Transformative Legacy of the 2016 Summer Olympic Structures on Rio de Janeiro as a Creative City

(1)

Transformative Legacy of the 2016 Summer Olympic Structures

on Rio de Janeiro as a Creative City

Jasper Hanenberg (11866209)

Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam Bachelor Thesis Entrepreneurship, Innovation & Creativity

Dr. J. Aldo Do Carmo 22nd of June 2020

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Jasper Hanenberg who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

List of Figures, Images and Tables

Figure 1: The Olympic Process 17

Figure 2: Number of Participating Athletes at the Olympic Games 29

Figure 3: Number of Staged Events at the Olympic Games 30

Figure 4: Global Audience of the Three Olympic Games 31

Figure 5: Estimated and Final Costs for the Three Olympic Games 32 Figure 6: Construction Costs of the Three Olympic Villages 33

Image 1: The Olympic Zones in Barcelona 21

Image 2: The Olympic Zones in Athens 22

Image 3: The Olympic Zones in Rio de Janeiro 25

Image A1: The Poblenou Area in Barcelona Before the Bid for the Olympics 53

Image A2: The Barcelona Olympic Village Shortly After the Completion of the Olympics 53 Image A3: View Upon the Modern Day Poblenou Area in Barcelona, Spain 54 Image A4: The Olympic Village in Athens Shortly Before the Start of the Olympics 54 Image A5: The State of the Entrance of the Athens Olympic Village in 2014 55 Image A6: The State of the Swimming Pool in the Athens Olympic Village from 2014 55 Image A7: The Rio de Janeiro Olympic Village Shortly Before the Start of the Olympics 56 Image A8: The Rio de Janeiro Olympic Village at Night, Barely Occupied 56

Table A1: Statistics for the Olympics Games in Barcelona, Athens and Rio de Janeiro. 57 Table A2: Statistics and Information for the three Olympics Villages 57 Table A3: Quotations from Various Sources that Apply to Each Respective Olympics 58-60 Table A4: Quotations from Various Sources that Apply to Each Olympic Village 61-63

(6)

List of Abbreviations

CCI Creative Communities Index

CG Creativity Grid

CLI Cultural Life Index

IOC International Olympic Committee

Rio+20 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development

UDI Urban Development Index

(7)

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to express my thanks and gratitude to my supervisor Dr. J. Aldo Do Carmo for inspiring this research study and his continuous feedback and guidance throughout the entire planning and writing process of this thesis. Secondly, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support and critical discussions that have helped me in my research endeavor. And lastly, I would like to dedicate this research study to the creative city community.

(8)

1. Abstract

Mega-events such as the Olympics have become powerful tools in promoting urban

development and transforming the landscape of host cities across the globe. However, their increased international fame has also provoked discussion about false promises and failed legacies. To further investigate the transformative powers and the controversial nature of the Olympics, this extended integrative literature review analyzes these impacts and outcomes of the Olympic games on a host city by considering a framework of ideas known as the

“creative city concept”. Specifically, this thesis examines how the legacy of the Olympic

village of the 2016 Summer Olympics has impacted Rio de Janeiro as a creative city? To explore this question two past Olympic case studies, namely the 1992 Barcelona Summer Olympics and the 2004 Athens Summer Olympics and their respective Olympic villages, are analyzed and referenced. The results show that the Olympic legacy of the Rio de Janeiro Olympic village has largely failed in making Rio de Janeiro a more creative city, as the benefits of the structural investments for the Olympics such as the Olympic village did not advance but rather burdened Rio de Janeiro due to the disproportionally high costs. Similar negative outcomes and legacies are also observed for other Olympics and Olympic village such as in Athens. Importantly, only the Barcelona Olympics and Olympic village of 1992 managed to create positive outcomes and desired legacies as previously anticipated and planed. This study provides a critical outlook on what the causes were and what possible solutions might be. Creatively dealing with the failures of past Olympic legacies is paramount to realize the immense potential of the Olympic games as mega-events to transform host cities and turn them into more creative cities.

(9)

2. Introduction

Ever since the first modern Olympics in Athens in 1896, the Olympic games have grown into one of the largest and most impactful global event(s) with the potential to transform and restructure the landscape of cities and regions worldwide (London East Research Institute, 2007). Many cities and interest groups have acknowledged this potential and are increasingly competing to host the Olympics games. Hosting the Olympics has however not only resulted in positive infrastructural outcomes, oftentimes it has also put increased pressures and burdens on host cities in order to plan and complete event-related structures.

Essential event-related structures that are specifically built for the Olympic games and crucial contributors in physically transforming and restructuring a city are Olympic villages. These multifunctional structures act as the primary places of accommodation and refuge for the Olympic athletes during the games. They are architectural places of modernity and particularity that express a specific host city’s image and are designed to portray the eternal values of “peace and progress pursued by the Olympic games” (Muñoz, 2006; Gao & Bu, 2011, p. 123).

To ensure that cities benefit from the hosting of the Olympics, Olympic legacies have been introduced. Legacies guide host cities prior, during and after the games and are intended to ensure that cities benefit from the outcomes of the Olympics for years to come (Preuss, 2007). While the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona are considered an overall success story, the outcomes of other Olympics such as those in Atlanta (1996), Athens (2004) and Beijing (2008) were less successful (Sivaev, 2013; Zhang & Zhao, 2009). In this research study, I will analyze what the long-lasting consequences of hosting the 2016 Summer

Olympics are for Rio de Janeiro, the last Olympic host city. In other words, were the legacies successful here?

