Every four years, I am drawn into arguably the world's greatest sporting spectacle; the summer Olympic Games. While the events and athletes create memorable stories and moments at each Games, the venues for these events have always stirred my attention as well. As architects, we can't help but notice how these spaces "perform" alongside the athlete's performances, and how they are transformed during the Games into theaters for the highest level of competition.
But one question arises as we near the end of another captivating two weeks: can the success of an Olympic Games be judged solely on the performances and outcomes witnessed in competition? Or do the venues, and the "villages" they create, also play a role in determining the legacy the Games leave behind?
Certainly the London Games will be remembered for outstanding performances and seemingly-impossible records being broken, but the impact these Games will make on its citizens cannot be understated. Hosting these Games necessarily requires cities to build new venues, ramp up infrastructure, and invest (in today's world) billions of dollars towards city improvements and the requirements of the IOC. London's campaign for the 2012 Games was centered around transforming its East side, referred to as an 'industrial wasteland,' into a vibrant mixed-use community that will make use of the new sporting venues. As recently unveiled by London's mayor, the Olympic village will be re-appropriated to make way for 10,000 new houses as well as schools and medical facilities. The city is also harnessing the economic momentum of the Games into other urban areas in need of uplift, creating thousands of jobs in the process.
While I can't say that I have been as impressed with the architecture of these Games to the extent I was with, say, the Water Cube or Bird's Nest from Beijing, their respective approaches to their post-games legacy repositions their success in my mind. While London has already secured plans for the re-use of nearly every Olympic facility, the beloved Bird's Nest remains empty, along with its aquatic side-kick. Perhaps London learned from the missed opportunities of Beijing and Athens, picking up the model of other former host-cities. The '92 Barcelona games brought new life to the city, especially enhancing its water-front communities. Whereas its Olympic village was perched atop the city, Atlanta brought the '96 Games into the heart of downtown, and is still building off the economic catalyst they generated.
Looking ahead to Rio in 2016, which model will the city pursue? While signature buildings certainly add drama and bring attention to the Games, it is perhaps what goes on (or doesn't) inside them after the Olympics have ended that is of greater importance. Will Rio find a way to construct iconic venues that still allow for re-use and the revitalization of the city, or will we perhaps see a new model unfold? It is speculated that the increasing demand of the Games will soon limit who can legitimately campaign for them, such that even the strongest cities in the European Union may be shut out. Such a shift is likely to have a major impact on the architecture we will see, as well as the urban growth that will follow in host cities.
All I can say for now is that I believe when we look back at the 2012 Games years from now, the legacy London is currently building may be the model for cities of the future to use the Olympics to bring good to its citizens, not just for two weeks, but for decades. Though the records just set will soon be broken again, and we will become familiar with a new generation of athletes, the Olympics offer the chance for a city to establish a lasting legacy and improve the quality of life for its citizens. And isn't that our calling as architects, too?
