Introduction

Sport is increasingly conceived as an instrument for urban development and policies (Rosentraub, 2009). Particularly the Olympic Games (OG) play an important role in the evolution of the buildings, sites and landscapes, and determine their uses (Schmidt, 2002; Kiuri & Reiter, 2013).

Since antiquity the Games have influenced sport facility design. The site of Olympia is an example of how sports facilities are directly and tangibly associated with an event of universal significance (ICOMOS, 1988), with UNESCO declaring it World Cultural Heritage in 1989 (UNESCO, 1989). The stadium at Olympia remains the most emblematic of the many Olympic sites, as it was created for the Olympic Games and reflects its objectives and values. It is a space of cultural significance (Kiuri, 2009). In its historical development, the stadium of Olympia was disconnected from the sanctuary for functional reasons and due to its progressive secularisation, but it remained linked to the sanctuary’s site through the dialogical language of architecture. The space conceived for the Olympic event is symbolically configured and provides the identity of the whole stadium. It is connected with the landscape and with the built environment, tangibly expressing a synthesis between culture and nature (Kiuri & Teller, 2015a).

All Olympic stadiums are exceptional due to their size and the universal value of the Games, as propounded by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). There are 24 Olympic stadiums in the world where the Summer OG have been staged: 15 in Europe, three in Asia, four in North America (including Mexico City and the Los Angeles stadium that served both the 1932 and 1984 Games), and two in Australia. In August 2016, on the occasion of the XXXI Olympiad in Rio, the stadium of Maracanã will become the first Olympic stadium of South America.

All these stadiums are related to some aspect of recent global history. Modern OG can generate cultural ideas and highlight cultural identity. They can also help to address local history, as was, for instance, the case in Australia during the 2000 Sydney OG (Gratton & Preuss, 2008). Accordingly, some Olympic stadiums are now listed as cultural heritage. At the same time, the history of Olympic stadiums is marked by demolitions, controversial modifications and extensions.

Heritage is an important aspect of legacy – a concept which is very often neglected. Conservation, as part of the sustainable criteria for Olympic stadiums, is always a challenge given that the needs of modern sport spectators are changing and the standards of comfort and security for both athletes and public are constantly evolving. For this reason, it will be important to deepen our knowledge regarding heritage criteria and values for emblematic sport facilities and, in particular, for Olympic stadiums.

During the last century, cultural heritage criteria have changed. While initially the only parameters considered were historic and artistic values, other aspects have progressively been added, namely cultural value, identity value, and the capacity of the object to interact with memory (Vecco, 2010).

This lecture will address the specific characteristics of Olympic stadiums in terms of cultural significance and heritage, as part of their sustainable profile. It is based on the research work by Kiuri and Teller (2015) “Olympic stadium heritage: A categorisation of values based on listing decisions” that was published in the International Journal of History of Sport.

The first section hence addresses the issue of Olympics and sports heritage. In the second and third section, I will present a value description and analysis through the cases of the existing listed modern Olympic stadiums. The information regarding these cases is based essentially on official heritage authorities texts. Secondary literature sources were also consulted for analyzing the complex history of some of the stadiums. The results of this value analysis highlight a specific Olympic heritage profile, related to the uniqueness and singularity of the buildings, sites and landscape. Value analysis usually takes into consideration their evolution over time and the relationship of sites with noteworthy socio-political and sporting events. Finally, in the fourth section, I will summarize the aspects of Olympic stadium heritage, trying to highlight how heritage listing could benefit large sports events and their sustainable legacy. This will lead to a discussion of the relevance of a specific heritage category dedicated to sport.

1. The issue of Olympics and sports heritage

Cultural significance and heritage

In general, the term “cultural significance” refers to values. Values study is an effective guide to the characterization of heritage. The process of valorizing the legacy begins when individuals, communities or institutions, decide that it represents something worth remembering, something about themselves and their past that should be transmitted to future generations. Cultural significance is defined by the values of the “object”, of its environment and of the activity in its social dimension.

