Olympic Stadiums

Olympic Stadiums

Find the Best Brands at Best Buy

Defining Monumental Permanence and Ephemeral Event: The Physical & Ideological Reconstruction of the Olympic City
The definitions of the Monument as provided by Charles Moore and Aldo Rossi, in conjunction with the analysis of the Event by Bernard Tschumi and J.B. Jackson, sanction the investigation of the renewal of identity and physical form of cities as dictated by the anticipation of the Olympics.

Varying Definitions of Monumentality

According to Charles Moore,

…a monument is an object whose function is to mark a place, either at that place’s boundary or at its heart… The act of marking is then a public act, and the act of recognition an expectable public act among the members of the society that possesses the place. Monumentality, considered this way, is not a product of compositional techniques…, of flamboyance of form, or even of conspicuous consumption of space, time, or money. It is, rather, a function of the society’s taking possession of or agreeing upon extraordinarily important places on the earth’s surface, and of the society’s celebrating their preeminence.

This definition implies firstly that all that is monumental is simultaneously public, and secondly that the monument expresses the majority’s notion of place, identity and scale of importance of event. For example, Moore does not consider privately owned skyscrapers to be monuments: although they often become symbols of their immediate environment, and their shear size implies monumentality, their construction may be considered arbitrary in that it reflects the disposition of an elite that fails to take into account the desires of the majority. The private realm, oblivious to the commemoration of significant events and locations and concerned predominately with profitability and efficiency, is subject to the whims and oscillations of the market, making it unpredictable, spontaneous and often erratic (characterizations that are highly opposed to the very definition of the monument, which necessitates permanence). While the formal elements of the monuments of the private sector may be adjusted according to market forces thanks to the essential fluidity of their program and interiors, the monuments of the public realm cannot be altered without a drastic change in their originally inherent intent.

Moore persists by defining the construction of the monument as the exact moment in which civilization is established. In other words, the importance of its symbolic significance for its indirect builders and producers far surpasses that of its formal characteristics. The monument’s form, which is almost an afterthought, is simply the way in which the ephemeral event or identity signified by its construction is able to validate and appropriate itself within the nation/country’s sequence of historical evolution. Furthermore, monumentality presupposes permanence, particularly in underdeveloped countries. The immense injection of capital, time and effort leaves the inhabitants with the task of upkeep of the physical monument as well as the ideals it exemplifies. For the defining monument to become a reality, the public is required to relinquish control over a significant plot of land: the benefit of this trade extends beyond the short term, since it significantly contributes to the inhabitants’ sense of place and identity. Moore mentions Los Angeles as an example of a city lacking monuments (and therefore a real identity and/or lack of important events in its history) due to the “selfishness” of its inhabitants, which refuse to surrender land parcels for the collective benefit. This fact can be seen as part of a ruthless cycle: the inhabitants are unable to develop a sense of community and belonging due to the scarcity of publicly owned spaces.

Aldo Rossi’s definition of the monument differs slightly. Subsequent to his introduction of the concept of permanences and his reference to monuments as “urban artifacts,” he claims that

…persistence in an urban artifact often causes it to become identified as a monument, and that a monument persists in the city both symbolically and physically. A monument’s persistence or permanence is a result of its capacity to constitute the city, its history and art, its being and memory.

Furthermore, Rossi places more weight on form than Moore: he recognizes that monuments/permanences/persistances correspond to the definition of the city at any one point in time, and that their given form constitutes a signifier that will forever be intrinsically linked to the wider fabric and identity of the city.

The form of the city is always the form of a particular time of the city; but there are many times in the formation of the city, and a city may change its face even in the course of one man’s life, its original references ceasing to exist… Often the city erases our memories as it changes.

In addition to his study of form, Rossi shifts his focus from the celebration of the public realm’s ideals through monuments (a concept which Moore expresses interest in), to their lack of / change in functionality over time. Although the evolution of a healthy city’s ideals instinctively calls for alterations in its fabric, Rossi believes that monuments follow a different set of rules:

…function alone is insufficient to explain the continuity of urban artifacts… An urban artifact determined by one function only cannot be seen as anything other than an explication of that function. In reality, we frequently continue to appreciate elements whose function has been lost over time; the value of these artifacts often resides solely in their form, which is integral to the general form of the city; it is, so to speak, an invariant of it.

In other words, urban artifacts can satisfy a number of functions, all of which may be ephemeral in the sense that they merely exist as indicators of the past in the memory of the city’s inhabitants. When their functionality ceases to exist, the monuments’ form becomes their only characteristic linking the past to the present. As long as the form of the urban artifacts is not drastically altered over time, especially where a change in functionality is concerned, their representative notions will be conveyed to future generations. In other words, the future survival of these ideals is irrelevant to the monuments’ initial form, but any physical change will affect future interpretations.

The Ephemeral Event as Monument

“Architecture is defined by the actions it witnesses as much as by the enclosure of its walls.”

“…architecture – its social relevance and formal invention – cannot be dissociated from the events that ‘happen’ in it.”

In Architecture and Disjunction, Bernard Tschumi suggests the rough equivalence of Program and Event. In particular, he distinguishes between program as formally embedded into architecture and program as unplanned actions randomly or deliberately centered around specific architectural forms. Regardless of their origin, these programmatic elements are capable of shaping the built environment symbolically, if not formally. Tschumi is particularly interested in the repetition of these events, stating that “a ritual implies a near-frozen relationship between action and space. It institutes a new order after the disorder of the original event.” Although this definition can be used for any architectural typology, it is particularly applicable to the analysis of the monument. Thus, the monument is connected not only with events of epic proportions that shape the nature and identity of the city and its inhabitants, but is also placed within the habitual practices of the inhabitants either through the alteration of its original function, or through the recurrent revival of the defining event.

Tschumi goes one step further than Rossi and Moore by allowing the monument to equal the event.

The fascination with the dramatic, either in the program… or in the mode of representation…, is there to force a response. Architecture ceases to be a backdrop for actions, becoming the action itself… Architecture becomes the discourse of events as much as the discourse of spaces.

Symbolically speaking, there are two alternatives: were the momentous events to occur within existing infrastructure of humble form, the form would be utterly consumed and its physical evolution would be unfeasible. Alternatively, were the monument to be constructed specifically for the commemoration of the event, it would be ensured that this physical manifestation is adequately representative of that event and produces a roughly equivalent emotional stirring.

J.B. Jackson confirms the importance of the event in the everyday life of the modern citizen, yet he denies architecture a role in this scenario. Although he is speaking of the American experience, the following statement is widely applicable:

…the average American still associates a sense of place not so much with architecture or a monument or a designed space as with some event, some daily or weekly or seasonal occurrence which we look forward to or remember and which we share with others, and as a result becomes more significant than the place itself. Moreover, I believe that this has always been the common or vernacular way of recognizing the unique quality of the community we live in.

The Olympic Influence

The Olympics constitute one of the most indicative manifestations of the concept of monumental presence in close dialogue with the ephemeral event. In particular, they can be featured in a number of categories suggested by Moore, Rossi, Tschumi and Jackson, and are therefore capable of addressing a surprising majority of the raised issues. Their grandiosity and subdued violence (Tschumi: “…from the violence of discordant sounds in music to the clash of bodies in sports…”) is sanctioned by their insertion into the routine of the citizens of the world. In other words, the violence that is unleashed becomes predictable since it has been placed in the spotlight every four years since 1896 (Jackson: “In our urban environment which is constantly undergoing irreversible changes, a cyclical sense of time, the regular recurrence of events and celebrations, is what gives us reassurance and a sense of unity and continuity.”)

On the other hand, the predictability of this ephemeral event is offset by the insertion of a variable element into the equation, namely the customary relocation of venue, which induces the recurring construction of monumental architecture around the world. With the possible exception of Los Angeles, all host cities have employed the Olympics as a pretext to renovate their physical image and identity by enhancing their infrastructure and performing new construction. In particular, the need for specific facilities encourages the employment of architects and urban planners for the creation and insertion of monuments into a typically historically rich and therefore temperamental urban fabric. Monumental construction, which is essentially limited to stadiums and a variety of housing options for the Olympic Family, has taken a variety of forms depending on the city’s pre-Olympic condition and availability of space and resources. Perhaps the most considerate approaches include the adaptation of existing structures through the addition of seating and/or roofing, as well the renewal of previously decrepit neighborhoods to accommodate the demand for temporary shelter. By coupling these appropriation efforts with the renovation of the cities’ centers, historical districts and monuments, the inhabitants and overseas viewers are provided with a unique and highly improbably glimpse of the city in which the areas deemed as the most noteworthy, regardless of chronology, have been provided with their ideal(ized) form based on contemporary standards.

A significant portion of the available funds is allocated towards the construction of the new monuments/symbols/icons of the city and its ideals: stadiums and freeways. The public nature of this new construction, its equivalence to the Olympic experience, and its contribution to collective memory and identity perfectly align it with the definitions of the monument provided by Rossi and Moore. The placement of these monuments within the city’s fabric is particularly challenging, since a feeling of continuity among simultaneous events (while perhaps unwillingly disregarding the disruption occurring in the ephemeral events of the everyday life of the inhabitants) is one of the goals. On the other hand, it could be argued that a physical sequenciality is not imperative, since the transition between events appears to be seamless for the majority of the viewers, which participate in the festivities only virtually from the comfort of their living rooms. In Athens 2004, the sites were scattered throughout the wider Athens region, thus allowing for a relatively uniform renovation of the city and the creation of significant infrastructure connecting the previously remotely linked suburbs.

Although the most challenging facilities are generally the ones servicing little-known sports, the afterlife of all new structures is a problem awaiting a solution. The cost of these formal preparations would ideally be offset by the fulfillment of their potentially long-term physical and ideological functions. Yet Moore and Rossi, with the support of Tschumi, seem to be in agreement that such monuments are similar to works of art in that their function ensuing The Event is irrelevant. In other words, the monuments become reminders of either the relative success or failure of the participating city to impress the world of viewers, while subsequently convincing everyone (including themselves) of their newly constructed identity. On the other hand, since the importance of the routine has proven to be essential in the inhabitants’ sense of place and belonging, it is apparent that an even peripheral recreation of the events for which they were created would provide a (maybe false) sense of stability. This sensation is intimately linked to the attempt to offset the potential feeling of futility following the Olympic celebrations, but also to recreate the hopefully positive memories generated during the summer games. By extension, the continual use of the facilities would allow the city to practice its newly modernized and marketable identity.

The Olympic Stadium - New Construction = Diluted Identity = Hyper-Identity = Generic City

With the ultimate goal of increasing tourism and boosting its economy, the host city invariably attempts to distill its very essence for allowing for an easier digestion within its two weeks in the world’s spotlight. The need of the city to present itself as adequately westernized through the supply of internationally available products, chains and services while simultaneously showcasing the very best of its traditions aligns it with Rem Koolhaas’ concept of the Generic City. The disneyfication of the host city’s most prominent characteristics through the oversimplification of its identity (“Identity centralizes; it insists on an essence, a point”) provides for a standardized and sedated appearance. Conversely, the stronger identity, the more it imprisons, the more it resists expansion, interpretation, renewal, contradiction. Identity becomes like a lighthouse – fixed, overdetermined: it can change its position or the pattern it emits only at the cost of destabilizing navigation. (Paris can only become more Parisian – it is already on its way to becoming hyper-Paris, a polished caricature…).

