Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Density Project

Kerrie Butts, Master of Architecture in Urban Design 2009 GSD9604: Olympic InfrastructureProf. 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-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 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- Density Project

1,000 ha

60 ha

Surprisingly little graphic information is published on the Olympic Villages. With the exception of Munich, Montreal, Los Angeles, Seoul and Barcelona, the Official Reports do not even include a site plan of the village. Also, inconsisten-cies in the numbers reported sometimes exist within the same document. The plans and quantitative analysis/area calculations were produced using the best available information: current aerial satellite images, site plans, photographs and detail descriptions included in the Official Reports. Given the temporal aspect 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 the Official Report and current site conditions.

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-gies used. Even outside the context of the Olympic Games, village design is an interesting case study in designing collective housing for the temporary use 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-nar is the beginning of a series of courses related to Olympic Infrastructure, I have included the digital working files for future use and publication including 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 presented.

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

City Context Density 8

Urban Typologies 9

Summary 10

Index of Olympic Villages 1968-2008 Mexico City 1968 11

Munich 1972 12

Montreal 1976 13

Moscow 1980 14

Los Angeles 1984 15

Seoul 1988 16

Barcelona 1992 17

Atlanta 1996 18

Sydney 2000 19

Athens 2004 20

Beijing 2008 21

Work Cited 22

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Introduction

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.

NoteDouble 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

Mexico City 1968

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Scale Comparison

Barcelona 1992

Munich 1972

Atlanta 1996

Montreal 1976

Sydney 2000

Moscow 1980

Athens 2004

Seoul 1988

Beijing 2008

112 Countries 5,516 Athletes

169 Countries 9,356 Athletes

Los 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

197 Countries 10,318 Athletes 199 Countries 10,651Athletes 201 Countries 10,625 Athletes 204 Countries 11,028 Athletes

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

0 100m 500m

Mexico City 1968

Barcelona 1992

Munich 1972

Atlanta 1996

Montreal 1976

Sydney 2000

Moscow 1980

Athens 2004

Seoul 1988

Beijing 2008

10.9

29.2 9 39.7 108.6 27.6

67.9 20.1 19.1 48.4

Residential Zone

International Zone Total

11.1 22.0

109.9 109 67.1 130.9 61.6

102.9 34.0 102.1 52.4

80.7 100 27.4 22.3 34

34.7 107 4

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Site Area (hectare)

13.9

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

0 100m 500m

Butts 5

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Site Area Coverage

Floor Area Ratio

10%

.23

Athens 2004

Athens 2004

Sydney 2000

Sydney 2000

Seoul 1988

Seoul 1988

Mexico City 68

Mexico City 68

Barcelona 1992

Barcelona 1992

Beijing 2008

Beijing 2008

Moscow 1980

Moscow 1980

Atlanta 1996

Atlanta 1996

Munich 1972

Munich 1972

Montreal 1976

Montreal 1976

lowest to highest (% of builiding surface area/residential site surface area)

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

20%

.48

12%

.71

5%

.95

24%

1.11

13%

1.15

26%

1.28

17%

1.90

19%

1.78

11%

1.81

Butts 6

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Distance from City Center

Site Location in Relation to City’s Subway System Base Maps: Neil Freeman http://www.fakeisthenewreal.org/subway/

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)

Barcelona Atlanta Sydney -regional rail Athens Beijing

Central SitesMunich 4 kmBarcelona 2 kmAtlanta 1.6 km

TransitionalMontreal 6 kmSeoul 14 kmBeijing 11 km

PeripheryMexico City 13 kmMoscow 13.5 kmSydney 18 kmAthens 21 km

Moscow Los Angeles SeoulMontrealMexico City Munich

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

Athens 2004

Sydney 2000Seoul 1988

Mexico City 1968

Barcelona 1992

Beijing 2008

Moscow 1980 Atlanta 1996

Munich 1972

Montreal 1976

Objects in the Landscape

“Modern” Planning- Tower in the ParkFlexible green space Non-contextualLow site area coverageExpandable

