Historic Evolution and Urban Planning Typology of Olympic Villages
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Historic evolution and urban planning typology of Olympic Villages Francesc Muñoz Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona The Centre d’Estudis Olímpics (CEO-UAB) publishes works aimed to facilitate their scientific discussion. The inclusion of this text in this series does no limit future publication by its author who reserves the integrity of his rights. This publication may not be reproduced, neither partially nor totally, without the author’s permission. This article was published in the book entitled Olympic Villages: a hundred years of urban planning and shared experiences compiling the papers given at the 1997 International Symposium on International Chair in Olympism (IOC- UAB Ref. WP091 Francesc Muñoz – Historic evolution and urban planning typology of Olympic Villages To refer to this document you can use the following reference: Muñoz, Frances (1997): Historic evolution and urban planning typology of Olympic Villages [online article]. Barcelona: Centre d’Estudis Olímpics UAB. [Consulted: dd/mm/yy] <http://olympicstudies.uab.es/pdf/wp091_eng.pdf> Original reference: Muñoz, Francesc (1997): “Historic evolution and urban planning typology of Olympic Villages”, in Miquel de Moragas, Montserrat Llinés & Bruce Kidd (eds.): Olympic Villages: A Hundred Years of Urban Planning and Shared Experiences: International Symposium on Olympic Villages, Lausanna 1996. Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, pp. 27-51. [Date of publication: 1997] 2 Francesc Muñoz – Historic evolution and urban planning typology of Olympic Villages "A miniature city, replete with modern conveniences and facilities, had arisen magically atop the hills, within eyesight of the great Olympic Stadium - atop the modern Mount Olympus, below which lay the modern Plains of Elis. ...A miniature world was here set up by itself, rigidly protected from the world outside." (Los Angeles Organizing Committee, 1985:235). Introduction The range of urban transformations experienced by cities in the developed world throughout the 20th century has largely revolved around the celebration of urban mega-events. Universal Expositions and the Olympic Games are two obvious examples of these processes. With regards to Olympic urbanism in particular, the construction and subsequent re-use of the welcome and accommodation Villages represent a specific case of urban transformation with two options: the renovation of space already occupied and the creation of new urban territory. Although the planning of Olympic residences should not be removed from overall Olympic intervention, the Villages - as specific urban items - have a specific urban entity offering several elements of comparison between some operations and others. The study of Olympic Villages throughout this century is the study of the history of ideas about how to develop the city, how to plan it and how to manage it. This relates to the planning principles because of the city vision they define, and to the subsequent evolution because of the process of urban integration they represent. Seen from this angle, it is tempting to generalise. Similar urban actions are repeated in different historic and territorial contexts, and here lies another point of interest: the importance of a specific city, its urban "curriculum", as another characterising determiner of actions. It is this crossing-over of homogeneity/heterogeneity that best inspires the study of Olympic Villages: they can be understood on the one hand as elements of interaction, formally and physically, with certain pre-existing urban elements and, on the other, as specific examples of the tension between different city models. This presentation draws its inspiration from these concepts to supply, first of all, a reference to the evolution of the "Olympic Village" throughout this century, placing emphasis on the discontinuities characterising the process1. Secondly, the analysis of the different levels of urbanistic dimension of Villages, paying special attention to three thematic areas: a) the aspects connected with the evolution of architectural ideas, from the different types of housing used to the various formal languages employed; b) the aspects referring to the evolution of town planning ideas, from the choice of city models to the conceptions of urban growth behind the operations executed. Finally, those aspects connected with the conception of the Villages as "urban items", from the city production processes which are part of their insertion in the post-Olympic urban context. Origins and Evolution of the "Olympic Village" The "emergency residential menu" at the first Olympic Games Perhaps the first reference that should be made when talking about the origin of the "Olympic Village" concept is to Baron Pierre de Coubertin’s ideas. The creation of a "modern Olympia" was openly put forward to groups of architects as early as 1910 by the Baron. Defined as an ensemble organised in different locations for Olympic sporting events, the "modern Olympia" was a territorial translation of Coubertin’s ideas, inspired by internationalism and aspirations of world peace, both of which were characteristic of European intelligentsia thinking throughout the first half of this century (Gresleri, 1994: 165), and also inspired by the belief in sporting 1 Here it is necessary to mention that, even though there are some references to Olympic Winter Games, the paper concentrates on Summer Villages. The Winter Villages are, on their own, a specific case of analysis. Firstly, the Winter Olympic Villages are in smaller cities, in mountainous areas, with urban dynamics which are less active than those of Olympic Summer Games host cities throughout this century. Secondly, by definition, and from a content point of view, the scope of the interventions is not as wide. Thirdly, design and structure criteria are different from those of Olympic Summer Games. An example of the latter is the prevalence of indoor urbanism, with a scarcer range of spaces to be planned. Finally, except for the interventions in Grenoble and the latest ones, Calgary and Lillehammer for example, the majority of Olympic Villages are characterised by the limited budget considerations of urban intervention. 3 Francesc Muñoz – Historic evolution and urban planning typology of Olympic Villages activity and sports education as a means of achieving those absolute objectives. From this point of view, Coubertin’s proposal had a lot in common with other contemporary ones such as the "international city" conceived by the architect Ernest Hébrard as early as 19102. If the latter was defined as the capital of peace and thought, Coubertin’s Olympia could be defined as the capital of peace and sport. In his description of the Olympic city, in addition to his descriptions of competition sites, Coubertin gives consideration to the need for a hotel for the group of people connected with the organisation of the sporting events requiring temporary accommodation. He also envisages, in a pamphlet published in the Olympic Revue addressing the people taking part in the International Architecture Competition (Paris, 1910), a space "nearby for a camp and a form of barracks to house the athletes during the Games" (Pierre de Coubertin, 1910). Of course, during the first decades of the century, incipient Olympism had problems which required more urgent attention, like, for example, the definition of amateurism, the Games’ regulations or the number of sports admitted for competition, rather than the idea of a waiting/cofraternisation space for the new "agons", which was not likely to be a topic of discussion at the conferences and meetings that took place during the first Olympic events. On the other hand, though, it was clear to see that the concentration of delegation officials, athletes and visitors that the Games involved meant that the subject of accommodation had to be considered as question requiring some type of answer, above all bearing in mind the structure of some cities that still preserved a lot of their pre- industrial past. Furthermore, at a time of when the Olympic Movement was relatively undefined, particularly where the different countries’ budgets were concerned, problems like not knowing how many athletes were going to attend from the not insignificant number of delegations, or whether they were going to stay for the whole duration of the Games or not, only made the organising committee’s job more complicated. They were obliged to classify their cities’ hotels and negotiate special prices and priority for Olympic visitors. At the London Olympics in 1908, the majority of the teams did not stay for the whole fortnight of the Games (Organising Committee for the XIV Olympiad London 1948, 1951:378). The situation was characterised by almost constant complaints against the improvisation, partially offset by the gradual appearance of charts produced by the organisers of specific committees devoted to visitor accommodations3. The organisational difficulties, not just those encountered by the organising committee but by various countries too, with regard to sending their delegations meant that the ships used to transport them were used as accommodation for the length of their stay in the Olympic Games’ host city. This was a cheaper and more immediate solution than negotiating with the organising city4. The Organising Committee, after realising that there was not enough hotel capacity to house the large number of visitors5, had to implicate itself in the major job of territorial reconnaissance, of "surveying" the very city, in search