Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Density Project

2,018 views

Published on

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Density Project
Kerrie Butts, Master of Architecture in Urban Design 2009 GSD9604: Olympic Infrastructure Prof. Judith Grant Long

Published in: Design
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,018
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
17
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
92
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Density Project

  1. 1. Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Density ProjectKerrie Butts, Master of Architecture in Urban Design 2009GSD9604: Olympic InfrastructureProf. Judith Grant LongThe total area required for a city to host the Olympics is estimated at around1,000 ha with the village to accommodate the athletes, coaches, officials andpress representing around 12% of the total land consumption (Millet 1997p125). While the dimensional requirements of stadiums and sporting venues isrelatively standardized, the density and organization of residential fabric can varysignificantly based on context, architectural style, post-games housing needsand planning decisions. Millet estimates the overall surface area for the Olym- 60 hapic Village at a minimum of 60 hectares, an appropriate average for the pastfive Olympic Villages. However, based on built examples over the past 40 yearsthe programmatic needs for temporarily housing 15,000 can be met with lesssurface area. Given urban land and capital resources becoming more scarce andincreasing concerns for sustainability, densification and the implementation ofmore innovative housing typologies is an opportunity for future Olympic Village 1,000 haplanning. The planning and design of the Olympic Village has become largelyshaped 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.
  2. 2. 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 7Surprisingly little graphic information is published on the Olympic Villages. Withthe exception of Munich, Montreal, Los Angeles, Seoul and Barcelona, the City Context Density 8Official Reports do not even include a site plan of the village. Also, inconsisten- Urban Typologies 9cies in the numbers reported sometimes exist within the same document. The Summary 10plans and quantitative analysis/area calculations were produced using the bestavailable information: current aerial satellite images, site plans, photographs and Index of Olympic Villages 1968-2008detail descriptions included in the Official Reports. Given the temporal aspect Mexico City 1968 11of the Olympic Village, the site boundary and extent of the residential zone andinternational zone is an approximation based the number of hectares listed in Munich 1972 12the Official Report and current site conditions. Montreal 1976 13 Moscow 1980 14Organizing 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 15gies used. Even outside the context of the Olympic Games, village design is Seoul 1988 16an interesting case study in designing collective housing for the temporary use Barcelona 1992 17of 15,000 and permanent inhabitance of 10,000 plus shared programs such asretail, open space and educational or sports facilities. Since this research semi- Atlanta 1996 18nar is the beginning of a series of courses related to Olympic Infrastructure, I Sydney 2000 19have included the digital working files for future use and publication including Athens 2004 20an AutoCAD file of villages drawn at the same scale, aerial satellite images, andexcel file organizing the data collected in addition the document and drawings Beijing 2008 21presented. Work Cited 22 Butts 2
  3. 3. Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Village Program RequirementsResidential 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 approximately3,500 for the Winter Games, have to be housed in single or doublerooms. 20% of the beds must be 2.20 m long.An average allocation of 12m2 of raw floor is to be provided. In additionto the room, these 12m2 include the surface area devoted to walls andinternal partitions, corridors etc., living areas and storage areas (withwashing machines). This amounts to a minimum of 180,000 m2 of rawfloor space for te Summer Games and approx. 42,000 m2 for the WinterGames in the residential zone.NoteDouble bedded room should have a minimum surface area of 15 m2.Particulary sensitive members of the teams shoud be allocated singlerooms. The same goes for the chef de mission and the doctor.Arrangements should be made for men and women to be housedseparately. The same goes for athletes in different sports. Under nocircumstances should athletes from different countries be required toshare the same room or the same apartment. the OCOB must take intoaccount the fact that rooms or beds will inevitably remain unoccupied,hence the need to provide a number of beds over and above the 15,000indicated (approx. 5% of the total capacity). Butts 3