Oriented around a Center Program (International Zone) or Open SpaceFingers of green spaceHigh site area coverageNot expandable

Well-defined perimeter blockContainment of green spaceQuality of open space depends on scaleVaried site area coverageExpandable

Underlying grid, directionalityAlternating bands of building and green spaceVaried site area coverageExpandable

Radial

Courtyard

Linear

Butts 9

Urban Typologies:

In Olympic Villages Hundred Years of Urban Planning and Shared Experi-ence, Francesc Muñoz provides valuable background information and outlines an evolution of urban planning related site selection for the Olympic Villages since Los Angeles 1932, the model for today’s Olym-pic Villages. However, his method of classification does not take into account decisions regarding the form and organization that the housing takes. Four basic urban patterns can be identified for the Olympic Villag-es from 1968-2008: objects in the landscape, radial, courtyard and linear.

The design for Mexico City and Montreal are a product of architectural attitudes of the time, Corbusian ideals and Concerns for light and air. The object buildings function as megastructures disconnected from the ground plane. Once a large parcel of land is set aside near stadium complex, the international zone of retail and restaurants is located near the main access road. The housing radiates out from the center point across the available land. The stepping of heights in Munich is due to solar orientation. The quality of apartments provided in Seoul is accord-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.

Site Area and Location:

The site area devoted to the Olympic Village has increased over the last four decades as more countries participate in the games and minimum per-person space standards have increased from 10 m2 to 12 m2. The planning decision whether to locate the Olympic village depends on the urban context and available land area. Frequently, the village is built near the main Olympic Stadium to minimize transportation needs during the games such as Munich, Montreal, Seoul, Sydney and Beijing. The space dedicated for the international zone can be reduced significantly when the village is connected to the main Olympic Green. Most of the Olym-pic Villages are located close to public transportation with the exception of Los Angeles, which utilized existing campus sites, and Athens. The remoteness of the Athens Olympic Village and removal of woodland reserves to built low-density housing is a missed opportunity for more sustainable design strategies. In general, open space is clearly an equal focus to built space in the design of Olympic Villages. The international zone and open space surrounding the village can provide needed public open space and could be a potential opportunity for land banking for future development.

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Summary

Butts 10

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.

0 100 m

Village Capacity: 8,200Number of Buildings: 29Number of Units: 904Building Heights: 7 & 11 storiesResidential Zone 10.93 haInternational Zone: 11.14 haAmenities: 12,000 m dining & international hallPeople/ha: 371.55Units/ha: 82.71Building Surface Area: 14600 m2

Site Coverage Area: 13%Total Built Area: 125600 m2

FAR: 1.15Typology: High-rise TowersPost-Games Use: Student Housing UNAMPrevious Site Condition: Rural-woodlandDistance to Main Stadium: 3.5 kmDistance to City Center: 13 kmFinancing: National Public WorksGender Mix: Separate, uniform typology

Mexico City- 1968

Butts 11

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, 1972with 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.

0 100 m

Village Capacity: 10,562Number of Buildings: 130Number of Units: 4,722Building Heights: 3-25 storiesResidential Zone 67.89 haInternational Zone: 34.7 haAmenities: 21,615 m dining & international hallPeople/ha: 103.0Units/ha: 46.0Building Surface Area: 82,000 m2

Site Coverage Area: 12%Total Built Area: 480,400 m2

FAR: .71Typology: Pyramid Towers and Low-RisePost-Games Use: Student & Family HousingPrevious Site Condition: Distance to Main Stadium: 0.8 kmDistance from City Center: 4 kmFinancing: City of Munich & Olympic Construction CompanyGender Mix: Separate, varied typology, fenced off

Munich- 1972Chart

1 Olympic Village, men2 Olympic Village, women3 wing AH4 wing BH5 wing CH6 Terraced apartment houses7 Residential area AH8 Residential area BH9 Residential area CH

