Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Density Project

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Density Project

Kerrie Butts, Master of Architecture in Urban Design 2009
GSD9604: Olympic Infrastructure
Prof. Judith Grant Long

The total area required for a city to host the Olympics is estimated at around
1,000 ha with the village to accommodate the athletes, coaches, officials and
press representing around 12% of the total land consumption (Millet 1997
p125). While the dimensional requirements of stadiums and sporting venues is
relatively standardized, the density and organization of residential fabric can vary
significantly based on context, architectural style, post-games housing needs
and planning decisions. Millet estimates the overall surface area for the Olym- 60 ha
pic Village at a minimum of 60 hectares, an appropriate average for the past
five Olympic Villages. However, based on built examples over the past 40 years
the programmatic needs for temporarily housing 15,000 can be met with less
surface area. Given urban land and capital resources becoming more scarce and
increasing concerns for sustainability, densification and the implementation of
more innovative housing typologies is an opportunity for future Olympic Village 1,000 ha
planning. The planning and design of the Olympic Village has become largely
shaped by private market forces rather than a source of experimentation and in-
novation in collective housing and architecture. This comparative graphic analy-
sis follows the path begun by the a+t series dedicated to Density and WORK-
ac’s 49 Cities, providing thematic analysis based on site area, surface coverage,
floor-area-ratio and urban morphology of Olympic Villages from 1968-2008.

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Introduction

Contents:
Village Program Requirements 3
Scale Comparison 4
Site Area 5
Site Area Coverage 6
Floor Area Ratio 6
Distance from City Center 7
Site Location in Relation to City’s Subway System 7
Surprisingly little graphic information is published on the Olympic Villages. With
the exception of Munich, Montreal, Los Angeles, Seoul and Barcelona, the City Context Density 8
Official Reports do not even include a site plan of the village. Also, inconsisten- Urban Typologies 9
cies in the numbers reported sometimes exist within the same document. The
Summary 10
plans and quantitative analysis/area calculations were produced using the best
available information: current aerial satellite images, site plans, photographs and Index of Olympic Villages 1968-2008
detail descriptions included in the Official Reports. Given the temporal aspect Mexico City 1968 11
of the Olympic Village, the site boundary and extent of the residential zone and
international zone is an approximation based the number of hectares listed in Munich 1972 12
the Official Report and current site conditions. Montreal 1976 13
Moscow 1980 14
Organizing information related to the design of the Olympic Villages in a consis-
tent format, is a useful exercise for analyzing and comparing the design strate- Los Angeles 1984 15
gies used. Even outside the context of the Olympic Games, village design is Seoul 1988 16
an interesting case study in designing collective housing for the temporary use Barcelona 1992 17
of 15,000 and permanent inhabitance of 10,000 plus shared programs such as
retail, open space and educational or sports facilities. Since this research semi- Atlanta 1996 18
nar is the beginning of a series of courses related to Olympic Infrastructure, I Sydney 2000 19
have included the digital working files for future use and publication including
Athens 2004 20
an AutoCAD file of villages drawn at the same scale, aerial satellite images, and
excel file organizing the data collected in addition the document and drawings Beijing 2008 21
presented. Work Cited 22

Butts 2

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Village Program Requirements
Residential Zone: (Text and Surface area diagram: IOC Guidelines con-
cerning the Construction of the Olympic Village. 233-241)

15,000 athletes and officials for the Summer Games and approximately
3,500 for the Winter Games, have to be housed in single or double
rooms. 20% of the beds must be 2.20 m long.

An average allocation of 12m2 of raw floor is to be provided. In addition
to the room, these 12m2 include the surface area devoted to walls and
internal partitions, corridors etc., living areas and storage areas (with
washing machines). This amounts to a minimum of 180,000 m2 of raw
floor space for te Summer Games and approx. 42,000 m2 for the Winter
Games in the residential zone.

Note
Double bedded room should have a minimum surface area of 15 m2.
Particulary sensitive members of the teams shoud be allocated single
rooms. The same goes for the chef de mission and the doctor.