  4. 4. Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Scale ComparisonMexico City 1968 Munich 1972 Montreal 1976 Moscow 1980 Seoul 1988112 Countries 5,516 Athletes 121 Countries 7,134 Athletes 113 Countries 6,084 Athletes 81 Countries 5,179 Athletes 159 Countries 8,391 AthletesBarcelona 1992 Atlanta 1996 Sydney 2000 Athens 2004 Beijing 2008169 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 500mLos Angeles 1984: 140 Countries 6,829 AthletesBecause 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
  5. 5. Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Site Area (hectare) Residential Zone International Zone Total Mexico City 1968 Munich 1972 Montreal 1976 Moscow 1980 Seoul 198810.9 67.9 20.1 19.1 48.411.1 22.0 34.7 102.9 13.9 34.0 107 102.1 4 52.4Barcelona 1992 Atlanta 1996 Sydney 2000 Athens 2004 Beijing 200829.2 9 39.7 108.6 27.680.7 109.9 100 109 27.4 67.1 22.3 130.9 34 61.6 0 100m 500mLos Angeles 1984: USC- 19.83 UCLA 26.3 Santa Barbara 8.1 Total 54.23 Butts 5
  6. 6. Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Site Area Coveragelowest 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 1992Floor Area Ratiolowest 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 1.90Athens 2004 Sydney 2000 Munich 1972 Montreal 1976 Seoul 1988 Mexico City 68 Barcelona 1992 Atlanta 1996 Moscow 1980 Beijing 2008 Butts 6
  7. 7. Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Distance from City CenterCentral: 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 PeripheryMunich 4 km Montreal 6 km Mexico City 13 kmBarcelona 2 km Seoul 14 km Moscow 13.5 kmAtlanta 1.6 km Beijing 11 km Sydney 18 km Athens 21 kmSite Location in Relation to City’s Subway System Base Maps: Neil Freeman http://www.fakeisthenewreal.org/subway/Mexico City Munich Montreal Moscow Los Angeles SeoulBarcelona Atlanta Sydney -regional rail Athens Beijing Butts 7
  8. 8. Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Context DensityHost City (Low to High) Village Density (people/ha) Avg. Density of City (people/ha) Host City Population (Urban)Munich 103.0 36.0 1,680,000Moscow 126.1 29.0 13,250,000Barcelona 127.4 48.5 3,900,000Athens 134.5 54.0 3,690,000Atlanta 150.3 7 3,500,000 Sydney 161.8 20.5 3,640,000Los Angeles 212.9 24.0 13,830,000Seoul 225.2 100.5 19,500,000Montreal 279.4 20.0 3,320,000 Mexico City 371.6 84.5 18,100,000Beijing 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 livingrooms 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
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. Olympic Villages 1968-2008- SummarySite 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 andper-person space standards have increased from 10 m2 to 12 m2. The outlines an evolution of urban planning related site selection for theplanning 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 intothe main Olympic Stadium to minimize transportation needs during the account decisions regarding the form and organization that the housinggames 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 architecturalof 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 thereserves to built low-density housing is a missed opportunity for more ground plane. Once a large parcel of land is set aside near stadiumsustainable design strategies. In general, open space is clearly an equal complex, the international zone of retail and restaurants is located nearfocus to built space in the design of Olympic Villages. The international the main access road. The housing radiates out from the center pointzone and open space surrounding the village can provide needed public across the available land. The stepping of heights in Munich is due toopen 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