10 Swimming pool11 Kindergarten12 Church13 Vicarages14 Penthouses, Hotels15 School16 Shops17 Amphitheater18 Café19 Cafeteria, Restaurant

129

Butts 12

Village Capacity: 9,500Number of Buildings: 4Number of Units: 980Building Heights: 19 storiesResidential Zone 20.1 haInternational Zone: 13.9 haAmenities: 13,000 m dining & international hallPeople/ha: 279.4Units/ha: 28.8Building Surface Area: 10100 m2


FAR: .95Typology: Pyramid-MegastructuresPost-Games Use: For Sale & Rental ApartmentsPrevious Site Condition: Distance to Main Stadium: 1 kmDistance to City Center: 6 kmFinancing: “Self-Financing”Gender Mix: Separate, uniform typology

Montreal- 1976


Of 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 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 themen’s. On the upper floors were 980 separate apartments furnished to accommodate 11,000 persons, with 5 differentfloor plans.

0 100 m

Butts 13

Village Capacity: 8,300Number of Buildings: 18Number of Units: Building Heights: 16 storiesResidential Zone 19.12 haInternational Zone: 83 ha Amenities: dining & training facilitiesPeople/ha: 81.3Units/ha:Building Surface Area: 21600 m2


FAR: 1.81Typology: Large-Scale CourtyardPost-Games Use: Social HousingPrevious Site Condition: RuralDistance to Main Stadium: 7.5 kmDistance to City Center: 13.5Financing: GovernmentalGender Mix: Separate, not fenced off

Moscow- 1980


Moscow architects suggested that the Village be built in the southwest of the city, on the continuation of MichurinAvenue 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 allocatedfor women members of sports delegations.

0 100 m

Butts 14

USCVillage Capacity: 7,002Number of Buildings: 3Number of Units: 618 Residential Zone 19.1 haPeople/ha: 212.9Units/ha: 31.2

The USC Olympic Village was created on 49 acres of the campus of the University of Southern Cali-fornia. More than 6,000 athletes and officials from 79 NOCs were housed in permanent residential halls and apartment style student accommoda-tions. Other existing structures were adapted to new uses and temporary facilities were installed to create comfortable living and recreational areas.

UCLAVillage Capacity: 3,690Number of Buildings: 4Number of Units: 1196 Residential Zone 26.3 haPeople/ha: 140.3Units/ha: 45.5

The UCLA Olympic Village was created on 60acres of the campus of the University of Cali-fornia, Los Angeles. More than 3,600 athletes and officials from 61 NOCs were housed in permanent student residential facilities. Exist-ing training and athletic facilities, administrative areas and others were adapted and tempo-rary facilities installed to create comfortable living, recreation and administration areas.

UC Santa BarbaraVillage Capacity: 856Number of Buildings: 3Number of Units: 475 Residential Zone 8.1 haPeople/ha: 105.7Units/ha: 58.6

The UCSB Olympic Village was created on 20 acres of the campus of the University of Califor-nia, Santa Barbara. The village was developed primarily for athletes competing in rowing and canoeing and offered a shorter commuting time to the competition venue than the USC or UCLA vil-lages. Food was prepared and served in one facil-ity. At the conclusion of their respective competi-tions, rowers and canoeists were able to return to either the USC or UCLA village to join their NOCs.

Los Angeles- 1984Site plan of the Olympic Villageat USC

166

Site plan of UCLA Village Section through disco/coffeehouseat UCLA Village looking north

173

Site plan of the Olympic Villageat UCSB

181

Butts 15

Village Capacity: 15,000Number of Buildings: 86Number of Units: 3,692 (2,970 used)Building Heights: 5-24 storiesResidential Zone 48.4 haInternational Zone: 4 haAmenities: 26,400 international hallPeople/ha: 286.3Units/ha: 76.3 Building Surface Area: 118,500 m2


FAR: 1.11Typology: Radial Stepped PlanPost-Games Use: Private HousingPrevious Site Condition: Floodable area w/mass-housingDistance to Main Stadium: 5 kmDistance to City Center: 14 kmFinancing: Public, Sale of UnitsGender Mix:

Seoul- 1988

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 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 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, whileoperation 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.