Arrangements should be made for men and women to be housed
separately. The same goes for athletes in different sports. Under no
circumstances should athletes from different countries be required to
share the same room or the same apartment. the OCOB must take into
account the fact that rooms or beds will inevitably remain unoccupied,
hence the need to provide a number of beds over and above the 15,000
indicated (approx. 5% of the total capacity).

Butts 3

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Scale Comparison

Mexico City 1968 Munich 1972 Montreal 1976 Moscow 1980 Seoul 1988

112 Countries 5,516 Athletes 121 Countries 7,134 Athletes 113 Countries 6,084 Athletes 81 Countries 5,179 Athletes 159 Countries 8,391 Athletes

Barcelona 1992 Atlanta 1996 Sydney 2000 Athens 2004 Beijing 2008

169 Countries 9,356 Athletes 197 Countries 10,318 Athletes 199 Countries 10,651Athletes 201 Countries 10,625 Athletes 204 Countries 11,028 Athletes
0 100m 500m

Los Angeles 1984: 140 Countries 6,829 Athletes
Because LA used multiple existing university sites and temporary facilities rather than explicitly building a new Olympic Village, it is omitted from the graphic analysis.
Butts 4

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Site Area (hectare) Residential Zone

International Zone Total

Mexico City 1968 Munich 1972 Montreal 1976 Moscow 1980 Seoul 1988
10.9 67.9 20.1 19.1 48.4

11.1 22.0 34.7 102.9 13.9 34.0 107 102.1 4 52.4

Barcelona 1992 Atlanta 1996 Sydney 2000 Athens 2004 Beijing 2008
29.2 9 39.7 108.6 27.6

80.7 109.9 100 109 27.4 67.1 22.3 130.9 34 61.6

0 100m 500m

Los Angeles 1984: USC- 19.83 UCLA 26.3 Santa Barbara 8.1 Total 54.23
Butts 5

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Site Area Coverage
lowest to highest (% of builiding surface area/residential site surface area)

5% 10% 11% 12% 13% 17% 19% 20% 24% 26%

Montreal 1976 Athens 2004 Moscow 1980 Munich 1972 Mexico City 68 Beijing 2008 Atlanta 1996 Sydney 2000 Seoul 1988 Barcelona 1992

Floor Area Ratio
lowest to highest (ratio of residential built area/surface area of residential zone)

.23 .48 .71 .95 1.11 1.15 1.28 1.78 1.81 1.90

Athens 2004 Sydney 2000 Munich 1972 Montreal 1976 Seoul 1988 Mexico City 68 Barcelona 1992 Atlanta 1996 Moscow 1980 Beijing 2008
Butts 6

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Distance from City Center
Central: site selection takes advance of existing transporation networks and land use patterns. (Less than 5 km)
Transitional: distance depends on scale of city and population size (5-15 km). Site is close to urban core but involves modification of land-use and involves exten-
sion of transit access.
Periphery: part of a plan for regional metropolian growth (More than 12 km)
Central Sites Transitional Periphery
Munich 4 km Montreal 6 km Mexico City 13 km
Barcelona 2 km Seoul 14 km Moscow 13.5 km
Atlanta 1.6 km Beijing 11 km Sydney 18 km
Athens 21 km

Site Location in Relation to City’s Subway System Base Maps: Neil Freeman http://www.fakeisthenewreal.org/subway/
Mexico City Munich Montreal Moscow Los Angeles Seoul

Barcelona Atlanta Sydney -regional rail Athens Beijing

Butts 7

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Context Density

Host City (Low to High) Village Density (people/ha) Avg. Density of City (people/ha) Host City Population (Urban)

Munich 103.0 36.0 1,680,000
Moscow 126.1 29.0 13,250,000
Barcelona 127.4 48.5 3,900,000
Athens 134.5 54.0 3,690,000
Atlanta 150.3 7 3,500,000
Sydney 161.8 20.5 3,640,000
Los Angeles 212.9 24.0 13,830,000
Seoul 225.2 100.5 19,500,000
Montreal 279.4 20.0 3,320,000
Mexico City 371.6 84.5 18,100,000
Beijing 575.3 47.5 12,400,000

* Village Density includes Residential Zone and International Zone. Given that rooms typically have double occupancy and temporary use of living
rooms as bedrooms, village capacity is min. 2-3 times post-games occupancy of same dwelling units.
**Avg. Density of City and Host City Population from Demographia World Urban Areas & Population Projections 2008 Figures.

