Future Olympics can be built without taxpayer money or a single eviction but with pop-up arenas replacing grandiose new builds, according to the architect planning two of the next Games.
Bill Hanway, head of global sports for architectural and engineering giant AECOM, has masterminded the construction of the last two Games and is working in Tokyo on the 2020 Games and Los Angeles, which on Monday last week was announced as the 2028 host.
Hanway envisions a break from the major disruption of past Olympic developments, which Games watchdogs said displaced more than 2 million residents, sometimes violently, in the two decades between Seoul in 1988 and Beijing in 2008.
In an interview, Hanway set out a more sustainable Olympic future — one of community-backed masterplans, pop-up venues, renovated stadiums and modular handball courts that can be shipped to other cities or transformed into schools.
Hanway said the Los Angeles Games will rise to public demands and be economically viable, socially sensitive and environmentally sound.
“Everybody is aware of the damage that global sports are getting in terms of press, cost over-runs, corruption, doping,” Hanway said.
“People are losing sight, in some ways, of why we have the Games, and of the Olympic and athletes’ experience — the things that made the experience positive in the first place,” he said.
Last month, two cities, Paris and Los Angeles, were chosen as hosts for the next two Olympics as a pair, in an unprecedented move seen as a bid for stability at a time when interest from potential hosts is dwindling.
The only other cities left in the race — Boston, Hamburg, Rome and, most recently, Budapest — withdrew in the face of public opposition.
Massive price tags like the US$51 billion spent by Russia on the 2014 Sochi Winter Games and images of decaying white elephant venues from Rio de Janeiro last year have left cities and governments questioning the value of hosting an Olympics.
When the International Olympic Committee (IOC) met in June, president Thomas Bach asked organizers and planners how to make the bidding and hosting process more viable, said Hanway.
According to the IOC, the 2024 and 2028 Games will be the first to fully embrace its new sustainability drive and use a record number of temporary facilities.
Organizers for the Los Angeles Games say they will be entirely privately funded, relying heavily on ticket sales, upgrades to existing venues and corporate sponsorship.
“We’re not impacting a single residential location and not disrupting any businesses in our entire planning process for the [Los Angeles] Olympic Games,” Hanway said.
“Absolutely it’s possible to avoid any disruption on the scale that has historically been seen in the Olympic Games — that is certainly the approach that any bidding city would take in the future,” he said.
Securing local support was crucial for any prospective host, as shown by the referendum that ended Hamburg’s bid and demands for public votes that led Rome and Boston to withdraw their unpopular bids, Hanway said.
Organizers have a responsibility to show communities how the Games respond to their needs — be it for transport, sports facilities or schools — and to minimize the number of residents disenfranchised by any development.
“You listen first and then you start designing. That has to be the way forward … or you’ll never get community support,” he said.
That — and some architectural creativity.
Hanway said new construction techniques allow for temporary arenas, such as a 10,000-seat handball court in Rio, which was designed to be taken apart and converted into school buildings.
As for permanent venues, organizers must ensure their plans can respond to a changing economic situation, Hanway said, recalling the crashes that upended work in Brazil in 2014 and in London in 2008, during the global financial crisis.
Los Angeles claims it can put on a low-cost, environmentally sound Olympics because it already has the infrastructure.
The city, which hosted the 1984 Games, will use the residence halls of University of California, Los Angeles, as the Olympic village, cutting one of the top expenses.
“What you’re seeing now in the Games is that you don’t have to spend US$1 billion or US$2 billion to build a brand new neighborhood,” Hanway said.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS