Summer Olympic Villages as Catalysts

for Accessible and Inclusive Places: Between Experiences and Reflections in the Places and Society of the Host Cities

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to examine the different use of the Summer Olympic Village over the years. Initially, the article will observe the temporal evolution of the built Olympic villages, establishing significant patterns that have followed over time. The evolution of Olympic Village models implies a critical reflection on how host communities experiment with collaborative forms and practices aimed at decreasing the phenomena of social exclusion. The composition of new housing units in central areas of metropolises may foment the emergence of new forms of gentrification or segregation within host cities.

Introduction to Olympic cities

The Beijing Olympics in August 2008 marked a change in the global audience for mega-events, setting record revenues from the sale and marketing of audiovisual rights (Sands, 2008). According to the IOC 2021 report, London 2012 and Rio 2016 had an audience of almost 5 billion people globally. Meanwhile, the Sochi 2014 and PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympics reached an audience of 2.5 billion total viewers (IOC, 2021). Therefore, the difference between audience and funding from the IOC and Olympic sponsors allows us to assume that the Winter Olympics are at a disadvantage. Consequently, the dependency relationship between the city and the Olympic Games only continues in the summer edition (della Sala, 2024). Therefore, considering the significant investment in infrastructure, it is crucial to emphasise the importance of developing a strategic plan in cooperation with all regional, national and international stakeholders (della Sala, 2023). The strategic plan makes it possible to leave a legacy to the community regarding venues, facilities, parks, and everything designed for the Olympic Games (Rose & Spiegel, 2009). In order to develop an excellent strategic plan, it is undoubtedly necessary to maintain long communication with all parties involved and to plan even for 10 to 20 years, as an essential factor that advances mixed management between public and private companies (PwC, 2010). This is the case, for example, of Barcelona, which in 1976 drew up the city’s General Metropolitan Plan^[1] In an agreement with the public administration to host the 1992 Olympic Games. The case of Barcelona has become a model to follow in the management and organisation of these ‘mega-events’, but unfortunately, not all states have the same capacities and human resources (World Economic Forum, 2010). In this sense, the theory that not all cities can host these events and achieve the same results is proven (della Sala, 2022). Cities such as Sydney, New York, Barcelona, Atlanta and Sochi have invested heavily in marketing before, during and after the event. There is no doubt that the most significant tangible value we can associate with a city’s image is tourism (Preuss, 2000).

To read the full article go here

Keywords

Olympic Games
Olympics Legacy
Housing
Urbanism
Participatory Approach

How to Cite

della Sala, V. (2025). Summer Olympic Villages as Catalysts for Accessible and Inclusive Places: Between Experiences and Reflections in the Places and Society of the Host Cities. In Cases on Effective Destination Management. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-1548-4.ch009

To read other publications, go here