Butts 8

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Urban Typologies
Objects in the Landscape
“Modern” Planning- Tower in the Park
Flexible green space
Non-contextual
Low site area coverage
Mexico City 1968 Montreal 1976
Expandable

Radial
Oriented around a Center Program
(International Zone) or Open Space
Fingers of green space
High site area coverage
Not expandable
Munich 1972 Seoul 1988 Sydney 2000

Courtyard
Well-defined perimeter block
Containment of green space
Quality of open space depends on
scale
Varied site area coverage
Expandable Moscow 1980 Barcelona 1992 Atlanta 1996

Linear
Underlying grid, directionality
Alternating bands of building and green
space
Varied site area coverage
Expandable

Athens 2004 Beijing 2008
Butts 9

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Summary
Site Area and Location: Urban Typologies:

The site area devoted to the Olympic Village has increased over the last In Olympic Villages Hundred Years of Urban Planning and Shared Experi-
four decades as more countries participate in the games and minimum ence, Francesc Muñoz provides valuable background information and
per-person space standards have increased from 10 m2 to 12 m2. The outlines an evolution of urban planning related site selection for the
planning decision whether to locate the Olympic village depends on the Olympic Villages since Los Angeles 1932, the model for today’s Olym-
urban context and available land area. Frequently, the village is built near pic Villages. However, his method of classification does not take into
the main Olympic Stadium to minimize transportation needs during the account decisions regarding the form and organization that the housing
games such as Munich, Montreal, Seoul, Sydney and Beijing. The space takes. Four basic urban patterns can be identified for the Olympic Villag-
dedicated for the international zone can be reduced significantly when es from 1968-2008: objects in the landscape, radial, courtyard and linear.
the village is connected to the main Olympic Green. Most of the Olym-
pic Villages are located close to public transportation with the exception The design for Mexico City and Montreal are a product of architectural
of Los Angeles, which utilized existing campus sites, and Athens. The attitudes of the time, Corbusian ideals and Concerns for light and air.
remoteness of the Athens Olympic Village and removal of woodland The object buildings function as megastructures disconnected from the
reserves to built low-density housing is a missed opportunity for more ground plane. Once a large parcel of land is set aside near stadium
sustainable design strategies. In general, open space is clearly an equal complex, the international zone of retail and restaurants is located near
focus to built space in the design of Olympic Villages. The international the main access road. The housing radiates out from the center point
zone and open space surrounding the village can provide needed public across the available land. The stepping of heights in Munich is due to
open space and could be a potential opportunity for land banking for solar orientation. The quality of apartments provided in Seoul is accord-
future development. ing to post-games housing needs rather than village capacity. Only two-
thirds of the units were utilized for the games. Sydney’s new suburb
Newington is a low-density version of a concentric plan with three clus-
ters of single family houses oriented around a central collective green
space anchored in the northwest corner by retail and office programs.
Only two of the three neighborhood clusters served as the Olympic
Village. The first phase was already sold before the 2000 Olympics.
Wayfinding becomes an issue in decentralized sites

The courtyard typology is a classical model of development, able to con-
nect with surrounding urban fabric such as Cerda’s grid in Barcelona or
the existing pattern of dormitory on the Georgia Tech campus in Atlanta.
However, when used on a blank site such as Moscow’s peripheral social
housing development the scale can be oversized and create less than
habitable open space. The linear model of development is flexible and
can blend with existing patterns of urbanization in low or high-density
settings.