(10)

A vast amount of literature exists regarding the impacts of hosting mega-events such as the Olympics on host cities, with past case studies of cities including Barcelona, Atlanta, Athens and Beijing (Zhang & Zhao, 2009; Aragao & Maenning, 2013). Moreover, Olympic legacies have increasingly been emphasized within literature. Equally, there exists a growing amount of literature concerning the fate of cities and their competitive environment.

However, until now, only few studies have examined the legacies of Olympic villages in relation to a notion known as the “creative city concept”, particularly how these structures have physically contributed in transforming cities into becoming more creative.

In order to further explore this idea, I will investigate how the legacy of the Olympic village of the 2016 Summer Olympics has impacted Rio de Janeiro as a creative city? Investigating this research question is of interest given the controversial nature and growing discussions surrounding the Olympics to create false promises and be associated with

especially large debts. To conduct this study I will analyze various definitions, measures and viewpoints of the creative city concept, mega-events, and Olympic legacies in the form of an extended integrative1 literature review (Torraco, 2005). I will hereby provide initial insights to whether the previously mentioned discussions surrounding the Olympics are justified in the case of Rio de Janeiro. To further determine the significance of the impacts and outcomes of the Rio de Janeiro Olympics, two past Olympics will be compared: Barcelona 1992 and Athens 2004.

Specifically, I will review the existing literature and provide theoretical context regarding creative cities (Section 3), mega-events and the Olympics (Section 4), Olympic villages and Olympic cases (Section 5) and Rio de Janeiro and the 2016 Summer Olympics (Section 6). Each of these sections will include a short literature review based on the relevant topic, followed by a theoretical framework on that topic. Next, I will describe the

(11)

(Section 8). The thesis will conclude with a discussion (Section 9) and a summary of the findings, the limitations and practical implications, the lessons learned and outlooks for potential future research studies (Section 10).

(12)

3. Creative Cities

This section discusses the existing literature and sets the stage for creative cities. 3.1 Literature Review on Creative Cities

Over the last decades, the roles and impacts of cities have fundamentally changed. With increases in globalization and shifts of resources across global markets, cities have become greater ‘strategic sites’ for national and international economic, political and societal development (Zhang & Zhao, 2009; Sassen, 2005). Studies have also explored the

competitive environment amongst cities and how cities thrive for attention on a global scale (Sassen, 2005).

With this change and greater importance of the individuality of cities, a concept has emerged within literature known as ‘creative cities’, which is based on new ideas of city planning (Landry, 2008). Within this concept, many different sub-topics have emerged, e.g. studies by Florida (2003) and Landry (2008) have focused on the role of geography, the creative class and the assumptions and requirements for cities to be creative. Peck (2005) has studied the creative city concept in relation to economic development, which according to him is more than simply technological, organizational and physical; it most importantly is about the human and cultural aspects within cities. Finally, Reis and Kageyama (2009) and Evans (2009) have researched the notion of creative cities in conjunction to tourism and city policies, respectively.

3.2 The Creative City Concept

The creative city concept was first introduced in the late 1980s as a new idea of city development and strategic urban planning, concentrating on how we can make our cities more livable by solving everyday problems (Landry, 2008). Today, the concept mainly focuses on the importance of design, cultural industries and cultural amenities within cities

(13)

and considers cities as transformative environments that promote and foster creativity and innovation to create solutions (Richards & Palmer, 2010; Florida, 2003).

3.3 The Creative City Concept from the Perspective of Charles Landry

According to Landry and Hyams (2012), creative cities are places where people exchange ideas, trade products and create joint projects. Furthermore, they are places that are open-minded, cultivated and where people have the opportunity to express themselves creatively. This concept sees people and organizations at the heart of creativity that establish the pre-conditions to being creative. Landry (2008) further postulates that creativity happens and takes place almost everywhere in large cities, but it is critical to have the right conditions, the right mindset and the strong believe in an ongoing process in order for creativity to thrive. According to this concept, “not every city is creative, but every city can be more creative than it already is” (Landry & Hyams, 2012, p. 3).

3.4 The Creative City Concept from the Perspective of Richard Florida

Florida (2003) considers urbanism to play a central role within the creative city concept. According to his work, urbanism fosters economic growth and development attracting a creative class2 of people. Factors such as lifestyle choices, tolerance and

diversity, but also infrastructure and entertainment further support the urban appeal (Richard & Palmer, 2010). According to Florida (2003), cities with high concentrations of people within the creative class tend to emphasize greater innovation and tend to grow faster compared to cities with less people belonging to the creative class (Florida, 2003).

(14)

4. Mega-Events and the Olympics

This section discusses existing literature and defines mega-events and the Olympics. 4.1 Literature Review on Mega-Events and the Olympics

Over the years, the power and scale of the Olympic games has massively increased, and with it, the growing emphasis of research studies on mega-events alike. The main focus of such studies has been the exploration of the power that the Olympics and other mega-events create in acting as marketing and image-building tools to brand cities as global and especially as creative cities (Steinbrink, 2013). Moreover, concepts of “festivalization3” and “eventification3” in relation to the Olympics and the Olympics’ abilities to penetrate urban

and economic development have been popular research topics (Maiello & Pasquinelli, 2015; Steinbrink, 2013). While some researchers have used these concepts and share these beliefs, others suggest that mega-events like the Olympics only have minor image boosting4 and transformative powers (Essex & Chalkey, 2003).