Adopting this approach, a better understanding of the Olympic stadiums’ evolution in their urban context is possible. At the same time, this perspective approach facilitates the connection between their exceptional architectures to the unique event of the Olympic Games and their cultural significance.

A sustainable conservation of Olympic stadiums and legacy planning require consideration of both the heritage values of these buildings and the requirements for their continued interactions with the city environment.

Heritage value typologies

During the last century, heritage value typologies (note, p. 120) evolved. There are different heritage value typologies and some overlap, especially in their recognition of bequest and use values. Accordingly, Mason (2002) proposed to regroup heritage values in two main categories: socio-cultural and economic. Socio-cultural values include historical, cultural, social, spiritual, and aesthetic. Economic values cover use, maintenance, and functional dimensions.

Olympic stadiums are unique in terms of their architecture and surrounding environment, even though one may identify regularities in their layout and configuration. The focus of their conservation is placed generally on buildings, site, and landscape characteristics. However, the significance of these locations consists in their enormous value as repositories of shared memories and as emotional connection that people have with their respective cities and traditions (Abercrombie, 2012).

Social dimensions of Olympic stadiums

As mentioned before, the significance of Olympic stadiums extends much farther than their strict architectural value, as it is also determined by social, political and sport factors (Kiuri & Teller, 2012).

Olympic stadiums are clearly related to some aspect of our recent history. For example, the stadium of Mexico is associated with the history of anti-racism and the stadiums of Los Angeles and Moscow with the division between the East and West and the embargo of the Games.

The relation between stadiums, the site and the city they are located in, is also an important social aspect (Kiuri & Teller, 2012; Kiuri & Teller, 2015). As such, Olympic stadiums are somehow illustrative of an evolution of the city itself. They usually serve as catalysts for urban development and reflect the image a society wants to present of itself. The Olympic Games contribute to the understanding of the social dimension of an Olympic stadium. Olympic stadiums hence constitute a unique piece of heritage, both for their exceptional architecture and as a testimony of the society that produced these environments.

Olympic stadium design and sustainability

Stadium architecture for big events leads to the construction of buildings on a scale that is not always in harmony with their immediate environment (Sklair, 2006). Approaching sports as a televised spectacle has led to treating stadiums as media objects, as if they were on-screen protagonists themselves. This tendency reinforces a form of architecture which is best-suited to the needs of the media rather than the urban environment.

This obviously raises a question about how to utilize these costly and outsized buildings, which tend to be used intermittently. Quite interestingly, this issue regarding the possibility of daily use vs exceptional use can be traced back to the early 20th century. In 1926, in Lisbon, the “Commission des terrains” of the IOC began to operate. The Chairman General R. J. Kentish undertook some initiatives to foster the public use of Olympic facilities once the Games were completed (IOC, 1926). The question came up again at the end of the 20th century at a time when people began to speak of “multifunctional” buildings, as, for example, in relation to the Olympic stadium and planning of post-event activities in Sydney 2000 (Sheard, 2001). The experience of Montreal (1976) indeed highlighted how costly it may be for local authorities to support the construction of the Olympic stadium.

Stadiums constitute a real challenge in terms of adaptive reusage. As with many technical buildings, they are so optimized for some specific type of event that they cannot be easily converted for other purposes. Thus, design flexibility is increasingly viewed as a way to address the operation costs and conservation of Olympic sites (Martinson, 2009; Kiuri & Teller, 2012).

‍

‍

2. Description of listed modern Olympic stadiums

Of the 24 stadiums that have been built since the beginning of modern Olympics in 1896, five have been totally or partially demolished, while seven have been significantly transformed or expanded. One of these is a reconstruction of an ancient stadium – the Athens Panathenaic Stadium that hosted the 1896 Olympics.

This stadium was listed as National Heritage in 1998, one year after Athens was awarded the right to host the Games of the XXVIII Olympiad in 2004.

