Correctores para la normalización de esquemas de BD

Olympic buildings are designed to present architectural and engineering challenges to the construction industry, aspiring to create innovative, iconic buildings that set new standards in terms of technology and materiality, (Cresciani, 2008); but even in Architectural terms, Olympic legacy comprises much more than this. There are multiple components within the holistic field of Architecture and Urban Planning that fit the notion of legacy when incorporating its values and concepts into the urban environment. Sustainability, regeneration, heritage, and reuse are all architectural terminologies integrated within the discipline of architectural legacy, each with a niche perspective that contributes to the model of legacy as an all-inclusive idea. For example, the Olympic Stadia in Athens remain structurally sound, but their derelict conditions are due to their remote and unlinked location in comparison to the city, and poor geographical and infrastructural planning.

Figure 1. Getty Images (2015) (The beach volleyball Olympic Venue in Neo Faliro, Athens)

It was during the course of the 20th _{Century that Olympic Villages began to lose their}

ephemerality in favour of creating more permanent edifices: and the temporary use of military barracks and camps to complement the city’s hotel accommodation was replaced by new construction and urban regeneration, to insert a programme of multifunctional spaces incorporating, accommodation, entertainment, rest and leisure, into the fabric of the city, (Muñoz, 2006). David & Thornleu, (2010), suggest that the history of cities utilizing the Olympic Games to create longer-lasting legacies that benefit the community began in Rome in 1960 where the upgraded transport infrastructure continued to support and promote City function after the Olympics had ended. Indeed the infrastructure of London 1948, (dubbed the austerity Games after a 12 year hiatus resultant of World War II), ceases to exist at all; but because of the economic climate and post-war rationing, no new venues were built for this event and athletes were housed in existing accommodation; a theme that followed into the subsequent 1952 Games in Helsinki on a lesser scale. When the Olympics returned to Europe in 1960, the Olympic Village in Rome became a post-war showpiece, delivering post-Games housing that remained inhabited throughout the decade, but by the 1980’s had fallen into decline. Pier Luigi Nervi, the engineer responsible for the design and construction of four of the major buildings of the 1960 Olympics, pioneered urban placemaking in the city, (Buxton, 2012). Nervi’s Palazzo Della Sport in Rome, built for the 1960 Summer Olympics, has sustained a purpose and occupancy throughout the ages, but, whilst some Stadia have burgeoned over time, others

have suffered abandonment and disuse; Helliniko Olympic Complex, beach Volleyball Arena, Aquatics Centre, and Softball Arena constructed in Athens for the 2004 Olympics were lying derelict by 2008 after geographical and cultural factors inhibited their continued use, and hosting the Olympic Games reportedly contributed to the collapse of the Greek economy; causing animosity amongst Greek citizens, (Kissoudi, 2008). A study by Cresciani & Forth, (2011), identified threats to the resilience of large iconic structures as factors of poor design, change in public perception, change of use, and structural attack; and concluded that resilience was “the ability of a structure to withstand threats and continue to function”, demonstrating durability, performance, and accepted standards over time. They suggested that adaptability of space is demonstrative of resilience and key in legacy development: building that is designed to be adapted for community use after the event minimises potential heritage forfeiture. Sustainable regeneration in Olympic cities is not only a contextual layer of site-specificity, but the outcome of a strategy to respond to and overcome the widely criticised journey from investment and design to waste and ruination that has been observed in many Olympic Games Developments of the past, (Davis, 2014). With the aim to part-recycle the London 2012 Olympic constructions, the London Legacy Development Corporation (2012) promoted their legacy plans as ‘a legacy for sport’, ‘a legacy for the community’, and ‘a legacy for the environment’, encompassing all of the holistic aspects of legacy and urban planning, and the subsequent effects of human behavior and wellbeing resultant of environmental change and the associated lifestyle adaptations. London 2012 has been heralded as the first Olympic City to really encourage positive legacy planning and subsequent analysis, however, quantifying fruition of proposals will not reach completion for some years yet and research into the land acquisition process of the London 2012 Olympic Site has shown that the process of relocating the existing community in the Lower Lea Valley resulted in a complex and unevenly distributed array of outcomes in the short-term, despite the projected benefits of the proposals overall, (Davis & Thornley, 2010).

environmental impact of the Olympic Games, (Horne, 2011), but whilst the Olympic Organising Committee remains responsible for delivering the Olympics under the scrutiny of the media, who are critiquing the minutiae of their organisational strategies, there is little incentive to focus upon the generation of legacy; or longer term strategies employed to ensure that the urban regeneration permitted in the build up to the Games are also insightful enough to consider community use post-evernt, (Agha et al, 2012). Mourney, (2014), reported that the

UK has been the first nation to even attempt a comprehensive legacy review, but, IOC assessments of legacy focus on tangible indicators and, it has been suggested by some that these do not actually provide the whole picture, (Davis & Thornley, 2010). The 2009 Olympic Games Global Impact project marked the first shift toward developing some accountability for the legacy promises that are made during the Olympic bid process, Agha et al, (2012). The Olympic Games Knowledge Management (OGKM) committee was set up in tandem with the Sydney Organising Committee in 2005 to provide a vehicle for host cities to learn from one another, (Kassens-Noor, 2012), but literature suggests that there has been little follow up from which to initiate this process.