More and more mega-events are in fact taking place in the so-called ‘global south’, which generally involves low to middle income countries in Asia, Africa, South America, Oceania and the Caribbean (Steinbrink, 2013; Dados & Connell, 2012). The hosting of these mega-events is hereby branded as a master narrative to showcase the rapid transformation and continuous growth of these regions, rather than reveal images of underdevelopment. This narrative is mainly due to the large and complex transformative urban processes that host cities like Rio de Janeiro have to go through, simply to comply with organizer regulations (Steinbrink, 2013). However, it is also important to note that there is increased criticism on the hosting of mega-events, as this can have negative impacts on the host cities and its

people, particularly in terms of growing inequalities and urban processes that occur as people are displaced and urban spaces are gentrified5 (Maiello & Pasquinelli, 2015).

(15)

4.2 The Olympics as a Mega-Event

Mega-events differ from regular events by several features, especially their duration and scale in terms of the number of interrelated events and the number of participants and spectators that enormously outranks regular events (Malfas et al., 2004). Additionally, the immense organizational planning and complexity involved in hosting such events and the large-scale media and tourist attractiveness as well as the impacts on host cities are unique and unmatched. Thus, mega-events are short-term phenomena with long-terms consequences, influencing predominantly local and national agendas, transforming cities and creating new opportunities for citizens (Richards & Palmer, 2010; Sivaev, 2013).

This study will specifically focus on mega-events in the context of sport events, more specifically the Summer Olympics. The Summer Olympics are true mega-events with their immense scale and global reach, attracting billions of people from around the world (London East Research Institute, 2007). Furthermore, the immense preparations, beginning several years prior to the actual hosting of the event, are highly remarkable, and also the substantial media attention surrounding the games makes them one of a kind (Sivaev, 2013).

4.3 Literature Review on Olympic Legacies

Only in 2003 was the word ‘legacy’ officially introduced into the Olympic Charter, the codification of the Olympic principles (Malfas et al., 2004). Although the term existed long before as part of the realms of the Olympics, it had never been regarded as a central outcome to cities hosting the games. This has now changed, as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has made it its mission and role “to promote a positive legacy from the Olympic Games to the host cities, regions and countries” as is defined in Mission and Role of the IOC Number 15 in the 2019 Olympic Charter (International Olympic Committee, 2019, p. 17). In fact, legacies have become so important that nowadays they are considered master narratives vital for hosting the modern Olympic games.

(16)

With the introduction of the term legacy into the charter of the Olympics began the increase of academic interests into the topic. Studies now investigate the types of legacies ranging from sporting and urban legacies to economic and cultural legacies; even

environmental legacies have been addressed. Additionally, the various impacts of hosting mega-events have increasingly been explored, with emphasis on their economic, socio-cultural and physical consequences (International Olympic Committee, 2017).

Nevertheless, large discrepancies still exist amongst authors in defining what legacies really are. Many studies according to Preuss (2015) have confused the concept of ‘legacy’ with that of ‘sustainability’ and ‘impacts’. Others consider legacies to entail the

transformations of cities and belief them to be about the image branding of host cities. Importantly, different opinions about the legacies of the Olympic games exist, each interpretation is hereby largely dependent on the framework within which the analysis is performed.

4.4 Olympic Legacies

This research study will specifically define and analyze legacies from a sporting event perspective, considering that the Olympics are first and foremost a sporting event. In the report IOC Legacy Strategic Approach (International Olympic Committee, 2017, p. 2), the IOC defines Olympic legacies as: “Olympic legacy is the result of a vision. It encompasses all the tangible and intangible long-term benefits initiated or accelerated by the hosting of the Olympics Games/sports events for people, cities/territories and the Olympic Movement.” The process to envision such legacy can be seen in Figure 1 below.

(17)

Figure 1

The Olympic Process

Note. Adopted from (Preuss, 2015).

Fundamental elements of legacies hereby include: they are multifaceted, dynamic and dependent on local and global factors, they last till after the completion of the event(s) and create value for some while negatively impacting others, (Preuss, 2007; Preuss, 2015). Moreover, Olympic legacies can be defined by three central criteria. Firstly ‘impacts’, which consider whether the same outcomes would have occurred had the event not taken place (Preuss, 2015). Secondly ‘sustainability’, which refers to the balance of people’s economic and social needs and the ability of available resources and ecosystems to meet present and future needs. And lastly, ‘leveraging’, which describes the implementation of measures in order to create desired event outcomes (Preuss, 2015). The focus of this study will be on tangible urban legacies, which generally explore the creation and developments of a host city’s infrastructure including the construction and improvement of areas such as public transportation, venues and housing, which also incorporates the Olympic villages (Li & McCabe, 2013).

(18)

5. Olympic Villages and Olympic Cases

This section discusses the existing literature and introduces Olympic villages and the Olympic cases of Barcelona and Athens.

5.1 Literature Review on Olympic Villages

The first Olympic village was created for the 1932 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles in response to growing accommodation issues that host cities were facing at the time (Gao & Bu, 2011). Following the village’s success, the IOC decided it was beneficial for every future Olympic host city to construct an Olympic village(s) to accommodate the athletes during the games. This decision was formally introduced into the Olympic Charter under Rule 38, making the construction of an Olympic village a mandatory prerequisite for hosting the Olympics (International Olympic Committee, 2019; Gao & Bu, 2011; Essex & Chalkey, 2003).

Since then, an increasing number of studies which analyzed the historical origins of Olympic villages and how they have evolved over time, demonstrated that Olympic villages have become central structures of host cities, capturing an ever so growing urban role

(Muñoz, 2006). Studies of Olympic villages have also been conducted in the bigger realms of urban transformations of Olympic host cities, analyzing infrastructural changes that have been brought about through the Olympic games and post-Olympic legacies and after-use of the Olympic villages (Essex & Chalkey, 2003).

