Favourite Olympic Parks

[venuedesignlover]

@Sir Rols recommended I create a poll about our favourite Olympic Parks. You can base your decision off of overall design, personal experiences visiting, aesthetics, legacy for the city, what it did for the Olympic Games, or just pure vibes! What do you think is the future of Olympic park design? I do really love the design of the games and I think this would be great! It can also tell us a lot about the games themselves. For the Summer Games, I included any venue clusters that had a traditional "Olympic Park" (think Rio 2016: Barra and Deodoro). For the Winter Games, I also included those typical "ice sports" parks, as well as some of the "snow sports" clusters if the snow sports were not too spread out. I excluded any games that did not develop traditional olympic parks (Sorry Tokyo 2020). Take your pick at which! 

[venuedesignlover]

Not too big of a fan of Winter games having ice sports park complexes, but I really do love the design of Pyeongchang's. Whether its the venues themselves, or the way they all come together, its really pleasing to look at and compact. London 2012 is classic.

[Sir Rols]

I can only speak really for the Summer Games parks, I haven’t really been or payed much attention to the Winter ones.

i voted Melbourne, but more for the state it is in now - I don’t think it was as developed or complete in 1956 as it is now. As it exists in 2024, it really is an incredible, amazing and green sports precinct adjacent to the city centre. It’s a spectacular Olympic Park just ready and waiting. Truly a jewel of the city.

I also give very honourable mentions to London’s Queen Elizabeth Park and Munich’s Olympiapark, both beautiful parks that have so well blended their landscapes with their sporting assets. If they had Melbourne’s location, they’d both give it a run for their money. And Sydney’s, incorporating Bicentennial Park on its fringes (which was developed in tandem with the sports precinct) has been a great gain for this city in terms of both the venues and the recreation space it’s offered our inhabitants.

Edited May 18, 2024 by Sir Rols

[venuedesignlover]

7 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

London’s Queen Elizabeth Park and Munich’s Olympiapark, both beautiful parks that have so well blended their landscapes with their sporting assets.

Agreed!

 

7 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Sydney’s, incorporating Bicentennial Park on its fringes (which was developed in tandem with the sports precinct) has been a great gain for this city in terms of both the venues and the recreation space it’s offered our inhabitants.

One of the best examples of legacy done well. It takes this kind of investment for the Olympics to truly be transformative for a city. It does not look like we'll be getting this type of legacy because of the low levels of investment the new norm encourages. 

 

11 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

It’s a spectacular Olympic Park just ready and waiting. Truly a jewel of the city.

Could not agree more! Melbourne also has the Albert Park Venues. Melbourne 2056 maybe?

[FYI]

22 minutes ago, venuedesignlover said:

Melbourne 2056 maybe?

To think that Melbourne didn't really have to wait that long! 

[Bear]

LA32/84/28's expo park snubbed 😿 (to be fair it's only held like 2 venues max each time... not exactly a fully fledged olympic park like the others)

[FYI]

PuFF would've still been offended! 

[baron-pierreIV]

This  is such a far-stretched poll even for GB.  I mean, even IOC members probably have gone to 4 or 5 -- and only they would be qualified to vote.  All those here would just go by renderings -- whether complete or not -- so what kind of valid votation is that?? 

[Sir Rols]

Most of us would be lucky to have attended one OC, much less more, to compare them live. But it hasn’t stopped us scrutinising, comparing and ranking opening ceremonies. Ditto for just about anything we rank or poll here… up to and including whole editions of the Games themselves. Many here would likely have enough info, and been keen enough to study them, to make some informed judgements- or at least have a favourite.

That said, I wouldn’t have made it a poll as such, more a discussion of Olympic Parks in general and which one’s we’ve liked, or heard negatives about (I remember people here who went to the games in 2008 saying Beijing’s was big, but a bit barren, lifeless and sterile). It’d be interesting to hear the thoughts of people who experienced such parks either at games time or visiting at other times.

[Australian Kiwi]

Voted for Munich. Its a modernist utopia. 

As for the Winter Olympics - never really thought of them as having Olympic Parks, but voted for Innsbruck's ski slope is its quite iconic.

[venuedesignlover]

I’m a bit said Tokyo’s Harbor Development Cluster cannot count as an Olympic park. That was certainly a nice cluster, though I am confused at why they would use much of the development space around the already space-limited harbor for the Olympics. Is no one here a fan of the Pyeongchang venues? Rio had so much potential, but a lot of that went to waste.

