Jump to content

Temporary VS. Permanent (Olympic Venues)


Recommended Posts

Which ones of these ones do you think are better? When for Olympic venues are built permanent venues for use of the city and future competitions? Or building temporary ones that are simple but cheap and giving them another use after Olympics or being demolished? <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

^^^ Agreed.

Chicago was reliant on a lot of unglamorous temporary venues, but they were in really nice locations IMO.

There will always be that "legacy" factor the IOC will want to know more about, but to me it is better to have temp venues that won't become white elephants, then to build grand venues that are underutilized. The Bird's Nest is a prime example of this crazy mindset.

Chicago 2016 failed to inspire anyone with their legacy plans, and London seems to be striking a nice balance with their stadium, although I have not followed developments on their plans for a year or two. Don't get me wrong, we tried. I thought the idea to turn the stadium seats into wheel chairs was interesting, and Chicago 2016 tried to secure the refectory in Washington Park to use for warm ups, and as a major community sports complex post games. In the end, these plans were not developed enough to really strike home, and Rio's legacy was far more tangible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ Agreed.

and London seems to be striking a nice balance with their stadium, although I have not followed developments on their plans for a year or two.

Agree, London is doing a nice balance cause the stadium will be reduced, but it will still be an athletics stadium (or at least football) ;)

It's kinda different from Atlanta, where they built a 80.000 seat Olympic stadium to be splitted and while one part was demolished, the other part became a baseball stadium while the Fulton Country was demolished, the result was 1 and 1/2 less venues for sports in Atlanta :mellow:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The temporary venue discussion has actually evolved even further thanks to London 2012.

Previous thought were very much centered around building temporary venues e.g. Paris 2012 which would simply disappear after the Games.

The reality of cost of these "temporary venues" and the re-use of the venue, means venues don't simply disappear into the air by using the word "dismantling" and "legacy"

1. Where will the 200 million pound 55,000 seat top tier of the Olympic stadium go?

2. In the case of Paris, Why dismantle 7 temporary pavillions costing 80m pounds each, when they could act as training centre for specific sports.

3. Why cover the aquatics venue temporarily when the city would benefit from an indoor pool.

4. Where exactly will this dismantled venue go?

5. Who will pay to dismantle and relocate the venue?

Are we really providing a"legacy" if by using existing venues there is no multi-purpose venue dedicated to indoor sports training e.g. basketball, handball, table tennis etc?

Or should our focus be on training venues which could use community halls across the city, as they are perhaps the real legacy? Hosting Basketball in the Dome, and a temporary arena doesn't mean players have indoor courts to play on after the games? or even train at?

Post "National Training Centre" in Rio, the debate will perhaps evolve even further.

One principle remains....Value for Money, Value for the sports.

Link to post
Share on other sites

London is a good mix I think. Let me use it as the example here.

It obviously makes complete sense to use some stand out venues that already exist (Wembley, Wimbledon, Dorney Lake and the O2 Arena). Then there are the existing - and less glamorous - venues to host some of the less glamorous sports (Earls Court, ExCeL).

So Then you are left with a blank sheet of paper with a number of venues that need to be built from scratch. Your choices are Permenant, Completely Temporary or Olympic-configured. Obviously you want to have a few venues in that first category and that will really stand out (London's Velopark and Aquatics Centre for instance) - they will also get real use after the games. It makes sense to have some Olympic configured venues - For instance London's handball arena will get good use post games, and then there is the Stadium (although I won't open that legacy can of worms in this thread!) Finally you are left with some sports you want to hold in places which don't normally hold sport (Horseguards parade, Greenwich Park, Hyde Park etc). These venues look great on TV and have that wow factor.

So I think that London's got the balance about right - Athens and Beijing had too many permanent facilities, and Sydney I think (although I'm not a resident) nearly got the balance right - still feels like quite a few venues out in Homebush not much used?

The two interesting cases for London are the Basketball (an entirely temporary arena that size which can be packed up and used by a future host city - that's a new one!) and the Media Centre - which has no real legacy plans and will be a bit of a white elephant I think.