Listed modern Olympic stadiums

Currently there are six listed modern Olympic stadiums and two listed objects that are part of stadium ensembles. The former are in Stockholm, Amsterdam, Los Angeles, Berlin, Melbourne, and Mexico City. The oldest listed stadium is the stadium of Stockholm. The stadium of the Games celebrated in Melbourne in 1956, the Melbourne Cricket Ground, has been included in the Australiann National Heritage List since 2005. The stadium of Mexico City is part of a site that was declared by UNESCO in December 2007 as World Heritage, since ICOMOS considered its conservation to be at risk, mainly due to the development of the surrounding areas. Some objects that are part of the Olympic stadium ensembles can also be listed as heritage.

The 1984 Games is a rare example where authorities decided to refurbish an existing stadium rather than build a new structure.

Type of heritage

These Olympic stadiums are listed as buildings (Stockholm, Los Angeles), as complex of buildings (Mexico City), as landscape (Berlin), or as place (Melbourne). Two stadiums (Moscow and Sydney) contain objects listed as monuments. These listed objects are a group of sculptures in the Olympic complex in Moscow, and the cauldron in the Sydney Olympic stadium. There are large differences in the procedures regarding the listing of monuments throughout the world. This has occurred with the 1980 Moscow Olympic complex and the 2000 Sydney Olympic Park, both of which include objects declared heritage.

Level of heritage

The stadium of Stockholm is now listed as local heritage. The stadium of Amsterdam and that of Los Angeles are listed at the national level. The precinct of the Melbourne complex is listed as national heritage. The Olympic Park of Berlin is listed as city heritage (unique existing level in Germany). The heritage significance of the objects is considered of national value in the case of Moscow (for the Russian Federation) and of local value in the case of Sydney (for the state of New South Wales). It can be seen from the above that there is a strong variance in the form of recognition (as building, ensemble, site or landscape) of Olympic heritage.

Discussion on heritage and detected controversies

Some listed stadium buildings still retain their original character; for example, the stadium of Stockholm. Others changed or have been transformed. In some cases, there have been important discussions regarding their architectural or historical significance. The first transformation of the historical sporting ground created in Berlin in 1909 has been long discussed. In the springtime of 1929 it was unanimously agreed that the stadium of Berlin would have to be expanded. As a modern construction, the stadium of Helsinki lost a lot of its “original avant-garde elegance”. The Rome 1960 Olympic stadium was transformed in 1990 (for the football World Championship) by the addition of a covering. The city of London staged the Olympics three times (1908, 1948, and 2012), with a different Olympic stadium each time. Two of the London stadiums were demolished. One of them was the Empire Wembley, which was de-listed from the National Heritage list in 2003.

Several modern Olympic stadiums were technological catalysts that contributed to the conceptual advancement of outstanding sports facilities. Very often they have been part of significant urban compositions and had an impact on the urban development of their city. The relationship of Olympic stadiums to the hosting city is now claimed to play a role in developing a sustainable society, respectful of its natural and cultural resources, as well as its territory. Even so, the maintenance of this heritage usually raises serious concerns, as these stadiums and places were built for a unique event and are not necessarily fit for other purposes. It is a clear case where bequest values – those related to uniqueness, memory, history, culture and, in some respects, aesthetics – clearly conflict with use values, which relate to the possible reuse of existing structures for similar or new functions. The mismatch between the bequest and use values of Olympic stadiums has led to some serious social and political controversies over time.

‍

3. Prevailing values in listed Olympic stadiums

Cultural and symbolic values mentioned in listing decisions usually refer to values specific to sporting achievements. As part of the values related to sport, the historical chronology of the Games is mentioned in most listing decisions. The majority of decisions refer to the success of the Olympiads as contributors to the significance of the stadium. Other sporting events can also contribute to the importance of the facilities.

Aesthetic values do not appear as the most important in listing decisions. Although prominent architects designed the listed stadiums, architectural style is rarely mentioned in the documents.