  11. 11. 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 typologyExcerpts from Official Report: The Olympic Village p187-242Located in a rural setting at the southern edge of MexicoCity, the Villa Olímpica Miguel Hidalgo provided a total of5,044 rooms and 2,572 baths in 904 apartments. The proj-ect, developed by a team of architects headed by HéctorVelázquez (left), contains 20 high-rise buildings: 24 formedthe men’s section, 3 the women’s, and 2 were occupied bythe press. Construction was carried out between May 2,1967 and September 12, 1968.Additional facilities of permanent construction were: an openair theater, Tartan tracks, and training areas for field eventssimilar to the competition installations at Olympic Stadium.During the period of construction, three pre-Hispanic pyra-mids related to the adjacent Cuicuilco archeological zonewere discovered. They were restored to form a fascinatingelement of the landscaping. Butts 11
  12. 12. Munich- 1972 Village Capacity: 10,562 Chart 1 Olympic Village, men 2 Olympic Village, women 3 wing AH 4 wing BH 5 wing CH Number of Buildings: 130 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 International Zone: 34.7 ha Amenities: 21,615 m dining & international hall People/ha: 103.0 Units/ha: 46.0 Building Surface Area: 82,000 m2 Site Coverage Area: 12% 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 to Main Stadium: 0.8 km Distance from City Center: 4 km Financing: City of Munich & Olympic Construction Company 0 100 m Gender Mix: Separate, varied typology, fenced offExcerpts from Official Report: The Olympic Villages p124-141The site with the grounds of the present Olympic Park presented itselffor the Olympic Village at the Games of the XXth Olympiad in Munich.The OC could fulfill the ideas of the IOC literally since the OlympicVillage is in the immediate vicinity of Olympic Stadium, a number oftraining 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 Gamesthe demand for dwelling sank considerably so that even [at the time ofthe official report] parts of the Olympic Village are for sale or to rent.The largest occupancy of the Olympic Village was reached on August30, 1972with 10,562 inhabitants which was more than 11% under the maximumoccupancy according to the estimate made in 1969, three and a halfyears before the Olympic Games. Butts 12
  13. 13. Montreal- 1976 Village Capacity: 9,500 Number of Buildings: 4 Number of Units: 980 Building Heights: 19 stories Residential Zone 20.1 ha International Zone: 13.9 ha Amenities: 13,000 m dining & international hall People/ha: 279.4 Units/ha: 28.8 Building Surface Area: 10100 m2 Site Coverage Area: 5% Total Built Area: 191800 m2 FAR: .95 Typology: Pyramid-Megastructures Post-Games Use: For Sale & Rental Apartments Previous Site Condition: Distance to Main Stadium: 1 km Distance to City Center: 6 km Financing: “Self-Financing” 0 100 m Gender Mix: Separate, uniform typologyExcerpts from Official Report: The Olympic Village p258-279Of the two zones into which the Olympic Village was di-vided, that which was generally restricted to the athletewas called the residential zone. Here could be found a mostimposing 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 usualathletes’ lodgings were offices and other premises serving avariety of uses, namely delegation headquarters, a polyclinic,etc.One of the semi-pyramids was reserved to women andthree to men, and, while men were prohibited from enteringthe women’s residence, women were allowed access to themen’s. On the upper floors were 980 separate apartmentsfurnished to accommodate 11,000 persons, with 5 differentfloor plans. Butts 13
  14. 14. Moscow- 1980 Village Capacity: 8,300 Number of Buildings: 18 Number of Units: Building Heights: 16 stories Residential Zone 19.12 ha International Zone: 83 ha Amenities: dining & training facilities People/ha: 81.3 Units/ha: Building Surface Area: 21600 m2 Site Coverage Area: 11% Total Built Area: 345600 m2 FAR: 1.81 Typology: Large-Scale Courtyard Post-Games Use: Social Housing Previous Site Condition: Rural Distance to Main Stadium: 7 km .5 Distance to City Center: 13.5 Financing: Governmental 0 100 m Gender Mix: Separate, not fenced offExcerpts from Official Report: The Olympic Village p307-315Moscow architects suggested that the Village be built in thesouthwest of the city, on the continuation of MichurinAvenue where, in compliance with the Moscow’s MasterPlan, a new neighbourhood complete with a polyclinic,trade-and-service centre, kindergartens, schools and otherbuildings was under construction.The NOC sports delegations were allocated 18 sixteen-storey blocks of two- and three-room flats in the residentialzone. The two-room flats were 32 sq m in area and thethree-room ones 46 sq m. No more than two people livedin one room. Consequently there were no more than fourpeople 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 allocatedfor women members of sports delegations. Butts 14