(19)

5.2 Case Studies of Past Olympics

Two past Olympics games, Barcelona (1992) and Athens (2004), and their respective Olympic villages are introduced. The following criteria were taken into account when

choosing these two case studies:

1. Only Summer Olympics were examined, due to their popularity, scale and most importantly their event location being predominantly large

metropolitan areas (Sivaev, 2013).

2. Only Olympics from 1988 onwards were reviewed, since then a common trend for Olympics has been the large-scale urban transformation of host cities, which is a key focus of this study.

3. Only Olympic games providing information on both positive and negative outcomes were reviewed. One of each was preferred for this analysis, thereby creating a spectrum of possible outcomes applicable to previous and future Olympics.

4. The time frame since the events have taken place is highly relevant. In the cases of Barcelona and Athens, the games ended 28 years and 16 years ago respectively. These long follow-ups have provided a solid research base of information for each host city, while also allowing for adequate time to pass in order to judge whether these Olympics had tangible benefits or not.

(20)

5.2.1 The Barcelona 1992 Summer Olympics

The 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona are considered a true success, both from an event and also a legacy perspective (Fava, 2012). The games provided Barcelona with the opportunity to re-launch its role as the Catalonian capital in the cultural, economic and political spheres of Spain and re-market itself as one of the great modern European cities (Fava, 2012).

The success of the event can be attributed to the unique circumstances that prevailed when decisions to host the Olympics in Barcelona were made. Firstly, the 1980s in Barcelona was a time of urban renewal and the restoration of public spaces (Fava, 2012). The hosting of the Olympics simply accelerated this process. Secondly, rather than having one central area for the Olympics to take place, the facilities for the games were spread throughout the city into several sub-sites (Image 1, see 5.2.2) (Fava, 2012; Sivaev, 2013). And lastly, another reason why the games were so successful was the continuous collaboration of local, regional and national actors cooperating in the planning, construction and execution of the games. This in return led to a large-scale level of public consent towards the games (Sivaev, 2013; Fava, 2012; London East Research Institute, 2007).

5.2.2 The Barcelona Olympic Villages

The pinnacle piece of the infrastructural changes for the Barcelona Olympics was the construction of the main Olympic village in Poblenou, Sant Martí district of Barcelona on a previous industrial site (Image 1 & Image Appendix 1 [A1]) (International Olympic

Committee, 2018).

Following the construction of the Olympic village and transformation of the Poblenou area, the district became a popular attraction for local citizens and tourists during the games. After the games, the village was turned into a residential area and remains a popular district of Barcelona to visit (Images A2 & A3). However, the Olympic village in Poblenou was not

(21)

the only Olympic village and accommodation site build for the Olympics; in fact, two

additional Olympic villages were created to house a small number of athletes involved locally in the canoeing and rowing events6 (International Olympic Committee, 2018).

Image 1

The Olympic Zones in Barcelona

Note. Zone 1 indicated by the red circle, shows the Olympic village in Poblenou. Zones 2-4

display the Olympic venues for the different events (Busquets, 2006, p. 445).

5.2.3 The Athens 2004 Summer Olympics

When Athens hosted the Olympics in 2004, the modern Olympic games returned to its birthplace for the second time after 1896. While the games were considered successful, the same cannot be said for its aftermath (Smith, 2012).

The Athens Olympic Park – once considered one of the most complete athletic complexes in Europe – is now merely a site of decay. The sites are unusable and falling apart as people told the Guardian (Smith, 2012). A major issue of the games was the large-scale construction and renovation of permanent rather than temporary venues. In total, 36 locations were either upgraded or newly constructed just for the games, but no concrete post-Olympic plan or usage existed for the majority of the venues (Smith, 2012).

(22)

However, the impacts of the Olympics were not entirely negative for Greece. In fact, the games massively improved the infrastructure around Athens, as a new airport, new metro and a new telecommunication system were built as a means to host the Olympics, albeit at highly unfavorable cost-benefit ratios (Smith, 2012).

5.2.4 The Athens Olympic Village

The Olympic village in Athens was constructed at the foot of Mount Parnitha in the municipality of Acharnes located 23 kilometers to the north of Athens (Image 2). The 124 hectares large area, which was previously uninhabited land, seemed to be the perfect site for what was at the times considered the biggest urban regeneration project in the history of Athens (Smith, 2012). Here, a miniature almost self-sustainable city featuring an ecological park, schools, a hospital and numerous other service-oriented businesses and shops were planed. The project included 366 building blocks with roughly 2,290 apartments to house approximately 17,000 people during and after the games (Image A4) (International Olympic Committee, 2018; Muñoz, 2006).

Image 2

The Olympic Zones in Athens

Note. The Olympic village in Acharnes, Athens, is indicated by the red oval (Athens 2004

(23)

6. Rio de Janeiro and the 2016 Summer Olympics

The last Summer Olympics held in Rio de Janeiro is the main focus of this research. This section will therefore provide the essential background information for the city of Rio de Janeiro and the 2016 Summer Olympics.

6.1 Rio de Janeiro as a Creative City

In the last fifteen years, the city of Rio de Janeiro has increasingly become a cultural hub for the staging of global mega-events, as it has hosted, amongst other events, the Pan American Games, Rio+207, the World Youth Day, the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic games in 2016 (Maiello & Pasquinelli, 2015). All these events have massively contributed to Brazil’s recent growth, which has seen large-scale urban development taking place all around the country. To change Brazil’s status as a developing country, Rio de Janeiro is the

dominant city model to showcase Brazil on a global stage.