0 100 m

Butts 16

Village Capacity: 14,000Number of Buildings: 44Number of Units: 1983Building Heights: 2-9 stories (average 6 stories)Residential Zone 29.2 haInternational Zone: 80.7 haAmenities: 65,000 m commerical and sports facilitiesPeople/ha: 127.4Units/ha: 74.0Building Surface Area: 74,600 m2


FAR: 1.28Typology: Eclectic ContextualismPost-Games Use: Private HousingPrevious Site Condition: IndustrialDistance to Main Stadium: 6 kmDistance to City Center: 2 kmFinancing: PrivateGender Mix: Integrated

Barcelona- 1992

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 theshopping 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 stylesThe 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.

0 100 m

Butts 17

Village Capacity: 16,500 (9,500 in new construction)Number of Buildings: 8 new+ renovations= 94 totalNumber of Units: 1,200 newBuilding Heights: 11 storiesResidential Zone 2.9 haInternational Zone: 106.1haAmenities: 13,000 m dining tentPeople/ha: 87.1Units/ha: Building Surface Area: 5,625 m2


FAR: 1.78Typology: Courtyard CampusPost-Games Use: DormsPrevious Site Condition: Public HousingDistance to Main Stadium: 2 kmDistance to City Center: 1.6 kmFinancing: University System of Georgia,$115M and ACOG $47MGender Mix: Integrated

Atlanta- 1996

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

0 100 m

Butts 18

Village Capacity: 15,000Number of Buildings: 870 homes & 26 apt bldgsNumber of Units: 1,220Building Heights: 1-4 storiesResidential Zone 39.7 haInternational Zone: 27.4 haAmenities: shopping, school, wetlandsPeople/ha: 223.6Units/ha: 30.7Building Surface Area: 81,200 m2


FAR: .48Typology: Radial SuburbPost-Games Use: Private Housing (5000 to 6000)Previous Site Condition: Navy DepotDistance to Main Stadium: 1 kmDistance to City Center: 18 kmFinancing: PrivateGender Mix: Integrated

Excerpts from Official Report: Olympic Village p 325-331

The 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 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.

Sydney- 2000

Butts 19

0 100 m

Village Capacity: 17,600Number of Buildings: 366Number of Units: 2,292Building Heights: storiesResidential Zone 108.6 haInternational Zone: 22.3 haAmenities: People/ha: 134.45Units/ha: 21.1 Building Surface Area: 106,700 m2


FAR: .23Typology: Linear SuburbPost-Games Use: Private HousingPrevious Site Condition: WoodlandDistance to Main Stadium: 13.8 kmDistance to City Center: 21 kmFinancing: Private, $300MGender Mix: Integrated

Athens- 2004

Excerpts from Official Report: Olympic Village p 41- 56

The total area covered was 1.240.000 sq.m, and was built according to theprinciples 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 relevantlegislation, and provided all modern conveniences. The average available surface area per Village resident at 14 sq.m. exceeded that specified by the IOC.

Butts 200 100 m

Village Capacity: 17,000Number of Buildings: 42Number of Units: 9,000Building Heights: 6 stories (22) & 9 stories (20)Residential Zone 27.6 haInternational Zone: 34 haAmenities: 19,000 sq m dining hall tentPeople/ha: 276.2Units/ha:326.7 Building Surface Area: 45,600 m2


FAR: 1.9Typology: Linear Garden StylePost-Games Use: For Sale Private HousingPrevious Site Condition: Distance to Main Stadium: 1.75 kmDistance to City Center: 11 kmFinancing: GovernmentalGender Mix: Integrated

Beijing- 2008

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

0 100 m

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.

Work Cited-

Butts 22

Olympic Villages 1968-2008- Density Project

Design

olympic games

index of olympic villages

pastfive olympic villages

olympic infrastructureprof

village design

future olympic village1

lesssurface area

hapic village