[venuedesignlover]

Is anyone else a fan of the actual park Beijing connected to their Olympic Green? 

Also, anyone notice how at Sydney and Athens, most venues were made out of exposed metal roofs and walls, had those exposed railings. In Beijing and London, we see hero architecture that does not have those venues made out metal and exposed in that way (don’t think I’m explaining this correctly but see the images below). In Rio, we see a return to Sydney and Athens at least inside the venues (some Rio facades were made really well). In beautiful Tokyo (my fav games had it not been for the pandemic), we see hero architecture once more. The pictures are all from venues specifically built for the games. Quite the evolution.

Sydney for you...notice how industrial the finishes appear. No hero architecture.

Athens...notice how the structures are mainly made out those industrial-like metal supports and roofs. Also barely any hero architecture.

It's Beijing's now. The finishes are much less industrial. Definitely a lot more hero architecture. No more exposed metal to be seen. Finishes have been upgraded.

 

London...same story as Beijing.

 

In Rio, the facades of the Carioca Arenas are definitely less industrial than the facades of Sydney and Athens. But once inside, you see the same story of exposed structures, metal roofs to be seen, industrial beams out of nowhere. 

 

Oh Sweet, Beautiful, Glorious Tokyo. What a great games you would have been. Amazing city, amazing venue design, amazing atmosphere. You should have your time to shine once more. After Rio 2016, the Olympics would have definitely been "back" with an amazing games in Tokyo. The images speak to themselves. Premium finishes, no exposed structures and metal roofs. Tokyo, you amaze me every time I think about the games that should have been!

[cfm Jeremie]

Athens OAK was initially built in the 80s. That might explain the “industrial look”.

But the outside did have its “architecture heroic” moment with the work done by Calatrava.

[Australian Kiwi]

Sydney's Aquatic Centre needs to be appreciated from the outside. You must remember that this building was completed a full 6 years ahead of the 2000 Olympics. Not bad for a 30 year old structure...

Its actually nestled into a small hill, and has quite a beautiful sense of arrival-- you enter through a short tunnel and then into a huge expanse under a massive, light roof. Easily one of the most beautiful and well thought out Olympic aquatics venues since Munich.

 

 

 

[Sir Rols]

You gotta remember, functionalism was really one of the dominant strands in public architecture in the nineties and noughties, so those Sydney and Athens examples are very much of their times.

Personally, unless I’m in the Sistine Chapel, I’m not really paying too much attention to the ceilings - many more times so watching an Olympics where I’ll be more focussed, after the sports action, on the “look” on the banners and cladding and sidings (not as if broadcasters train the cameras up on the ceilings anyway).

I’m the first to admit Sydney didn’t make any grand architectural statements or grandiosity. I thought Stadium Australia again was pretty standard stadium design of its times. As a visitor and some times user of the Aquatic Centre, though, I think I think it’s actually a lovely facility. But again, I don’t believe it’s the architecture of the venues that “makes” an Olympics (it’s actually surprising how many venues at any games just use scaffold bleachers). It’s the atmosphere within those venues that make the difference.

Edited May 20, 2024 by Sir Rols

[Australian Kiwi]

Great to read this morning that the MCC is still moving forward with plans for a major redevelopment of the MCG. This could see its capacity expanded beyond its current 101,000. Quite phenomenal and I'm looking forward to seeing the plans develop further. Still aiming for delivery by 2031. 

 

[yoshi]

Just in time for 2032, when, even further ahead as the finest stadium in Australia & one of the greatest in the world, the MCG once again welcomes the Olympic...oh. 

...if only John Coates was Melburnian...

[Brekkie Boy]

Was reading up on Olympic Parks yesterday - interesting the Squaw Valley basically had everything within walking distance, though I guess considerably fewer venues back then.

I'd have forgiven possible corruption for Melbourne 2032 (though IMO Tokyo should have been offered 2032 or 2036), but echo the comments about Munich.   It's an architectural masterpiece.    Sochi was a nice concept having everything arranged as they did but also quite soulless and didn't really scream Winter Olympics.

