Post-Olympic functional transitions: Comprehensive analysis of temporary and permanent accommodation models in contemporary mega-events
This study analyzes the post-Olympic functional transitions of 39 accommodation models, revealing that while most villages successfully convert to residential, student, or mixed-use developments, achieving sustainable territorial transformation requires balancing economic regeneration with social inclusion to mitigate gentrification and displacement.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
When a city hosts the Olympic Games, it faces a unique architectural puzzle. For a few weeks, it must build a temporary city to house thousands of athletes, complete with dining halls, gyms, and sleeping quarters. But the Games end quickly, leaving behind a massive collection of buildings that were never meant to be permanent. The central question for urban planners is what happens to these structures once the athletes leave. Do they become vibrant new neighborhoods, or do they sit empty, decaying into what critics call "white elephants"—expensive, useless monuments to a fleeting event? This dilemma sits at the intersection of urban development and social policy, asking how a city can use a short-term sporting event to solve long-term housing needs without pushing out the people who already live there.
A new study by Valerio della Sala of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona takes a comprehensive look at this question. By examining the history of 39 different Olympic Games, both summer and winter, the research traces the fate of every Olympic village ever built. The findings challenge the common belief that these projects are destined for failure. The data shows that the vast majority of these temporary cities do not vanish into the background; instead, 87 percent of them successfully transition into permanent parts of the city. Only a small fraction, about 13 percent, remain partially or fully abandoned. The study reveals that the difference between success and failure often comes down to how the buildings were designed from the very beginning and whether the city had a clear plan for them before the first athlete arrived.
The research identifies three main ways these villages find new life. The most common path is converting the buildings into regular homes for families. In cities like Barcelona and Sydney, the Olympic villages became sought-after residential neighborhoods, seamlessly blending into the surrounding city fabric. Another successful model involves turning the dormitory-style housing into student accommodation. Because athletes and university students have similar needs—high-density living with shared facilities—this transition can happen quickly and efficiently. A third approach creates mixed-use districts that combine homes with offices, shops, and community centers, ensuring the area stays lively and economically active long after the closing ceremony.
However, the path to a successful legacy is rarely smooth. The study highlights a persistent tension between economic regeneration and social fairness. When an Olympic village transforms into a desirable neighborhood, property values often rise sharply. While this brings wealth to the area, it can also lead to gentrification, where the original, lower-income residents are priced out of their homes. For example, in London, the government mandated that nearly half of the new homes be affordable for lower-income families to prevent this displacement. Yet, even with such rules, market pressures can make it difficult to keep housing affordable over many years. In contrast, the 2004 Athens Games serve as a cautionary tale; because there was no plan for the village after the event, the buildings fell into disrepair and abandonment, becoming a symbol of wasted resources.
Modern Olympic planning has learned from these past mistakes. Recent events, such as the Tokyo 2020 and Paris 2024 Games, have placed a heavy emphasis on sustainability and circular economy principles. This means designing buildings that can be easily adapted for new uses, using materials that can be recycled, and ensuring the village fits into the existing city rather than sitting isolated on the edge. For instance, the Paris 2024 village was designed from the start to become a mixed-use neighborhood with homes, offices, and shops, while Tokyo focused on using hydrogen power and sustainable materials. These contemporary approaches aim to ensure that the temporary excitement of the Games leaves behind a permanent, positive impact on the city's housing and environment.
Ultimately, the study concludes that the success of an Olympic village depends on more than just good architecture; it requires a deep commitment to the community. When planners integrate the needs of local residents, ensure affordable housing options, and design buildings that can evolve over time, the Olympic Games can act as a powerful catalyst for urban improvement. But when the focus remains solely on the two weeks of competition, the result is often a missed opportunity or a lasting burden. The research suggests that the true measure of an Olympic legacy is not the medals won during the event, but the quality of life in the neighborhoods that remain long after the athletes have gone home.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.