Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games- Athletes Village (HARUMI FLAG). Image via Wikimedia Commons CC 2.0
With the Milano–Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics underway, it is worth looking back at how the Olympic Village has evolved from a purely functional solution into a strategic urban project. From improvised housing compounds to key pieces of urban regeneration, Olympic Villages have repeatedly functioned as large-scale experiments in how parts of the city can be built within a short period of time.
Designed under intense time pressure and for a highly specific population, these environments reveal shifting ideas about housing, collective life, and the urban legacy of mega-events. Across different editions, the Olympic Village reflects broader ways in which events, housing, and cities intersect under conditions of urgency.
The history of the Olympic Games, while marked by athletic achievement, is consistently contrasted by infrastructure challenges. Across host cities, from Athens to Rio and Beijing, similar issues arise: significant cost overruns and the complex issue of legacy. The big question is: What is the best viable long-term use for purpose-built sport venues? Montreal's 1976 Games shared this fate after building an Olympic Park that faced heavy criticism for cost overruns and debt from specialized construction. Post-Games, venues like the Montreal Velodrome risked becoming a financial burden. However, the city demonstrated a proactive response by proposing the transformation of the building into a thriving civic asset that now stands as an internationally recognized example of successful Olympic venue repurposing.
Cultural diplomacy refers to the use of cultural expression and creative exchange to foster understanding and build relationships between nations. In this context, architecture has long played a distinctive role. Beyond its functional and aesthetic dimensions, it serves as a medium of communication, a language through which countries express identity, values, and ambition on the global stage.
Architecture operates as a form of soft power — persuasive rather than coercive — enabling nations to project influence through material presence. From modernist embassies in the post-war era to monumental pavilions at world expositions, governments and institutions have recognized the built environment's potential to shape perception. By commissioning prominent architects and adopting specific design languages, countries have used architecture to signal modernity, tradition, innovation, or stability.
As the Paris 2024 Olympics draw to a close, the city has showcased a new model for hosting the iconic Games by integrating its landmarks and urban spaces into the event. As the spotlight now shifts to Los Angeles, the 2028 Summer Olympics present a different approach from a built environment and urban planning perspective. During the 2024 Olympics, Paris used its rich cultural heritage as a backdrop for competition, reimagining sports within the city's built environment. This approach not only highlighted the city's history and architecture but also minimized the need for new construction, focusing instead on temporary and innovative uses of existing spaces.
Officially the Games of the XXXIV Olympiad, LA28 is scheduled to take place from July 14–30, 2028. Los Angeles, a city with a deep Olympic history, will host the Games for the third time, following its previous times in 1932 and 1984. In contrast to the typical Olympic model, which often involves extensive new construction, Los Angeles is planning to leverage its existing infrastructure and venues spread across Greater Los Angeles, with most venues grouped in sports parks across Downtown Los Angeles, San Francisco Valley, Carson, Long Beach, and Oklahoma. No new permanent venue shave been announced to be built specifically for the Games. This strategy is designed to minimize environmental impact and financial costs, aligning with broader goals of sustainability and responsible urban development.
Guillaume Bontemps/Ville de Paris. Image Courtesy of Paris 2024 Olympic Games
The recent history of the city of Paris is entangled with that of the Olympic Games. In 1900, Paris hosted the second edition of the Games, starting a journey of urban adaptations and architectural developments that prepared the city for the event. Among the most important changes was the introduction of Line 1 of the metro, inaugurated in 1900 to link the locations of the Universal Exhibition with those of the Olympic Games in Vincennes. Just 24 years later, the city hosted one of the most influential editions of the Olympic Games. The event, the first to be broadcasted on the airwaves, contributed to a substantial rise in the popularity of the Games. It was also during this edition that the concept of the Olympic Village was born. Several of the infrastructures and venues built over a century ago are still in use in Paris, with some of them returning now as hosts of Olympic events.
For cities, hosting an Olympic event represents both an honor, an important opportunity for growth, and a significant challenge. With over 200 nations taking part in the Games, the Olympics are the largest sporting competition in the world. Adapting the public and sporting infrastructure to accommodate this sudden influx of people and the scale of these events runs the risk of misunderstanding the cities’ needs after the closing ceremony, often producing “white elephants” that struggle to adapt to the rhythm and necessities of everyday urban life. Urban transformations are often cited as an advantage of hosting the Olympic Games, as cities are incentivized to invest in their traffic infrastructure, housing, and public spaces. One such example is the city of Paris, which introduced its first metro line on the occasion of hosting the second edition of the Olympic Games in 1900.