The construction of new monuments provides the ideal platform for the fulfillment of the aspiration of the city to project a new identity. In general, these monuments are the epitome of modernity: formally, they are light and airy, displaying the abilities of mostly homegrown architects and embodying the latest technological innovations and trends. Ironically, the architectural highlights of the Olympics of later years, namely the central stadiums, have been designed by internationally renowned architects, i.e. Athens 2004 with Calatrava; Beijing 2008 with Herzog & de Meuron. This fact ensures a certain level of international flair and a relatively neutral/generic/ international (as opposed to regional and therefore highly exclusive) form. Any relationship of the stadium to the nation’s identity is peripheral and immediately palatable. For instance the Sydney 2004 Stadium Australia was inspired by the Australian slouch hat, or akubra.

On a similar note, Alexander Tzonis stated that “despite the fact that the area in Calatrava’s proposal [for the Athens 2004 Olympic Stadium] is inhabited by structures reflecting the repertory of Calatrava’s motifs and types, the overall composition has a strong neoclassical character,” therefore making a merely a superficial connection to the country’s history.

Symbolically, the structures represent the democratic and peaceful ideals which the Olympics stand for and which the host cities aspire to, at least temporarily and in concept. By allocating a significant amount of resources to this cause, the host city is seemingly enlisting itself among the ranks of modernized countries, and accepting certain pre-determined and pre-approved characteristics. Thus, the monuments become icons of modernity, which according to Winy Maas of MVRDV “…help to freeze public trends or desires that remain hidden to that very same society. They allow you to visualize or explain a specific aspect that exists before our eyes but is not easily perceivable. They would be regarded as messengers of concepts or future desires of generations to come.”

The descriptions accompanying the proposals for the design of the Beijing 2008 National Stadium competition are particularly telling of the country’s desire to reinvent its image. One of the competing firms claimed: “Our roof is not just a cover for the terraces of the stadium, but the celestial vault of the Universe. This vault incorporates five circles that, at the same time, symbolize the five elements on which Chinese philosophy is based, and the five Olympic rings.”

Similarly, another firm declared that their design, “…emerging from the landscape, and shaped by nature, …will create a simple symbolic link - a bridge - between old and new, between people and country and China with the world.”

The winning entry by Herzog & de Meuron, which was inspired by a bird’s nest (also a Chinese delicacy) “…meets all the functional and technical requirements of an Olympic National Stadium, but without communicating the insistent sameness of technocratic architecture dominated by large spans and digital screens.”

The attention given to the precise form of the Olympic stadiums in conjunction with their conceptual underpinning refutes the statement agreed upon by Moore and Rossi, namely that form is merely a secondary element. On the other hand, any of the stadium proposals could have been accepted wholeheartedly by the inhabitants of Beijing, since they essentially represent the country’s involvement in global events of major significance and would embody the growing nation’s evolving ideals and identity. The ephemeral event is used only as a pretext for modernization and is solidified through the construction of monuments.


Bibliography
Beijing Municipal Commission of Urban Planning, www.bjghw.gov.cn/forNationalStadium/indexeng.asp

Jackson, J.B. A Sense of Place, a Sense of Time. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,1994.

Koolhaas, Rem. SMLXL. New York, NY: Monacelli Press, 1995.

Moore, Charles. “You Have to Pay for the Public Life,” Perspecta 1965. You Have to Pay for the Public Life: Selected Essays of Charles Moore. Cambridge, MA: 2001.

MVRDV: 1997-2002: Stacking and Layering. Madrid: El Croquis Editorial, 2002.

Rossi, Aldo. The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982.


Rowe, Colin and Koetter, Fred. Collage City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1978.

Teloglou, Tasos. Pole ton Agonon. Athens, Greece: Estia, 2004.

Tschumi, Bernard. Architecture and Disjunction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.

Tzonis, Alexander. Santiago Calatrava. New York, NY: Rizzoli, 2004.

Disclaimer

The above essay was written by Minna Colakis and merely states opinions by a college student. However, if you feel strong about responding to the opinions stated, please write to articles@directorym.com and express your concerns.



Educational Content
Home