Butts 10

Mexico City- 1968
Village Capacity: 8,200
Number of Buildings: 29
Number of Units: 904
Building Heights: 7 & 11 stories
Residential Zone 10.93 ha
International Zone: 11.14 ha
Amenities: 12,000 m dining & international hall
People/ha: 371.55
Units/ha: 82.71
Building Surface Area: 14600 m2
Site Coverage Area: 13%
Total Built Area: 125600 m2
FAR: 1.15
Typology: High-rise Towers
Post-Games Use: Student Housing UNAM
Previous Site Condition: Rural-woodland
Distance to Main Stadium: 3.5 km
Distance to City Center: 13 km
Financing: National Public Works
0 100 m Gender Mix: Separate, uniform typology
Excerpts from Official Report: The Olympic Village p187-242

Located in a rural setting at the southern edge of Mexico
City, the Villa Olímpica Miguel Hidalgo provided a total of
5,044 rooms and 2,572 baths in 904 apartments. The proj-
ect, developed by a team of architects headed by Héctor
Velázquez (left), contains 20 high-rise buildings: 24 formed
the men’s section, 3 the women’s, and 2 were occupied by
the press. Construction was carried out between May 2,
1967 and September 12, 1968.

Additional facilities of permanent construction were: an open
air theater, Tartan tracks, and training areas for field events
similar to the competition installations at Olympic Stadium.
During the period of construction, three pre-Hispanic pyra-
mids related to the adjacent Cuicuilco archeological zone
were discovered. They were restored to form a fascinating
element of the landscaping.

Butts 11

Munich- 1972
Chart
1 Olympic Village, men
2 Olympic Village, women
3 wing AH
4 wing BH
5 wing CH

6 Terraced apartment houses
7 Residential area AH
8 Residential area BH
9 Residential area CH
10 Swimming pool
11 Kindergarten
12 Church

Number of Units: 4,722
13 Vicarages
14 Penthouses, Hotels
15 School
16 Shops
17 Amphitheater
18 Café
19 Cafeteria, Restaurant

Building Heights: 3-25 stories
Residential Zone 67 ha
.89
People/ha: 103.0
Units/ha: 46.0
Building Surface Area: 82,000 m2
Total Built Area: 480,400 m2
FAR: .71 129

Typology: Pyramid Towers and Low-Rise
Post-Games Use: Student & Family Housing
Previous Site Condition:
Distance from City Center: 4 km
Financing: City of Munich & Olympic Construction Company
0 100 m Gender Mix: Separate, varied typology, fenced off
Excerpts from Official Report: The Olympic Villages p124-141

The site with the grounds of the present Olympic Park presented itself
for the Olympic Village at the Games of the XXth Olympiad in Munich.
The OC could fulfill the ideas of the IOC literally since the Olympic
Village is in the immediate vicinity of Olympic Stadium, a number of
training facilities, the volleyball hall, the hockey fields, the sports hall,
the swimming hall, the remodeled boxing hall and the cycling stadium.

On account of the higher construction costs after the Olympic Games
the demand for dwelling sank considerably so that even [at the time of
the official report] parts of the Olympic Village are for sale or to rent.

The largest occupancy of the Olympic Village was reached on August
30, 1972
with 10,562 inhabitants which was more than 11% under the maximum
occupancy according to the estimate made in 1969, three and a half
years before the Olympic Games.

Butts 12

Montreal- 1976
Building Heights: 19 stories
People/ha: 279.4
Units/ha: 28.8
FAR: .95
Typology: Pyramid-Megastructures
Post-Games Use: For Sale & Rental Apartments
Distance to Main Stadium: 1 km
Financing: “Self-Financing”
0 100 m Gender Mix: Separate, uniform typology

Of the two zones into which the Olympic Village was di-
vided, that which was generally restricted to the athlete
was called the residential zone. Here could be found a most
imposing structure comprising four semi- or half-pyramids,
ranging in height from one story at their extremities to nine-
teen at their centres (see Plan B). Complementing the usual
athletes’ lodgings were offices and other premises serving a
variety of uses, namely delegation headquarters, a polyclinic,
etc.
One of the semi-pyramids was reserved to women and
three to men, and, while men were prohibited from entering
the women’s residence, women were allowed access to the
men’s. On the upper floors were 980 separate apartments
furnished to accommodate 11,000 persons, with 5 different
floor plans.