All in all London could be in a worse position but it feels like you need that balance of Existing wow, existing mediocre, brand new wow, temporary and legacy driven venues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way this thread could be changed to Temporary vs. Permanent vs. Pre-Built, as was somewhat the case for Vancouver. We were fortunate that we already had facilities like BC Place, GM Place, the Pacific Coliseum, the Dave Murray Downhill on Whistler, the Thunderbird Arena at UBC (actually this facility was rebuilt from the ground-up but at least UBC benefitted from a new arena) - all existing facilities.

The ski jumps at Whistler Olympic Park were originally going to be temporary, but organizers realized the site was better for ski jumping than Calgary (due to the crosswinds) and decided to leave them permanently. There may also be an expansion of the training facilities there.

It all boils down to how much use they'll get after the games and with us here in BC, I believe they will all get plenty of use. Even the Richmond Oval and the Vancouver Olympic Centre which are both getting turned into multi-sport facilities.

As far as the Whistler Sliding Centre is concerned, there was a big article in the March 27 issue of the Vancouver Sun titled "Getting Back on Track: Can the Whistler Sliding Centre recover from Luger's death?" However, despite the title of the article, the track will still see use in the future. First up, this November the track will be hosting the world cups of Bobsleigh and Skeleton, and the Luge world cups in 2012 and 2013. Of course it will still be used for training in addition to the track in Calgary, and it will also see some tourism opportunities as well - you'll be able to go for bobsleigh rides with a pro driver.

There was a shorter article accompanying the longer one about all the facilities' post-games future. If anyone wants, I can scan it and post it here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the Beijing venue legacy discussion focuses on the Bird's Nest. But what about all those arenas and other venues they built on university campuses and elsewhere? Are they being adequately used? It would seem unfair to definitly judge the legacy and venue planning smarts of Beijing by the well-known current status of one or two single venues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the Beijing venue legacy discussion focuses on the Bird's Nest. But what about all those arenas and other venues they built on university campuses and elsewhere? Are they being adequately used? It would seem unfair to definitly judge the legacy and venue planning smarts of Beijing by the well-known current status of one or two single venues.

Well, Bird's Nest has been used for Italian Supercup Final in 2009 and Race of Champions in the same year, but looks like bidding for 2015 World Championship in Athletics could give it a new life.

Anyway, as I know it was pretended to turn Bird's Nest into a shopping mall in the upcoming years, but I'm not sure if it's a final decision since of this bid.

In my humble opinion an Olympic Stadium should not be a temporary venue since it's the center of attention of Olympic Games (even when it's not supposed to host ceremonies) and it's also a national stadium for any nation who has it, though in Beijing's case even when it's considered a city symbol, it hasn't been succesful at sports after it's post-olympic use as it was supposed to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm all in favor of temporary venues. I think anything that will reduce the gargantuan scale and expense of the Games is a good thing. Especially if the venues can be located in beautiful settings (a la Chicago), I don't think the atmosphere of the Games would suffer at all.

Unfortunately, the IOC really seems to love brand-spanking new structures. So a bid that relies heavily on temporary structures may be more fiscally responsible, but not more likely to win.

As for the legacy argument, the greatest legacy of any Games lies in the memories of the atheletes and spectators who attended them. I think it is nice to have some reference points -- a cauldron, a venue or two -- but not a whole colony of white elephants.

Instead of "legacy", perhaps it would be better to think in terms of lasting benefit to the host city. Infrastructure improvements such as roads, trains, hotels are part of an Olympic legacy. Youth sport programs are part of an Olympic legacy. Giant stadiums that cost an arm and a leg to maintain, but remain empty 95% of the time are not a "legacy." They are a burden.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:huh: I think London strikes a good ballance, and I'm not just saying that as a London supporter. They have thought out well the legacy and London my want to host the Commonwealth Games in the decade after. Atlanta stands out as how to make use of basics. Although the organisers must have been guttered when Barcelona lit it's cauldron. The scaffold tower just looked too cheap.