  15. 15. Site plan of UCLA Village Section through disco/coffeehouse at UCLA Village looking northLos Angeles- 1984Site plan of the Olympic Villageat USC Site plan of the Olympic Village at UCSBUSC UCLA 173 UC Santa BarbaraVillage Capacity: 7,002 Village Capacity: 3,690 Village Capacity: 856 181Number of Buildings: 3 Number of Buildings: 4 Number of Buildings: 3 166Number of Units: 618 Number of Units: 1196 Number of Units: 475Residential Zone 19.1 ha Residential Zone 26.3 ha Residential Zone 8.1 haPeople/ha: 212.9 People/ha: 140.3 People/ha: 105.7Units/ha: 31.2 Units/ha: 45.5 Units/ha: 58.6The USC Olympic Village was created on 49 acres The UCLA Olympic Village was created on 60 The UCSB Olympic Village was created on 20of 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 developed79 NOCs were housed in permanent residential and officials from 61 NOCs were housed in primarily for athletes competing in rowing andhalls and apartment style student accommoda- permanent student residential facilities. Exist- canoeing and offered a shorter commuting time totions. 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
  16. 16. Seoul- 1988 Village Capacity: 15,000 Number of Buildings: 86 Number of Units: 3,692 (2,970 used) Building Heights: 5-24 stories Residential Zone 48.4 ha International Zone: 4 ha Amenities: 26,400 international hall People/ha: 286.3 Units/ha: 76.3 Building Surface Area: 118,500 m2 Site Coverage Area: 24% Total Built Area: 537300 m2 FAR: 1.11 Typology: Radial Stepped Plan Post-Games Use: Private Housing Previous Site Condition: Floodable area w/mass-housing Distance to Main Stadium: 5 km Distance to City Center: 14 km Financing: Public, Sale of Units 0 100 m Gender Mix:Excerpts from Official Report: Olympic Village p526-570The Seoul City pursued construction of the Olympic Village andthe Press Village simultaneously, a total of 5,540 units in 122apartment buildings, of which 3,692 units in 86 buildings be-longed to the Olympic Village. The Olympic Village living quarterswere divided into four districts. District A had 39 buildings with1,472 units, District B with 19 buildings of 716 units and DistrictC with 24 buildings of 1,232 units. Athletes from 160 nationswere accommodated in these three closely-knit areas, whileoperation personnel stayed in the distanced District D whichcontained 272 units in four buildings.The 26,400-square-meter Athletes’ Hall inside the InternationalZone was eight stories high with a dining hall of 4,200 seatingcapacity and NOC Service Center as well as numerous ameni-ties and entertainment facilities. Butts 16
  17. 17. Barcelona- 1992 Village Capacity: 14,000 Number of Buildings: 44 Number of Units: 1983 Building Heights: 2-9 stories (average 6 stories) Residential Zone 29.2 ha International Zone: 80.7 ha Amenities: 65,000 m commerical and sports facilities People/ha: 127 .4 Units/ha: 74.0 Building Surface Area: 74,600 m2 Site Coverage Area: 26% Total Built Area: 373,000 m2 FAR: 1.28 Typology: Eclectic Contextualism Post-Games Use: Private Housing Previous Site Condition: Industrial Distance to Main Stadium: 6 km Distance to City Center: 2 km Financing: Private 0 100 m Gender Mix: IntegratedExcerpts from Official Report: The Villages Volume 3 p183-202The Olympic Village was divided into two zones: the residentialzone, where the apartments, offices and NOC medical premiseswere located; and the international zone, which included theshopping centre, the beaches, the marine parade, the OlympicHarbour jetty and most of the common services.Poblenou, the site of the Olympic Village, was a former industrialarea that appeared in the 19th century, concentrating both indus-trial sites and working class housing. Some of residential areawas integrated in superblocks permitting a mix of architecturaltypologies; single-family housing, apartments, etc and architec-tural stylesThe apartments at the Olympic Village held between two andtwelve people; most were occupied by six or eight. There was atleast one bathroom for four people. The bedrooms were usuallytwin. The beds measured 190 x 90 cm and could be extended by20 or 40 cm. Butts 17