Butts 13

Moscow- 1980
Number of Units:
International Zone: 83 ha
Amenities: dining & training facilities
People/ha: 81.3
Units/ha:
FAR: 1.81
Typology: Large-Scale Courtyard
Post-Games Use: Social Housing
Previous Site Condition: Rural
.5
Distance to City Center: 13.5
Financing: Governmental
0 100 m Gender Mix: Separate, not fenced off

Moscow architects suggested that the Village be built in the
southwest of the city, on the continuation of Michurin
Avenue where, in compliance with the Moscow’s Master
Plan, a new neighbourhood complete with a polyclinic,
trade-and-service centre, kindergartens, schools and other
buildings was under construction.

The NOC sports delegations were allocated 18 sixteen-
storey blocks of two- and three-room flats in the residential
zone. The two-room flats were 32 sq m in area and the
three-room ones 46 sq m. No more than two people lived
in one room. Consequently there were no more than four
people in a two-room flat and no more than six, in a three-
room flat. The first and sixteenth floors were used for admin-
istration and services. Two blocks of flats were allocated
for women members of sports delegations.

Butts 14

Site plan of UCLA Village
Section through disco/coffeehouse
at UCLA Village looking north

Los Angeles- 1984
Site plan of the Olympic Village
at USC

Site plan of the Olympic Village
at UCSB

USC UCLA 173
UC Santa Barbara
Village Capacity: 7,002 Village Capacity: 3,690 Village Capacity: 856
181

Number of Buildings: 3 Number of Buildings: 4 Number of Buildings: 3
166

Number of Units: 618 Number of Units: 1196 Number of Units: 475
Residential Zone 19.1 ha Residential Zone 26.3 ha Residential Zone 8.1 ha
People/ha: 212.9 People/ha: 140.3 People/ha: 105.7
Units/ha: 31.2 Units/ha: 45.5 Units/ha: 58.6

The USC Olympic Village was created on 49 acres The UCLA Olympic Village was created on 60 The UCSB Olympic Village was created on 20
of the campus of the University of Southern Cali- acres of the campus of the University of Cali- acres of the campus of the University of Califor-
fornia. More than 6,000 athletes and officials from fornia, Los Angeles. More than 3,600 athletes nia, Santa Barbara. The village was developed
79 NOCs were housed in permanent residential and officials from 61 NOCs were housed in primarily for athletes competing in rowing and
halls and apartment style student accommoda- permanent student residential facilities. Exist- canoeing and offered a shorter commuting time to
tions. Other existing structures were adapted to ing training and athletic facilities, administrative the competition venue than the USC or UCLA vil-
new uses and temporary facilities were installed areas and others were adapted and tempo- lages. Food was prepared and served in one facil-
to create comfortable living and recreational areas. rary facilities installed to create comfortable ity. At the conclusion of their respective competi-
living, recreation and administration areas. tions, rowers and canoeists were able to return to
either the USC or UCLA village to join their NOCs.
Butts 15

Seoul- 1988
Number of Units: 3,692 (2,970 used)
Amenities: 26,400 international hall
People/ha: 286.3
Units/ha: 76.3
FAR: 1.11
Typology: Radial Stepped Plan
Post-Games Use: Private Housing
Previous Site Condition: Floodable area w/mass-housing
Financing: Public, Sale of Units
0 100 m Gender Mix:
Excerpts from Official Report: Olympic Village p526-570

The Seoul City pursued construction of the Olympic Village and
the Press Village simultaneously, a total of 5,540 units in 122
apartment buildings, of which 3,692 units in 86 buildings be-
longed to the Olympic Village. The Olympic Village living quarters
were divided into four districts. District A had 39 buildings with
1,472 units, District B with 19 buildings of 716 units and District
C with 24 buildings of 1,232 units. Athletes from 160 nations
were accommodated in these three closely-knit areas, while
operation personnel stayed in the distanced District D which
contained 272 units in four buildings.

The 26,400-square-meter Athletes’ Hall inside the International
Zone was eight stories high with a dining hall of 4,200 seating
capacity and NOC Service Center as well as numerous ameni-
ties and entertainment facilities.