In the last decades, things have however not always gone smooth for Rio de Janeiro. For example, the city was facing vast economic decline in the 1960s following the

appointment of Brasilia as the new federal capital. Rio de Janeiro also has a strong rivalry with Sao Paulo, the capital of the most populous and wealthiest state in Brazil and Latin America’s economic center (Steinbrink, 2013). Furthermore, Brazil’s economic slowdown in the last decade following the worldwide economic crisis back in 2008, saw a sizable

decreases in the demand for investments that severely affected Rio de Janeiro’s urban development process. Finally, Rio de Janeiro has an enormous slum problem and faces immense inequalities amongst its citizens with an extreme gap between the rich and poor parts of the population (Maiello & Pasquinelli, 2015).

During the last two decades, Brazilian politics have made concerted efforts to develop Rio de Janeiro into a creative city, focusing specifically on cultural and economic areas (Marsh, 2016). The first attempt was already detectable in 2000 with the inauguration of the

(24)

cultural economy (Marsh, 2016). In 2012, Rio de Janeiro was one of the first cities to receive the honor of being declared a World Heritage Site8, followed by the honor of being the first

World Capital of Architecture in 2020. These brandings can be seen as attempts to create an

international forum to develop solutions towards issues of cultural heritage, urban planning and architecture (Gibson, 2019; Marsh, 2016).

6.2 The Rio de Janeiro 2016 Summer Olympics

Holding the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro meant that the Olympics were hosted for the second time since the turn of the century, since the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing China, by a ‘global south’ nation (Dados & Connell, 2012). The 2016 Olympics provided another opportunity for the city of Rio de Janeiro to effectively capitalize on its continuous economic growth and development by staging yet another mega-event (Maiello & Pasquinelli, 2015; Steinbrink, 2013).

6.3 The Rio de Janeiro Olympic Village

The Rio de Janeiro Olympic village located in Barra de Tijuca, the southwest of the city (Image 3), is the largest Olympic village ever constructed for Olympic games

(International Olympic Committee, 2018; Eisenhammer, 2016a). With a staggering 31 building blocks, 3,600 apartments with a total capacity of 18,000 individuals, the intention was that this event structure would provide housing not only for the athletes, but also for team officials and additional support staff, thereby taking some pressure off Rio de Janeiro’s hotels during the Olympics (Image A7) (International Olympic Committee, 2018; Griffin, 2016). Following the games, it was anticipated that the village would become Rio’s newest community of luxury apartments, at $700,000 a piece (Eisenhammer, 2016b; Phantom Urbanism).

(25)

Image 3

The Olympic Zones in Rio de Janeiro

Note. The Olympic village located in Barra de Tijuca is indicated by the small red circle

(26)

7. Methodology

The research design and data collection, measures for the creative city concept and the justification for my research approach are presented in this section.

7.1. Research Design and Data Collection

The research design of this study is a extended integrative literature review centered around the topic whether infrastructural changes made for the 2016 Summer Olympics succeeded in making Rio de Janeiro a more creative city. Specifically, the creation of the Olympic village, as an event structure built in relation to the Olympics, will be analyzed and used as the central determinant for the creative city concept. To this end, this thesis will first compare the Olympic village in Rio de Janeiro to those created for the 1992 and 2004 Summer Olympics in Barcelona and Athens, respectively. Additional topics that will be examined include, the Olympic legacy of the 2016 games and the long-term return on investments in the construction of the largest ever built Olympic village.

Data collection for this research study occurred through the extraction of quantitative and qualitative information in the form statistics and quotations from more than 30 secondary sources relating to the Olympics and specifically the three Olympic villages. Following the extraction, the statistics and the quotations were divided into two categories, either about the Olympics of each case study or about each Olympic village. The statistics and quotations are presented in Tables A1-A4; part of the data is also visualized in Figures 2-6 of the results section. All the information from the more than 30 sources is further utilized to evaluate whether and how the 2016 Summer Olympics and its Olympic village have contributed to Rio de Janeiro becoming a more creative city. The quotations from the various sources are specifically marked in the text as italicized passages.

(27)

7.2 Olympic Villages as Creative City Measure

Data obtained on the three Olympic villages from Barcelona, Athens and Rio de Janeiro are used as creative city measures in this study. Four criteria were established following the extraction of qualitative and quantitative information from various secondary resources: location, quality of apartments, after-use and locational infrastructure of the Olympic villages.

Location hereby refers to where the Olympic village is located in the host city and if its position is favorable in any way. The quality of apartments applies to any problems that occurred in or with the village during and after the games. The after-use describes the function and purpose of the Olympic village following the Olympics as an event and the locational infrastructure refers to any organizational structures and facilities created in the village (e.g. Schools, supermarkets, hospitals, service shops, etc.) built especially for use after the games.

It is important to note here that the analysis using the four criteria to evaluate the long-term impact of the Olympic villages is solely based on the interpretation of the

information extracted from the numerous secondary sources. Although actual first hand field observations would be more fascinating, this would have required much more time and resources. Based on the varied sources, it can therefore be expected that the details and amount of information for each criteria in regards to each Olympic village will differ. 7.3 Justification of Research Design Choice and Creative City Measures

An extended integrative literature review was chosen as a research design for this study, as it was the most viable and realizable design choice that provides an optimal outcome under the given circumstances. Also, the data collection method chosen for this thesis is based on the information in these secondary qualitative and quantitative sources. Secondly, two past Olympic cases were analyzed and used as references to evaluate the

(28)

outcomes and legacies of the Rio de Janeiro Olympics and Olympic village in comparison to other Olympic games. The favorable amount of information and the additional criteria outlined in Sections 7.1 & 7.2 made the Barcelona and Athens Olympics obvious reference choices.

