1. "Urban Development Through Hosting International Events: A History of the Olympic Games" by Chalkley & Essex
1.1. outcomes
1.1.1. 'fast track' urban regeneration
1.1.2. enhanced grobal recognition & prestige
1.1.2.1. national and international attention on host cities
1.1.3. a stimulus to econemic growth
1.1.4. improved transport
1.2. significant influence on architectural styles
1.2.1. ex. Paris 1900 - Art Nouveau
1.3. Olympic History
1.3.1. First Olympic revival
1.3.1.1. British Isles
1.3.1.2. 1612-1642
1.3.1.3. Captain Robert Dover
1.3.1.4. After civil war it continues until 1852
1.3.1.5. revived in 1951 as local games
1.3.2. Second revival
1.3.2.1. 1849-1889
1.3.2.2. at Munch Wenlock
1.3.3. Modern Olympic Games
1.3.3.1. De Coubertin
1.3.3.1.1. original objectives
1.3.3.2. the preparations of host cities are strictly controlled by the Olympic movement
1.3.3.2.1. the IOC
1.3.3.2.2. IF
1.3.3.2.3. NOC
1.3.3.3. 4 Phases
1.3.3.3.1. 1896-1904
1.3.3.3.2. 1908-1932
1.3.3.3.3. 1936-1956
1.3.3.3.4. 1960-2000
1.3.3.4. Olympic Host Cities
1.3.3.4.1. 1896 Athens
1.3.3.4.2. 1900 Paris
1.3.3.4.3. 1904 St Louis
1.3.3.4.4. 1906 Unofficial Games in Athens
1.3.3.4.5. 1908 London
1.3.3.4.6. 1912 Stocholm
1.3.3.4.7. 1920 Antwerp
1.3.3.4.8. 1924 Paris
1.3.3.4.9. 1928 Amsterdam
1.3.3.4.10. 1932 Los Angeles
1.3.3.4.11. 1936 Berlin
1.3.3.4.12. 1948 London
1.3.3.4.13. 1952 Helsinki
1.3.3.4.14. 1956 Melbourne
1.3.3.4.15. 1960 Rome
1.3.3.4.16. 1964 Tokyo
1.3.3.4.17. 1968 Mexico
1.3.3.4.18. 1972 Munich
1.3.3.4.19. 1976 Montreal
1.3.3.4.20. 1980 Moscow
1.3.3.4.21. 1984 Los Angeles
1.3.3.4.22. 1988 Seoul
1.3.3.4.23. 1992 Barcelona
1.3.3.4.24. 1996 Atlanta
1.3.3.4.25. 2000 Sydney
1.4. Conclusion
1.4.1. Olympics were different fom other hall mark events
1.4.1.1. specialised facility needs
1.4.1.2. hard to host the games again, one-off event
1.4.2. TV rights are dominant financial ingredients
1.4.3. The games were affected by the national and local attitudes
1.4.4. political factors are influential
2. "Planning Olympic Legacies" by Eva Kassens-Noor
2.1. Olympic Legacy
2.1.1. Widely debated questions
2.1.2. "True legacies only emerge after the games and remain largely unexplored as the spotlight of the event shifts to the next host." p.1
2.1.3. Cities undergo transformations stimulated by the hope for:
2.1.3.1. economic growth
2.1.3.2. a world class image
2.1.3.3. enhanced connectivity
2.1.3.4. catalysts for urban regenaration
2.1.4. Kassens-Noor consider that "the IOC can influence the local goals, sometimes creating - but also squandering - valuable opportunities for the host city. Unless local governments take proactive steps to ensure that the urban and transportation decision-making does not serve only the event's short term needs, city planners will not get the transformation and long term benefits they had hoped for." p.1
2.1.5. Legacy categories:
2.1.5.1. cultural
2.1.5.2. economic
2.1.5.3. political
2.1.5.4. physical
2.1.5.5. pyschological
2.1.5.6. social
2.1.5.6.1. Short term changes usually do not translate to permanent ones.
2.1.6. Legacies penetrate different geographical spheres
2.1.7. Legacy expectations are the hook for the city residents
2.1.8. "Known-unknowns"