When it comes to the venues, however, the issue of adaptive reuse becomes a pressing one, as the architecture is challenged to find solutions to transform, accommodating thousands of people during the Olympics, then scaling down to become a financially sustainable part of a city’s sporting offering. Across the world, several Olympic venues have managed to extend their usability after the closing of the games, opening themselves to the local communities and welcoming a more diverse programming of sports and leisure events. While the high construction costs are often difficult to justify, these venues have become markers of local identity and attractive tourist attractions, extending their use decades after welcoming the Olympic crowds.
On a site that also hosts the Olympic Sports Centre, the 2023 Asian Games complex, UNStudio has unveiled the design of the new Hiwell Amber Centre, a complex of four high-rise towers planned to add a mix of offices, apartments, hotels, art spaces and retail to the city center of Hangzhou, China. Responding to the area’s rapid economic and cultural growth, the new development aims to provide a wide range of services to residents and visitors alike. To open up towards the city, the smooth glass curtain wall of the towers peels apart to reveal a tapestry-like facade that envelops the main plazas and civic spaces, creating an ‘urban living room.’
Few cultural events bring the world together like the Olympics. Today, athletes from around the world continue to participate in a variety of competitions after the covid-19 pandemic. The Olympic Games are considered the world's foremost sports competition with more than 200 nations participating. In turn, they bring to question the role of architecture and design in each host city's urban evolution.
Since their inception in 1896, modern-day Olympics have been regarded by hosting cities as an opportunity to project to the world a specific image of themselves, to subsidize large infrastructure projects, or to rapidly unfold redevelopment schemes. Past the frequently discussed eye-catching stadiums, there is a complex story of Olympic urbanism, which encompasses the large scale developments catalyzed by the event. Exploring the urban and architectural legacy of the Games, the success stories, the white elephants, and the administrative agendas, the following discusses what the Olympics leave behind in the hosting cities.
Built before the 1988 Summer Olympics, the Seoul Olympic Stadium in the Korean capital city’s Songpa District remains an active and treasured institution. Designed by Kim Swoo-geun, the stadium represents a significant moment in Korea’s modern history and remains a venue for large concerts and the home of Seoul E-Land FC.
While the Olympic Stadium itself will stand visibly intact in its original form, this spring the Korea National Urban Planning Association staged a competition for a new design of the Jamsil Sports Complex, which includes several sporting venues and buildings adjacent to the stadium, as well as almost 160,000 square meters of total area. Following the deadline earlier this month, the jury has announced NOW Architects in collaboration with NBBJ and SAMOO, as the winners of the competition.
As we’ve discussed at length here at ArchDaily, an Olympic Bid is no thing to take on lightly. Our 3-part series on the subject, “How NOT To Host the Olympics,” made very clear that this mega-event is a major urban project with long-term economic, social, and environmental consequences. So, it’s no surprise that Olympic bidders research and strategize well in advance – consider London 2012‘s “Sustainable Olympics” bid or OMA’s perhaps premature interest in Turkey- to ensure, first, that they get the bid and, second, that the Games leave renewal (rather than destruction) in their wake. Architecture, Research, and Urbanism practice, XML, are already taking on the task of preparing its home country, the Netherlands, for its 2028 bid. Their just-released report compares Olympic City bids across the globe – from the 2020 contenders of Madrid, Istanbul, Dohan, and Tokyo to a 2024 contender, South Africa. Interestingly, they’ve noted a cyclical nature of the Games’ socio-economic significance and have thus come up with a 3-prong strategy that will position the Netherlands to spearhead a new Olympic paradigm. You can check out XML’s full Report, well worth a look, after the break...
Welcome back and congratulations for having made it to the final installation of the Olympic City Guide.
So far, in parts I and II, we’ve learned how to design for your post-Games legacy (No White Elephants please) and to revitalize -not demolish- your city’s most deprived “eye-sores” (Don’t Hate, Rejuvenate).
So what’s left? Well, in this post-Recession era of austerity, a huge part of your Olympic Strategy will be justifying the spending – the colossal spending – to your more than skeptical constituents. As I said in the last post, a good starting point is targeting urban renewal and being as transparent as possible, but another big element is how you market the Games – not just to the International Olympics Committee (IOC), but to your own city-dwellers.
So how can you get them both on your side? Simple - Go Green.