In regards to measuring the creative city concept, certain measurement choices were made. While the perspectives of Charles Landry (Section 3.3) and Richard Florida (Section 3.4) provide useful insights into what can define and characterize a creative city, their perspectives however, largely fail to include any infrastructural aspects, which are core elements in this study. In addition, although the Creative Communities Index (CCI), the Cultural Life Index (CLI), the Creative Grid (CG) and the Urban Development Index (UDI) provided by Hartley et al. (2012) and by Molinaro et al. (2020) are viable creative city measures that also take into account infrastructural aspects, however none of these indexes have previously been compiled for Rio de Janeiro, Barcelona or Athens.

Indicators that do however consider infrastructural aspects and have previously been applied to the three Olympics, are Olympic villages, central event structures that are

considered spaces of experimentation and infrastructural freedom. These structures realize urban models and architectural proposals, which have failed to materialize throughout the rest of the host city (Muñoz, 2006). Moreover, Olympic villages are often also the first place critics turn to, if they want to infer whether the outcomes of an Olympics have been

successful or not, which makes them ideal creative city measures (Muñoz, 2006; Gao & Bu, 2011).

(29)

8. Results

In order to understand the huge difference in outcomes of the three Olympic games in Barcelona (1992), Athens (2004) and Rio de Janeiro (2016), it is important to provide event context and also display changes in some of the key numbers surrounding the games. Important parameters to describe such mega-events are the overall numbers of athletes that participated and therefore need caretaking, and the number of events that were staged in the three Summer Olympics. Compared to Barcelona, the increases in athletes were rather modest with 12% more participants in Athens and roughly 22% more in Rio de Janeiro as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Number of Participating Athletes at the Olympic Games

Note. (International Olympic Committee, 2018).

Despite the continuous addition of new sport disciplines to the Olympic games, the number of events staged was almost the same between Athens (301) and Rio de Janeiro (306). Compared to these two Olympics, only 15% less events (257) were organized in Barcelona.

(30)

Although we can observe a steady increase in the number of participating athletes and the number of staged events from 1992 until 2016, indicating the Olympics are expanding in overall event size (Figures 2 & 3), the number of venues has remained fairly constant over the years ranging between 36 and 43, even slightly decreasing from Barcelona to Athens and Rio (Table A1) (International Olympic Committee, 2018; Alexandri, 2018; Davis, 2017; Settimi, 2016).

Figure 3

Number of Staged Events at the Olympic Games

Note. (Organizing Committee of Olympic Games Barcelona '92, 1992; International Olympic

Committee, 2004; Settimi, 2016).

Furthermore, there is a growing interest for the Olympics around the world as the estimated global audience grew from 3.5 billion to 5.0 billion viewers (Figure 4)

(31)

Figure 4

Global Audience of the Three Olympic Games

Note. (Organizing Committee of Olympic Games Barcelona '92, 1992; International Olympic

Committee, 2004; Settimi, 2016).

Very large increases occurred in the final costs of the Olympics, which are the costs that involve the planning and hosting of the event from start to finish. While the games cost Barcelona roughly 9.7 billion US dollars, this number increased to 16 billion dollars for Athens and even 20 billion US dollars for Rio. Moreover, the enormous differences between the estimated cost and the final costs indicate an overall sense of underestimation when it comes to planning and hosting of the events (Figure 5) (McBride, 2018).

Particularly for the games in Athens the final cost differed from the estimated costs by a staggering 13 billion US dollars (> 500%). While the Olympics in Rio de Janeiro were more expensive than the games in Athens, a better prediction was made of how expensive the games would be. Thus, while the Olympics are growing only moderately in size and interest, over a time period of more than 20 years, they are becoming much more expensive to host. This information is summarized in Table A1 in the appendix and Figure 5 in the text. Noteworthy, these tables and figures do not take inflation into account.

(32)

Figure 5

Estimated and Final Costs for the Three Olympic Games

Note. (McBride, 2018).

The Olympic villages as previously mentioned are the physical structures used to measure the creative city concept in relation to each host city. Firstly, all three villages were newly constructed for each Olympics and intended to become residential areas after the games (International Olympic Committee, 2018). The Barcelona village was strategically well placed, while the village in Athens was located outside of the city on previously empty land and the Rio de Janeiro village was planed on the grounds of a formerly impoverished neighborhood.

Furthermore, while the villages shared similar housing capacities of 14,000, 17,000 and 18,000 occupants respectively, the size of each Olympic village largely differed. The Barcelona village was the smallest in size with 45,000 m2_{and Athens being the largest} (1,240,000 m2). This is mainly due to the location and space that was available for the

villages to be constructed on. Surprisingly, despite Athens having the largest Olympic village it was by far the cheapest. In contrast the Barcelona Olympic village, was more than three

(33)

times more expensive and also much more expensive than the Rio de Janeiro Olympic village considering the 28 years that lay between these two Olympics (Figure 6) (McBride, 2018; MBM Arquitectes).

Figure 6

Construction Costs of the Three Olympic Villages

Note. (McBride, 2018; MBM Arquitectes).