  18. 18. 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 Building Heights: 11 stories Residential Zone 2.9 ha International Zone: 106.1ha Amenities: 13,000 m dining tent People/ha: 87 .1 Units/ha: Building Surface Area: 5,625 m2 Site Coverage Area: 19% Total Built Area: 51,700 m2 FAR: 1.78 Typology: Courtyard Campus Post-Games Use: Dorms Previous Site Condition: Public Housing Distance to Main Stadium: 2 km Distance to City Center: 1.6 km Financing: University System of Georgia,$115M and ACOG $47M 0 100 m Gender Mix: IntegratedExcerpts from The Olympic Village of Atlanta’96: Steven KittellThere were eight projects that were finally agreed on to makeup the 9,500 beds.All of these permanent facilities, all of the approzimately 4,700student beds or the 9,500 athelete beds are now fully occupiedby students and the property has all been totally turned over tothe university and is back in their managment at this time.Photograph: Photo Dossier Olympic Villages A Hundred Years ofUrban Planning and Shared Experiences.Copyright IOC/Olympic Museum Collection Butts 18
  19. 19. Sydney- 2000 Village Capacity: 15,000 Number of Buildings: 870 homes & 26 apt bldgs Number of Units: 1,220 Building Heights: 1-4 stories Residential Zone 39.7 ha International Zone: 27 ha .4 Amenities: shopping, school, wetlands People/ha: 223.6 Units/ha: 30.7 Building Surface Area: 81,200 m2 Site Coverage Area: 20% Total Built Area: 189,400 m2 FAR: .48 Typology: Radial Suburb Post-Games Use: Private Housing (5000 to 6000) Previous Site Condition: Navy Depot Distance to Main Stadium: 1 km Distance to City Center: 18 km Financing: Private 0 100 m Gender Mix: IntegratedExcerpts from Official Report: Olympic Village p 325-331The Village included about 520 houses, 350 apartmentsand 350 modular homes. A group of prominent Sydneyarchitects designed a range of housing types including twos-torey courtyard homes, manor homes, executive homes andthree- and four-storey apartment buildings. The Olympic Villagewas planned to become Newington following the completion ofthe Games, home to some 5000 to 6000 people and the world’slargest solar-powered suburb. Newington would also providesome 1600 jobs in a commercial/retail precinct and high-technol-ogy business park. Butts 19
  20. 20. Athens- 2004 Village Capacity: 17,600 Number of Buildings: 366 Number of Units: 2,292 Building Heights: stories Residential Zone 108.6 ha International Zone: 22.3 ha Amenities: People/ha: 134.45 Units/ha: 21.1 Building Surface Area: 106,700 m2 Site Coverage Area: 10% Total Built Area: 249,000 m2 FAR: .23 Typology: Linear Suburb Post-Games Use: Private Housing Previous Site Condition: Woodland Distance to Main Stadium: 13.8 km Distance to City Center: 21 km 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
  21. 21. Beijing- 2008 Village Capacity: 17,000 Number of Buildings: 42 Number of Units: 9,000 Building Heights: 6 stories (22) & 9 stories (20) Residential Zone 27 ha .6 International Zone: 34 ha Amenities: 19,000 sq m dining hall tent People/ha: 276.2 Units/ha:326.7 Building Surface Area: 45,600 m2 Site Coverage Area: 17% Total Built Area: 524,000 m2 FAR: 1.9 Typology: Linear Garden Style Post-Games Use: For Sale Private Housing Previous Site Condition: Distance to Main Stadium: 1.75 km Distance to City Center: 11 km Financing: Governmental 0 100 m Gender Mix: IntegratedExcerpts from The Official Website of theBeijing 2008 Olympic Games:There are 42 buildings in the village. Ath-lete dormitories are permanent buildingsthat are six to nine floors high. The villagehas 9,000 rooms and can accommodateabout 17 ,000 people at the same time.According to official data, 16,000 peoplewill be staying at the Village during theBeijing Games.Photographs and Site Map: Official Web-site of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games Butts 21
  22. 22. 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. 1989The 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, 2001The 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

×