Butts 16

Barcelona- 1992
Building Heights: 2-9 stories (average 6 stories)
Amenities: 65,000 m commerical and sports facilities
People/ha: 127 .4
Units/ha: 74.0
FAR: 1.28
Typology: Eclectic Contextualism
Previous Site Condition: Industrial
Financing: Private
0 100 m Gender Mix: Integrated
Excerpts from Official Report: The Villages Volume 3 p183-202

The Olympic Village was divided into two zones: the residential
zone, where the apartments, offices and NOC medical premises
were located; and the international zone, which included the
shopping centre, the beaches, the marine parade, the Olympic
Harbour jetty and most of the common services.

Poblenou, the site of the Olympic Village, was a former industrial
area that appeared in the 19th century, concentrating both indus-
trial sites and working class housing. Some of residential area
was integrated in superblocks permitting a mix of architectural
typologies; single-family housing, apartments, etc and architec-
tural styles
The apartments at the Olympic Village held between two and
twelve people; most were occupied by six or eight. There was at
least one bathroom for four people. The bedrooms were usually
twin. The beds measured 190 x 90 cm and could be extended by
20 or 40 cm.
Butts 17

Atlanta- 1996
Village Capacity: 16,500 (9,500 in new construction)
Number of Buildings: 8 new+ renovations= 94 total
Number of Units: 1,200 new
International Zone: 106.1ha
Amenities: 13,000 m dining tent
People/ha: 87 .1
Units/ha:
FAR: 1.78
Typology: Courtyard Campus
Post-Games Use: Dorms
Previous Site Condition: Public Housing
Distance to City Center: 1.6 km
Financing: University System of Georgia,$115M and ACOG $47M
Excerpts from The Olympic Village of Atlanta’96: Steven Kittell

There were eight projects that were finally agreed on to make
up the 9,500 beds.

All of these permanent facilities, all of the approzimately 4,700
student beds or the 9,500 athelete beds are now fully occupied
by students and the property has all been totally turned over to
the university and is back in their managment at this time.

Photograph: Photo Dossier Olympic Villages A Hundred Years of
Urban Planning and Shared Experiences.
Copyright IOC/Olympic Museum Collection
Butts 18

Sydney- 2000
Number of Buildings: 870 homes & 26 apt bldgs
.4
Amenities: shopping, school, wetlands
People/ha: 223.6
Units/ha: 30.7
FAR: .48
Typology: Radial Suburb
Post-Games Use: Private Housing (5000 to 6000)
Previous Site Condition: Navy Depot
Financing: Private
Excerpts from Official Report: Olympic Village p 325-331

The Village included about 520 houses, 350 apartments
and 350 modular homes. A group of prominent Sydney
architects designed a range of housing types including twos-
torey courtyard homes, manor homes, executive homes and
three- and four-storey apartment buildings. The Olympic Village
was planned to become Newington following the completion of
the Games, home to some 5000 to 6000 people and the world’s
largest solar-powered suburb. Newington would also provide
some 1600 jobs in a commercial/retail precinct and high-technol-
ogy business park.

Butts 19

Athens- 2004
Building Heights: stories
Amenities:
People/ha: 134.45
Units/ha: 21.1
FAR: .23
Typology: Linear Suburb
Previous Site Condition: Woodland
Financing: Private, $300M
Gender Mix: Integrated

Excerpts from Official Report: Olympic Village p 41- 56

The total area covered was 1.240.000 sq.m, and was built according to the
principles of bioclimatic energy design, with environmentally friendly mate-
rials ensuring moderate temperatures during summer months.

