http://www.votegreece.gr/archives/12245 (Accessed: April 2014).