It does seem the IOC has done a complete 180 though on the requirements for an Olympic Park and the regeneration they begin and as we've seen with Paris the entire city effectively becomes the park.   It's worked for Paris though because of the city is it and broadcasters have the obvious focal point to anchor their coverage from.   Not so sure LA or Brisbane will get away with that.

[sebastien1214]

I find that the concept of the Olympic Park is less and less relevant. From a heritage point of view, particularly urban planning, I think it is preferable to revalue existing neighborhoods rather than build a new neighborhood (the example of London, where the Olympic Park led to the development of a new neighborhood).

In Paris, there were obviously temporary constructions, but also some permanent infrastructures for these Olympic Games, including the aquatic center and the Adidas Arena. But the choice of the location of these infrastructures was thought to revalue somewhat "disadvantaged" neighborhoods, or in any case which were clearly lacking in cultural and sports offerings.

Only the Olympic Village is an exception and will indeed constitute a new neighborhood; however, it was in any case inevitable given the size today of the OVs which alone are the size of a neighborhood. And even for the location of the OV, it was also thought to revalue the place where it is located (in this case the department of Seine-Saint-Denis, the poorest in France).

[antiperspirant]

In an American-only context, I like parks because it is the only time the US is willing to build something walkable. What's happening more commonly in US urban planning is that swaths of parking lots are getting redeveloped into walkable/mixed-use neighborhoods with a sport/entertainment venue anchoring the area. And so the existence of some kind of sports campus is a necessary kickstart to the creation of new new neighborhood. But this new neighborhood is integrated with an existing urban area (infill development), so it's not necessarily a park out in the boonies, but still within the core, and in itself creates revitalizes the area.

I am not sure about abroad, but gentrification and displacement is also a hot topic that people use to resist efforts to revalue existing neighborhoods, so I would also imagine the political implications of that to be worrisome, which is why development is usually only granted to underutilized land uses like parking lots.

I think an Olympic Park can be well designed to serve functional purpose that weaves into the neighborhood. I really like the Vancouver Convention Center and how on the plinth, it contributes retail and recreation space to the entire waterfront as a whole even when there are no events being held there. It's quite an efficient space. But perhaps this begins pushing away from a "park" and more closely into a "neighborhood" like you said.

Another thing to note is that Olympic Parks are an excuse to build new rail/transit connections. Infilling new stadiums into existing area would only work if there's sufficient public transit. So having a park is important to kickstart expanding new mass transit.

 

[mr.bernham]

On 8/11/2024 at 1:34 PM, sebastien1214 said:

I find that the concept of the Olympic Park is less and less relevant. From a heritage point of view, particularly urban planning, I think it is preferable to revalue existing neighborhoods rather than build a new neighborhood (the example of London, where the Olympic Park led to the development of a new neighborhood).

In Paris, there were obviously temporary constructions, but also some permanent infrastructures for these Olympic Games, including the aquatic center and the Adidas Arena. But the choice of the location of these infrastructures was thought to revalue somewhat "disadvantaged" neighborhoods, or in any case which were clearly lacking in cultural and sports offerings.

Only the Olympic Village is an exception and will indeed constitute a new neighborhood; however, it was in any case inevitable given the size today of the OVs which alone are the size of a neighborhood. And even for the location of the OV, it was also thought to revalue the place where it is located (in this case the department of Seine-Saint-Denis, the poorest in France).

Congrats, you just described the venue plan construction model developed by Barcelona 1992. 

[sebastien1214]

11 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

Congrats, you just described the venue plan construction model developed by Barcelona 1992. 

And that's what has contributed to making Barcelona's games exceptional.

[mr.bernham]

Exactly. 

I think Paris did a good job of merging the model created by LA1984 and Barca92

[yoshi]

Probably fair to say London did that too. Used a lot of existing venues & temporary but iconic locations (Paris then took it to the next level, a level that probably nowhere can match), but also made a massive regeneration & created a new area of city (probably more than Paris has done, although they have the village area & a LOT of transport so maybe it's balanced). What matters is what's best for the city

[venuedesignlover]

Really makes you think about how Tokyo used the games for the redevelopment of their harbor area. Some of the venues took up a lot of that development space. I've tried to do more research about their venue plan that focused on the harbor area, but was the point of that to redevelop the harbor? 

Anyways, if the pandemic was not a thing, the games would have definitely been "back" because of Tokyo 2020, not just Paris 2024.