Don’t build is IOC advice for prospective Olympic Games hosts

The extinction of the white elephant can’t come soon enough for the International Olympic Committee (IOC). After more than a century of tacitly watching Olympic venues grow like topsy in host cities around the world, the IOC message to potential host cities is clear. Don’t build on our account.

“What we’re saying is we don’t want anything built for the Games. We’re not asking for anything to be built for the Games,” says Jacqueline Barrett, veteran director of the IOC office for future host cities. Along with IOC staff colleagues, she spoke Thursday in Lausanne, Switzerland to a worldwide group of Olympic journalists gathered virtually.

The briefing was organized to highlight IOC research on the use of venues post-Games from 1896 to those of the 21st century. The venue report is the first-ever compilation of the hundreds of sites built for the Games. On the surface, key findings that 85 percent of the venues constructed for a city to host the Olympics are still in use, seems to be a positive finding. And for Games in 21st century the number rises to 92 percent. The survey covers through the 2018 Winter Olympics in PyeongChang.

The research, vetted by KPMG, was first presented last month at the virtual IOC Session.

The figures would seem to indicate the reputation of the Olympics as a breeding ground for venue pachyderms might be undeserved. The report is the latest effort by the IOC to reverse a widespread public perception the Olympics are too costly and cumbersome for cities of any size to host.

Marie Sallois, IOC director of sustainability, says the survey is a milestone for the Olympics to understand fully the impact of Olympic venues from the past Games in those cities.

IOC director of legacy Tanya Braga noted in the briefing the future of Olympic venues lies in temporary, not permanent structures.

“With the adoption of Olympic Agenda 2020 we have actively encourage the hosts to use temporary facilities whenever they didn’t have existing venues that are suitable,” Braga says.

“We expect that, for the future, we will continue to see this trend of growth in the percentage of temporary venues,” she says.

“What we want to see now is the Games adapting to the host, whatever that host is in their own context, not the Games, adapting to the host, which was a little bit how things were before,” says Barrett, who has worked with the old and new bid processes.

In fact, Barrett says venue capacity minimums won’t be required as has been the rule in the past. The experience of the pandemic Games of Tokyo 2020 and Beijing 2022 demonstrated the ability to host Olympics without spectators. Zero Olympic atmosphere but unreal operational savings could be a dividend.

Barrett still leaves the door open for cities which would coordinate venue development with local needs.

“We don’t want anything to be built for the Games, but it’s not up to us to say what a community needs to do for itself,” she says, emphasizing the need for unanimity.

“We’ve got to be sure that this is something that the Community is doing for itself, anyway, whether it’s a private initiative, whether it’s a government initiative,” she says.

Braga says the IOC is serious in its efforts to rid the white elephant from the Olympics.

“I think the expression white elephant it’s more broader than the use by the community, depending on who is using the term. Sometimes it’s used to relate to other things like the financial health of the venue or the cost benefit of the venue, not on the scope of the specifics,” she says.

It’s a battle of perception versus reality she says.

KEEP READING