The Residential Zone comprised 366 newly built residences of two, three
and four floors, with 2.292 apartments of three, four or five rooms (90-110
sq.m. per apartment). The 19 different types of buildings provided a pleas-
ant variation to the Olympic Village landscape, while the buildings were
constructed according to the latest specifications laid down in the relevant
legislation, and provided all modern conveniences. The average available
surface area per Village resident at 14 sq.m. exceeded that specified by the
0 100 m IOC.
Butts 20

Beijing- 2008
Building Heights: 6 stories (22) & 9 stories (20)
Residential Zone 27 ha
.6
Amenities: 19,000 sq m dining hall tent
People/ha: 276.2
Units/ha:326.7
FAR: 1.9
Typology: Linear Garden Style
Post-Games Use: For Sale Private Housing
Financing: Governmental
Excerpts from The Official Website of the
Beijing 2008 Olympic Games:

There are 42 buildings in the village. Ath-
lete dormitories are permanent buildings
that are six to nine floors high. The village
has 9,000 rooms and can accommodate
about 17 ,000 people at the same time.
According to official data, 16,000 people
will be staying at the Village during the
Beijing Games.

Photographs and Site Map: Official Web-
site of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games
Butts 21

Work Cited-
Demographia World Urban Areas & Population Projections: 5th Comprehensive Edition. Revised April 2009. < http://www.demographia.com/> 4 May 2009.

Freeman, Neil. Subway Systems of the World, presented on the same scale. <http://www.fakeisthenewreal.org/subway/> 15 May 2009.

Kittell, Steven. “The Atlanta’96 Olympic Village. Olympic Villages: A Hundred Years of Urban Planning and Shared Experiences. ed. by Miquel de Moragas,
”
Montserrat Llines, Bruce Kidd.- Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, 1997 .

“IOC Guidelines concerning the Construction of the Olympic Village. Olympic Villages: A Hundred Years of Urban Planning and Shared Experiences. ed. by
”
Miquel de Moragas, Montserrat Llines, Bruce Kidd.- Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, 1997 .

Millet, Lluis. “Olympic Villages after the Games. Olympic Villages: A Hundred Years of Urban Planning and Shared Experiences. ed. by Miquel de
”
Moragas, Montserrat Llines, Bruce Kidd.- Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, 1997 .

Munoz, Francesc Manuel. “Historic Evolution and Urban Planning Typology. Olympic Villages: A Hundred Years of Urban Planning and Shared Experiences.
”
ed. by Miquel de Moragas, Montserrat Llines, Bruce Kidd.- Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, 1997.

The Official Report of the Organizing Committee of the Games of the XIX Olympiad Mexico- Volume 2 Part 2:The Organzation. Organizing Committee of
the Games of the XIX Olympiad, 2005.

The Official Report of the Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXth Olympiad Munich 1972- Volume 1: The organization. Pro Sport Munchen, 1973.

The Official Report of the Games of the XXI Olympiad Montreal 1976- Volume I: Organization. COJO, Quebec National Library,1978.

The Official Report of the Games of the XXII Olympiad Moscow 1980- Volume 2: Organisation. Fizkultura i Sport Publishers, 2005.

The Official Report of the Games of the XXIIIrd Olympiad Los Angeles, 1984. Volume 1 Organization and Planning. Los Angeles Olympic Organizing
Committee. 1985.

The Official Report of the Games of the XXIVth Olympiad Seoul 1988-Volume 1 Part 2. 1989

The Official Report of the Games of the XXV Olympiad Barcelona 1992. Volume III The organisation. COOB’92, S.A., 1992.

The Official Report of The Centennial Olympic Games. Volume 1 Planning and Organizing. Atlanta Committe for the Olympic Games. Peachtree
Publishers., 1997 .

The Official Report of the XXVII Olympiad Sydney 2000- Volume 1: Preparing for the Games. Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, 2001

The Official Report of the XXVIII Olympiad Volume 2 The Games. Athens 2004 Organising Committee for the Olympic Games S.A. Liberis Publication
Group, 2005.

The Official Website of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. <http://en.beijing2008.cn/venues/olympicvillage/>. 16 May 2009.

WorkAC. 49 Cities. Storefront for Art and Architecture: New York, 2009.

Image for Scale Comparision, Site Area, Site Area Coverage, FAR, Urban Typologies and Site Plan for Olympic Villages produced by Kerrie Butts.
All other images and photographs are from Official Olympic Report unless otherwise noted.

Butts 22

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Density Project

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Density Project

Similar to Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Density Project (15)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Density Project