Sydney's main stadium was impressive with it's massive end terrace stands. Now gone and intergrated under a continious canopy, They were always going to be temporary and even the running track is now buried under 5 or so meters of earth when the ground was raised to create a football oblong.

Athens will always stand out as how not to do it, and the legacy is a negitive one - financial disaster.

This must be where the fine line between success and failure is drawn...London has got it right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's looking good and all the planning possible has gone into it, but it's way too early to say right now whether London has got it right. Let's get the stadium legacy sorted once and for all, make sure we can sell off the housing post-2012, make sure the magnificent permanent venues are well used, make sure (by hook or by crook) the money needed to transform the park into something akin to a Royal Park is found, and make sure businesses, market stalls, and tourists want to come to the area.

The one thing I can say without any hesitation that London has got right is their use of existing venues and venues "on-location". Wembley, Lords, Wimbledon, the O2 etc are real top-notch venues that few Olympic cities will be able to match. Hyde Park, Greenwich Park, Regents Park, Horse Guards Parade and Eton Dorney with Windsor Castle overlooking it are settings that will embed themselves in the memories of all spectators. These venues don't have the "legacy" worry attached to them, and I know they'll be fantastic.

The partially temporary and permanent venues still need a bit more planning for legacy before we can say London has it right however. It's looking good, but we're not there just yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I obviously support using iconic venues e.g. Lords, for Archery....but after all this money spent on temporary structures, is there even one field or two with basic facilities for archery after the Games? or will they return to the same dingy clubhouse and poorly maintained field they have been using for the last few decades? Of course great exposure for the sport, but we legacy must really create a change for the Olympic sports.

I'm not suggesting building a "softball" stadium as we have in Cape Town will create lots of softball clubs in a matter of 5 years, as we have in Cape Town, but many venues can be temporary without making any provisions for those sports after the Games?

So in the case of London, basketball could perhaps share the venue with the community, handball and other indoor venues. Its not like they are going to get the Dome to train in ....?

In my opinion, speaking from a Cape Town perspective, the value and legacy may actually be with the 30 to 40 training venues which are already well used, and of the right scale to serve communities.

There are some venues which can be temporary but probably provide a much better legacy given the profile of the sport e.g. the velodrome. An indoor venue of this nature lends itself to multiple uses for indoor sports, and should also be fully exploited.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:huh: Atlanta stands out as how to make use of basics. Although the organisers must have been guttered when Barcelona lit it's cauldron. The scaffold tower just looked too cheap.

No doubt about that, although of course I think the same about Atlanta's scaffold tower, add the fact that the cauldron looked like a giant McDonald's fries box :wacko:

About the stadium, I think that even when it was an intelligent move by Atlanta's Organizing Comitee and Atlanta Braves I sincerely think that somethinkg like this

centennial-olympic-stadium.jpg

That in one year turns into this

turnerfield.jpg

Is not my idea of an Olympic stadium that is supposed to host the Olympics on it's 100th anniversary :huh: I've not seen anyone who thinks Centennial Olympic Stadium was beautiful, so I guess that doesn't speak well about 1996 Olympics' infrastructural concept <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from the cauldron I've no issues with the Olympic Stadium in Atlanta. It served it's purpose (and provided a fantastic backdrop to Michael Johnson's efforts) and they got legacy out of it from a bit of lateral thinking.

I do think though in the permanent v temporary debate you do expect some sort of permanent legacy from the Olympic Stadium. IMO whether that is as an "Olympic Stadium" suitable for athletics depends very much on the city.

London was basically screwed over by Wembley ditching athletics as although ridiculously the IOC may not have favoured an existing new stadium away from the Olympic park, if as originally planned Wembley could have been the home to athletics for a London Olympic Games legacy wouldn't be an issue at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Atlanta made it work, but it wasn't aesthetically pleasing and I doubt the IOC would go for a similar plan now -- especially from a U.S. bid.

Athens is tragic. The stadium looked stunning and functioned beautifully during the Games. The problem was that the organizers basically burned their first 3 years and had to focus exclusively on playing catch-up. There was no time to think of legacy.

Despite all the complaints, I've always had confidence that London would do a very respectable job without resorting to over-the-top prodigality (a la Beijing). I too think the balance is good.