Table 3A and Table 4A display the qualitative data in the form of quotes taken from various reports and news sources exhibiting the opinions and remarks people had in regards to the three Olympics and their respective Olympic villages. While the remarks for the Barcelona Olympics were overall positive as it is considered “one of the most successful

Olympics ever”, the remarks of the Athens and Rio Olympics were mostly negative (Essex &

Chalkey, 2003). Athens was labeled mismanaged fantasy that has helped [to] put Greece in a

hole” and the Rio Olympics being referred to as the reason “why more and more cities wary of hosting the games” (Berlin, 2015; Davis, 2017). Similar to the remarks about the overall

(34)

village in Table 4A are enthusiastic naming the village(s) “symbols of modern Barcelona.” For the Athens Olympic village and the Rio Olympic village, the remarks are uniformly negative calling it a “ghost-town” and “a visceral monument to now-faded optimism” respectively (Flamer, 2017; Eisenhammer, 2016a).

(35)

9. Discussion

The main objective of this study was to investigate how the legacy of the Olympic village of the 2016 Summer Olympics has impacted Rio de Janeiro as a creative city.

According to definitions of creative cities by Landry (2008), Florida (2003) and Richard and Palmer (2010), Rio de Janeiro could already be considered a creative city long before the 2016 Summer Olympics. In fact, Steinbrink (2013) argued that Rio de Janeiro has steadily worked towards becoming a creative city, since a steady period of growth and development was set in motion in the mid 2000s. The city hereby used the hosting of mega-events as central growth strategy to conduct large-scale transformation to the city’s infrastructure, while also attempting to tackle problems of inequality and housing. Therefore, hosting the 2016 Summer Olympics was seen as the perfect opportunity for the city to continue its growth momentum.

While the Rio de Janeiro Olympic games were considered to be a success, the pre- and post-Olympic periods were devastating. The problems for Rio de Janeiro began long before the actual hosting of the Olympics. Back in 2007, when Rio won the bid to host both the Olympics and Para-Olympics, the Brazilian economy was rapidly growing. However, when it was time to stage the Olympics a decade later, Brazil was in the worst recession since the 1930s, experiencing negative growth and failing to obtain the necessary funds to cover the immense cost of the games (Flyvbjerg et al., 2016; Dendura, 2019). Costing around 20 billion US dollars, the 2016 Summer Olympics were the second most expensive Summer Olympics of all time, only topped by the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing (McBride, 2018). However, considering this large amount of money, surprisingly little improvements in the overall infrastructure of the city were noted. Also inequality and slum dwellings still remained. In fact, rather than solving any issues, the Olympics removed people from their homes, worsened the gentrification in the city and large-scale corruption increased (Gaffney,

(36)

2016; Facconi, 2017; British Broadcasting Corporation, 2020). To this day most of the Olympic infrastructure from the 2016 games remains abandoned or underused and the Rio de Janeiro organizational committee is still tremendously indebted to its suppliers (Dendura, 2019).

Steinbrink (2013) and Schwambach (2011) attribute these immense failures, despite the good intentions, to the compact timeframe and limited financial resources that Olympic host cities are facing. The inability to achieve rapid and profound changes in very short timeframes is the reason why host cities tend to make use of short-term measures such as the use of demolition and forced evictions. Additionally, the failure by organizers, local city authorities and also the IOC to properly plan and design an Olympic concept that is sustainable and can positively impact a city in the long-run is another problem. Currently, only the 1992 Barcelona Olympics are considered an all out sustainable Olympics, most other host cities have dramatically failed in creating adequate lasting outcomes (Sivaev, 2013; London East Research Institute, 2007).

Creating positive legacies is indeed often challenging, given the elements and achievements that have to come together. To do so, legacies should be envisioned and planned long prior to the actual hosting of the event. What makes this so challenging is that in the long run, most legacies lose their power and utility, and can only be truly evaluated long after the passing of the actual event, as only then the real impacts of the games become visible (Preuss, 2015; Preuss, 2007). While measures have been introduced and things are changing in the event structure of the Olympics, the Rio Olympics nonetheless failed to live up to its promises and expectations.

A major contributing factor to failed promises and expectations have been the legacies around the Olympic villages. Using the Barcelona Olympic village as positive

(37)

example for outcomes and sustained legacies, the same long-term results were not achieved for the Athens or the Rio de Janeiro villages.

The creation of the Barcelona Olympic village on a former industrial site by the waterfront and its close proximity to the city center and to the Olympic venues made this socially deprived area a favorable location and an obvious choice for the Olympic village (Muñoz, 2006). It “gave the city not only a modern residential neighborhood, but also new

beaches, large gardened areas and public facilities” that were “not only for its use during the Olympics, but also for the citizens’ use later on” (International Olympic Committee,

2017; Jordan, 2017). Muñoz (2006) argues that present day Barcelona would not be the same, had the Olympic village not been built at the waterfront in Poblenou. To this day, it “is still

considered one of the best examples of mixed-use redevelopment of industrial areas”

(Sivaev, 2013).

The Athens Olympic village was “acknowledged at the time of its construction as the

best housing complex ever built for a Games” “the biggest urban regeneration project in the history of Athens”, and “a great plan to regenerate the area”. And while the village

performed its purpose of accommodating the Olympic athletes during the games and despite the fact that a concrete plan for the after-use of the village existed, much of the essential service infrastructure was never built. Today, the Olympic village is merely “a depressing

site, litter-strewn and derelict”, massively under-occupied, poorly maintained and affected

by decay (Smith, 2012; Govan, 2011). People have described it as a “ghost town”, “a

disaster” and “a symbol of national shame” that never fulfilled its purpose of becoming a

dynamic and lively extension of the city of Athens (Flamer, 2017; Govan, 2011; International Olympic Committee, 2018).