The authenticity of the site is obviously a factor in the listing. This has facili-

tated the rehabilitation of some stadiums, such as the Stockholm stadium.

The recreational quality of the spaces, the quality of ensembles and sites as green spaces, are also part of heritage values. Recreational values are mentioned in terms of post Games use.

All listed stadiums have been modified, either after hosting the Games or before, if they already existed. The evolution of sporting standards and the re- quirements of new events, or simply the physical deterioration of the stadiums, can explain the need for this. It can be seen that these adaptations often became significant elements justifying the listing of some stadiums.

Economic factors do not appear as relevant in the decisions, even though these are usually considered as part of use values. Use values in some cases can be a risk factor for the integrity of the site or for its architectural values.

Being harmoniously embedded in the surrounding environment was an essential aspect of ancient public landmarks, when the Olympic stadium was conceived in a compatible way with the values of the OG.

The success of the OG, the popularity of the event, and its uniqueness and rarity all play an important role in stadium heritage nomination at local, national, and world levels. The observed relationship between the Olympic stadium’s significance and the success of the OG confirms the interdependence between the tangible and the intangible values in listed stadiums. However, the intangible values of modern OG are not evoked as aspects of heritage.

The human effort to prepare the Games is sometimes highlighted as context value.

These results show that when both use and bequest values are duly taken into consideration, heritage may have a multiplicative effect on values related to sport. Some bequest values can help a successful adaptation of the stadium, contributing to an increase of its use values. At the opposite end, some adaptations of stadiums necessitated to preserve or enhance use values can bring additional bequest values to the stadiums.

The reconversion of Olympic stadiums should be better taken into consideration at a design stage in order to facilitate the conservation of this exceptional heritage. This further raises the issue of architectural elements that would be somehow “determined” to become cultural heritage. Actually, the international visibility and importance of Olympic Games is such that these stadiums do naturally become cultural landmarks in a very short period of time. The issue of stadium conservation could hence be considered at the design stage, so as to avoid costly and hardly sustainable efforts once the competition is over. This would probably mean to involve heritage and urban experts much sooner in the decision-making process in order to assess which conservation strategy should be applied after the Games are completed.

4. Can the heritage approach contribute to a sustainable Olympic stadium?

Olympic stadiums’ significance is defined by the values of the building, of the environment, and of the sport activity itself. The specific interactions of tangible and intangible values (the stadium, place, site, park, and the OG as event) deserve more detailed study. Research needs to take into account changes in the selection criteria for cultural heritage.

Heritage and regeneration

The recognition of uniqueness of places and their potential cultural dimension is directly connected to founding a self-sustaining regeneration strategy (Wansborough Mageean, 2000).

‍

The Olympics may be most appreciated for the large urban regeneration projects they initiate, as was the case of London 2012 OG (Long, 2012).

‍

Heritage criteria and the process of design

A sustainable conservation of Olympic stadiums would require a better consideration of both the potential values of its buildings and the requirements for its further integration into the city’s environment at the design stage.

Adaptive reuse of the site and facilities should be taken into consideration at the design stage as a condition for the conservation of future Olympic stadiums. In this perspective, dismantling part of the “heritage” may be accepted as a way to ensure their reuse.

Heritage initiatives: Bequest and use values

The cases of listed heritage stadiums demonstrate the existing tension between bequest and use values in the case of sport facilities. Use values are often perceived as an important element of heritage for sport. Another particularity of stadiums is that bequest is not limited to aesthetics. Their societal role is far more important, for example, as a factor determining urban “quality of life” and “recreation”, among other qualities. Some sport values may not be fully taken into consideration, as, for instance, the intangible value related to the Games.

Use values could be enhanced through specific programs related to tourism and commemorations. The existing World Union of Olympic Cities could play a role in this process, especially if stadiums become part of a larger network of heritage sport facilities.