I would still like to see the IOC embrace the concept of temporary venues more fully. In selecting Athens, Beijing, London, and Rio they chose the MOST EXPENSIVE bids requiring THE MOST NEW CONSTRUCTION. This needs to stop. I am sick of hearing about how they want to make the Games smaller and more affordable while watching them vote for the biggest, priciest plans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They...the "IOC" as I've said before...go into a room...105 of them...and vote for the most glamorous exciting spine tingling bid

"They" don't have an executive or strategic direction handed down to members apart from the evaluation report which glorified Rio.

They called London's train system "obsolete", but Rio was barely criticized in the same report four years later, even if there were no trains or buses connecting some of the venues or clusters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear you, Mo. I just wish they'd stop making so many statements about wanting smaller more sustainable Games when it's totally obvious that that's not what they want. If they could have 100% new Calatrava or Hadid venues, they'd jump at the chance -- even if they knew it would bankrupt the host. Heck, as long as the host is willing, why not?

If things are going to change, they're going to have to change at the level of the candidate cities. But while all the candidates are so focused on pandering to the IOC, how will this ever happen?

London's trains being "obsolete" ... it still astonishes me that anyone in their right mind could say that about one of the best public transportation systems in the world. And, yes, Rio escaped all sorts of criticism and analysis that they totally deserved. It's galling. <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I'm defending the IOC, but how was Rio's bid "the most 'expensive' requiring the most 'new' construction"? I'd say that was Tokyo, who practically were offering a blank check.

Rio's using existing stadiums for the ceremonies & athletics. Sure, they're getting some new venues here & there, but nothing on the scale to Beijing, Sochi or even London.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I'm defending the IOC, but how was Rio's bid "the most 'expensive' requiring the most 'new' construction"? I'd say that was Tokyo, who practically were offering a blank check.

Rio's using existing stadiums for the ceremonies & athletics. Sure, they're getting some new venues here & there, but nothing on the scale to Beijing, Sochi or even London.

The estimated expense of Rio's proposal exceeded the combined totals of Chicago, Madrid and Tokyo. Some argue that the other three artificially minimalized their numbers, but I think that can only be true to a certain extent. Rio's expense comes from the vast scope of infrastructure improvements that are required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And?

If anything that is also another legacy aspect. A lot of times cities not only want to go after the Olympcis for the international spotlight, but also for the catalysts that it would bring rapid infrastructure improvements upon their city, which under normal circumstances could take years, if not decades, to get done.

Like Vancouver for instance. They didn't do too many new venues either. However, most of their "Olympic expense" was infrastructure related. Like the Sea-to-Sky highway expansion & the new rail transit airport connector to downtown.

Infrastructure improvements that are going to benefit the citizens of Vancouver & Rio for decades to come, & that can't ever properly have a price tag put on it, because it's just an intangible of hosting the Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily the size of the project but the risk relative to the size.

Rio's project, without existing transport links connecting some clusters, and the overall concept with large travel times, along with the scope of the project means it clearly presented the most risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a combination of factors:

1. Before 2016 the IOC (weirdly) asked for bid costings as though the Games were to be hosted in the year the bid books are subitted. Any bid that won 2012 would have seen an increase in the figures from their bid books because of this. It'll be interesting to see how the costings of Rio, the first winning bid asked to do their costings in real terms, fares.

2. All bids to some extent put a positive spin on costs, because it is a contest.

3. Unexpected cost rises always happen because things have either not been calculated correctly, or because aspects of the project are changed after the bid is won.

4. Financial circumstances two years after a bid is won (when building typically starts) may be very different from when the host city contract was signed. In London's case, for example, this meant the 100% privately funded village became a 100% publically funded village during the credit crunch. The funds will be recouped post-2012, but it's added a hefty chunk to the budget.

5. Insofar as media reports go, suggestions that London's budget for example, has gone up by a factor of three, are somewhat exaggerated given that during the bid phase there was no slush fund/contingency built into the budget. In London's case this is a quarter of the overall budget now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...