2.1.8.1. Horne 2007,86
2.1.8.2. They are impacts we know are going to be there after the event, but we do not know exactly what they are.
2.1.9. Influences are imposed by the IOC and equally important by city government
2.1.10. Although the legacy impact is emphasised, the cities always give priority to satisfying the short term demands.
2.1.10.1. Essex & Chalkley 2002, 12
2.1.10.2. invest extravagantly in unnecessary infrastructure
2.1.11. "Unique opportunity for politicians and industry to move hidden agendas"
2.1.11.1. Preuss 2004, 1
2.1.12. "Even though all case cities are intrinsically different with unique histories, economies, political institutions, urban forms and transport networks, the approached the Olympic planning process with the same goal: to stage successful Games." p.7
2.1.12.1. Fast tracking the decision making process by excluding the public participation
2.1.12.1.1. Cashman 2002, Hiller 2006
2.1.13. Until 70s Olympic villages were transformed into social or student housing. In recent years they have been used as high-quality real estate
2.2. The IOC
2.2.1. Olympic vision about how the city should function during the Games
2.2.2. As a stakeholder
2.2.3. Control the planning throughout the bidding, candidacy, preparation stages.
2.2.4. Responsibility of the Games
2.2.5. Reputation of the Games for the future candidates
2.2.5.1. Negative legacies and events damage the Olympics' and cities global image
2.2.6. It defines 6 client group:
2.2.6.1. VIPs (Olympic family & sponsors)
2.2.6.2. Media
2.2.6.3. Athletes
2.2.6.4. Logistical staff
2.2.6.5. Volunteers
2.2.6.6. Spectators
2.2.7. It distinguishes;
2.2.7.1. competition venues
2.2.7.2. training venues
2.2.7.3. non-competition venues
2.2.8. It has more than 40 technical manuals
2.3. The Olympic Games
2.3.1. Rome'60
2.3.1.1. First Olympic Games to have a metropolitan wide impact
2.3.1.2. Two main Olympic Zones
2.3.1.2.1. Foro Italico
2.3.1.2.2. Zona EUR
2.3.2. Munich'72
2.3.2.1. New urban concept
2.3.2.2. New technologies
2.3.2.3. Encapsulated Olympics away from metropolitan region
2.3.3. Montreal'76
2.3.3.1. Similar urban development to Munich
2.3.3.2. A billion deficit to the city
2.3.4. Moscow'80
2.3.4.1. Remained on their urban trajectory
2.3.4.2. Little Olympic interference to the future urban development
2.3.5. Seoul'88
2.3.5.1. Reviving the power of the Olympics in restructuring urban areas.
2.3.5.2. Used the true potential of the catalytic Olympic effect
2.3.6. Barcelona'92
2.3.6.1. "Barcelona Model" (Capel,2007)
2.3.6.2. Fast-urban development
2.3.6.3. Millet says"It is not good that the politicians are involved from the beginning. First it had to be the planners.İt is not a political problem. It is a technical one.
2.3.6.4. According to Millet, the IOC did not have the necessary expertise. Barcelona was the foundation stone for the future expertise used.
2.3.7. Atlanta'96
2.3.7.1. re-furbished facilities in the inner city
2.3.7.2. New housing development next to the Olympic village
2.3.7.3. Centennial Olympics, facilities within an Olympic ring
2.3.7.4. "The chaos Games"
2.3.7.5. One of the largest Games but very poor public transportation system
2.3.8. Sydney'00
2.3.8.1. gave importance to the Games and later on made efforts to transform the Olympic infrastructure into positive legacy
2.4. Datum
2.4.1. Venues
2.4.1.1. Central entry and exit points
2.4.1.2. 2 disting functional areas according the IOC
2.4.1.2.1. Front of House
2.4.1.2.2. Back of House
2.4.1.3. Around each venue, a security perimeter separates "city domain" from "event domain"
2.4.1.4. Cluster of buildings are important due to the transportation
2.4.1.4.1. The concentration of the Olympic venues downtown or in clusters
2.4.1.4.2. promoted by the IOC
2.4.1.5. High pressure points for transportation due to the rapid mass arrival and departure
2.4.2. Scale
2.4.2.1. 16 days
2.4.2.2. 28 sports
2.4.2.3. 300 Competition events
2.4.2.4. 16000 Athletes and officials
2.4.2.5. 202 Nations
2.4.2.6. 5000 IOC, NOC, IF members
2.4.2.7. 20000-30000 Media Staffs
2.4.2.8. 30000 Sponsors
2.4.2.9. 50000 volunteers
2.4.2.10. 120000-150000 Workforce
2.4.2.11. 4-9 million ticketed spectators
2.4.2.12. 1.5-2 million people to transport per day
2.4.2.12.1. Bovy, 2009