Issues regarding needs in the context of academic education and scientific research, which also relate to the domain of emblematic sports facilities, are a natural fit with heritage studies. In many cases, universities have played a role in heritage designation processes. IOA and academic structures can contribute actively to cultural heritage initiatives. The need for knowledge in the field of emblematic sport facilities and events is clear.

Most importantly, the value of the 24 Olympic stadiums as a historic ensemble was not mentioned in any of the listing decisions. Considering the ensemble of Olympic stadium sites as a unique heritage in its own right would certainly make sense under UNESCO criteria for World Heritage designation. This would help to increase the protection of individual buildings now considered of local significance. It would represent a clear challenge for cities engaging in the OG, considering a possible listing as part of a network of heritage sites as soon as the design stage of the stadium is complete. In Opening and Closing Ceremonies, existing Olympic stadiums could be “connected” through special programs.

Some cities express interest in staging the Olympics for a second time. In these cases, Olympic bids could be pitched to include commitments to heritage conservation and enhancement. Los Angeles and Athens, which hosted the Games in 1984 and 2004 respectively, provided a good example of a heritage initiative, regarding the values conservation of their existing Olympic stadiums.

Conclusion

This lecture focused on Olympic stadium heritage values and their cultural significance as part of its sustainable profile.

Heritage values of the existing listed Olympic stadiums have been categorized, highlighting the need for specific criteria for evaluating Olympic heritage and sporting heritage more broadly. This analysis shows that the listed Olympic components differ in size, type (building, place, site, landscape, or simple objects part of the stadium ensembles), and level of heritage (local, national, international). Only one modern stadium has been declared World Cultural Heritage, as part of a multifunctional site.

In several cases, regional and urban planning institutions have promoted the nomination of a stadium as heritage. It is surprising, therefore, that sport institutions or organizations have refrained from becoming part of this process.

The heritage descriptions taken from official texts consider traditional requirements of heritage values typologies. They refer to the importance of the authoring, the authenticity of materials, and the innovative structures or the venue model. Even so, the architectural style is not the most valued characteristic in such assessments. More generally, the surroundings play an important role in a stadium’s significance. This is probably a reflection of participation by regional and urban planning bodies in the heritage designation process.

On the other hand, the preparation and the celebration of the OG are contextual elements that play a decisive role in the stadium’s significance, bringing several added intangible values. The efforts to organize the event, to plan largescale innovative buildings, and to create parks for recreation are some of the evoked values that give specific significance to the Olympic stadium.

The success of the event itself is very important, for example, in terms of setting new sporting records, as well as the popularity, but there is also the rarity of the Games, the additional social or historic events, the citizen participation and the political support surrounding the celebration of OG.

One of the most frequently detected difficulties in stadium conservation is with the changes that all stadiums experience under the pressure of various technical and functional requirements. Strict conservation is neither always possible nor advisable. Interestingly, this is clearly reflected in the designation process that, in several cases, refers to these evolutions and adaptations as a relevant feature of these sites. The continuous use of OG stadiums for other sport competitions could hence be considered as a supplementary source of significance and value.

Cultural heritage provides relevant elements for programming and designing a sustainable urban and territorial development with creativity.

Heritage studies could provide a systematic and scientific base of knowledge in sport architecture. Research on sport architecture and sport history can be developed.

Heritage initiatives have a positive impact on the social responsibility of sport and enhance the credibility of sport architecture.

OG stadiums appear as great testimonies of the evolution of sport and its status for past and present societies. They should be considered as exceptional heritage, both through the international nature of the event they host and through their location. The history of architecture and sport’s history are clearly interwoven in the evolution of their design over time and their further adaptations and reuse after the celebration of the Games. This should be a plea for considering the entire ensemble of existing 24 Olympic stadiums as a specific world cultural heritage and for creating a special program of “Connecting Olympic stadiums”.

‍

Note

The heritage values proposed by Riegl in 1903 are age, historical, commemorative, use, and newness. Ignacio González-Varas summarized the evolution of heritage values through history, based on Riegl’s work, as age (antiquity and abstract beauty), historical evolution and emotional values, commemorative values, and contemporaneous (use) values. In 1984, William Lipe presented a new typology of values, based on a differentiation between economic, aesthetic, associative-symbolic and informational values. In 1997, Bruno Frey presented his monetary, existence, prestige, educational, and bequest typology. English Heritage formalized in 1997 its own typology, based on cultural, educational and academic, resource, recreation, and aesthetic values. The Burra Charter of the Australian ICOMOS in its last edition from 1999 evokes aesthetic, historic, scientific, and social (spiritual/ political/national) values.

‍

References

Averley, J. 2012. “Olympic legacies”, in: Sporting Heritage, Gemma Abercrombie (ed). Conservation Bulletin 68: 34–36.

Gratton, C. and Preuss, H. (2008) “Maximizing Olympic impacts by building up legacies”, The International Journal of the History of Sport 25, no. 14, 1922–38.

ICOMOS, “Decision – 13COM XV.A – The World Heritage Committee: The ICOMOS recommendation”, World Heritage List 517, 1988.

Kiuri, M. and Teller, J. (2015), “Olympic stadiums and cultural heritage: On the nature and status of heritage values in large sport facilities”, The International Journal of the History of Sport.

Kiuri, M. and Teller, J. (2015) (a) “The Stadium of Olympia: A dialogical composition”. “Arquitecture, Phenomenology and Social Dialogics”, International Arquitectonics Journal N. 27. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Iniciativa Digital Politècnica, Barcelona. pp. 253–265.

Kiuri, M. and Reiter, S. (2013) “Olympic stadium design: Past achievements and future challenges, ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 7, no. 2, 102–17.

Kiuri, M. and Teller, J. (2012) “Olympic stadiums in their urban environment: A question of design and cultural significance”. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 2(2), 115–129.

Kiuri, M. (2009), Estadio olimpico, Espacio cultural, Cuadernos de pensamiento, 2nd ed., UCJC, Madrid.

Long, G. (2008) “Review of Olympic cities: City agendas, planning, and the World’s Games, 1896–2012”, Town Planning Review (2008).

Mason, R. (2002), “Assessing values in conservation planning: Methodological issues and choices”, in de la Torre, M. (ed.), Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, Re- search Report, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, CA, 5–30.

Martinson, R.J. (2009), “A real options analysis of Olympic village development: How design flexibility adds value”, Master of Science in Real Estate Development, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, CA.

Rosentraub, M. (2009), “Book review for The New Cathedrals: Politics and Media in the History of Stadium Construction”, Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 31, No. 5, 641–3.

Sheard, R. (2001), Sports Architecture, Spon Press, London and New York, NY, 22pp.

Sklair, L. (2006), “Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization”, City, Vol. 10 No. 1, 21–47.

Schmidt, T. (2012) Olympic Stadiums of the Modern Age: Construction Trends of the 20th Century’, in “Sport Sites Culture” in ICOMOS Journals of the German National Committee, XXXVII, ICOMOS Germany, 27–31.

UNESCO (1989), “Decision – 13COM XV.A – the World Heritage Committee”, internal report, available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/3634 (accessed on 2 March 2012).

Vecco, M. (2010) “A Definition of Cultural Heritage: From the Tangible to the Intangible”, Journal of Cultural Heritage 11, 321–4.

Velluet, P., (2012) “Sustaining Memory: Sporting Heritage”, in: Sporting Heritage, Gemma Abercrombie (ed.). Conservation Bulletin 68, 23.

Wansborough, M. and Mageean, A., “The Role of Urban Design in Cultural Regeneration”, Journal of Urban Design 5, no. 2 (2000), 181–97.

‍

‍

KIURI Miranda, "The social impact and cultural significance of sustainable Olympics Stadium design",in:K. Georgiadis (ed.), Olympic values-based learning as an effective tool forenvironmental protection, 56th International Session for Young Participants (AncientOlympia,11-25/6/2016), International Olympic Academy, Athens,2017, pp.108-121.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