The outcomes and legacy of the Rio de Janeiro Olympic village have been similarly devastating, caring an overall negative connotation. Initially seen as a place “meant to

(38)

become Rio’s newest community, a bustling legacy of the 17-day sporting event”, the reality

however was very different, as large areas of the site were “unfit for occupancy” and “not

safe or ready” just weeks before the start of the Olympics (Schmidt, 2016; Griffin, 2016;

Eisenhammer, 2016a). After the Olympics, the process of handing over the apartments to its owners massively stagnated, as further safety and quality issues transpired which led to the partial closing of the site (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2020). In anger over poor

management and failure to finish their apartments, many potential homeowners returned their properties. The government and city authorities learned the hard way that they had “missed a

chance to build affordable housing” (Eisenhammer, 2016a). As of 2017, the site is still ill

maintained and continues to have severe problems, resulting in an average occupancy rate of only 7% (Eisenhammer, 2016b; Davis, 2017).

In sharp contrast to the Olympic villages in Athens and Rio de Janeiro, the Barcelona Olympic village created a new ecosystem and structures that meet the present and future needs of the city of Barcelona and its citizens. The Athens and Rio de Janeiro Olympic villages had the same potential to achieve positives outcomes and desired legacies, which could have lead to both cities becoming more creative cities. However, the organizing committees, city authorities and the IOC completely failed in realizing the potential, due to large disparities between the post-Olympic values of the apartments and the poor quality standards built. It is not until host cities realize the opportunities that the Olympics can provide and are able to set clear and realizable objectives for themselves, anticipating what the hosting of the Olympics can bring to the city and its people. Cities can use Barcelona as an excellent example of what successful hosting of a mega-event and its legacy can look like to guide them, but they should also be aware that each city is different and clearly in need of different measures to create positive outcomes and sustainable legacies.

(39)

10. Conclusion

The main objective of this research study was to investigate, how the legacy of the Olympic village of the 2016 Summer Olympics has impacted Rio de Janeiro as a creative city? This was achieved by a comparing three Olympic villages Rio de Janeiro, Barcelona and Athens as central event structures in the cities individual pursuits in using the Olympic games as catalysts for large-scale urban development. The results of my analysis demonstrated that using the momentum of the 2016 Summer Olympics and especially the Olympic village for advancing Rio de Janeiro as a creative city have largely failed under the current Olympic guidelines, as the main outcomes and legacies are that are enormous debt, abandoned venues and increase inequalities. Nevertheless, Rio de Janeiro could already be considered a creative city prior to the Olympics through the hosting of previous mega-events, the 2016 Summer Olympics were simply a setback in Rio de Janeiro’s pursuit of accelerate the creative city process.

10.1 Research Contributions

This study was able to generate profound insights into the realms of the Olympic games by blending the creative city concept and Olympic villages, two narratives that have only been seldom used in conjunction. Of particular significance has been the realization that the Olympic villages can be viable structures to evaluate the creative city concept if applied correctly. Moreover, this study has taken a critical stance, arguing that after 1992, event organizers, city authorities and the IOC have continuously failed to produce positive outcomes and desired legacies under the current Olympic guidelines. Changes to these guidelines must be made and the IOC and other organizing committees must take greater financial and organizational responsibility and establish a more active role in the planning and design process of mega-events.

(40)

10.2 Limitations and Practical Implications

While the use of an extended literature review was the most feasible and effective research design given the prerequisites of this thesis, it was also a limitation. Solely interpreting, evaluating and making use of secondary sources can greatly affect the timeliness, reliability and accuracy of the data, which could have been improved by using primary sources or even doing fieldwork. The reliability and accuracy of the data was also affected by the utilization of some less reputable sources, which were used due to the meager availability of reliable data about the Olympics and especially about Olympic villages. Additionally, policy statements by large organizations such as the IOC are rarely objective and based on facts, but rather on visions of an ideal world. Moreover, analyzing whether Rio has become more creative through the Olympics solely from the perspective of Olympic villages severely limits the generalizability for the whole city and overall Olympic legacy, as Olympic villages only pose a small part of the infrastructural changes that take place in a host city to stage the Olympics. Focusing on a greater number of infrastructural changes than simply the Olympic villages and extending the study to more Olympic host cities would increase the quality, generalizability and scope of this research.

10.3 Lessons Learned

Conducting this research study and writing this thesis has been an important learning endeavor. Firstly, it has deepened my interest towards the creative city initiative, a novel concept to me. Secondly, it has inspired the pursuit of future internships, an area for my master’s degree and even future job opportunities in the field of city development,

sustainability and innovation. And lastly, it has opened my eyes towards a failed system and wasted potential that the Olympics portray under the current event guidelines and regulations of the IOC.

(41)

10.4 Future Research

Although I am convinced that hosting mega-events can be a viable approach to sustainably transform and restructure host cities on a global scale, I do however believe that under the current designs, the hosting of these events sets host cities up for failure. The preliminary findings and notions of this study in conjunction with future research studies on the topics of the creative city initiative and urban development through mega-events have significant potential in proposing feasible new strategies to avoid these significant failures. Future research must also evaluate whether holding organizing bodies of mega-events accountable for their past failures can be an realistic approach to the creating the positive outcomes and desired legacies of such events. To do this, more in depth analysis of mega-events and the role organizing authorities have under its current system must be performed, in order for necessary changes to be realized. Only then can false promises be turned into real change.

(42)

11. Endnotes

1_{An integrative literature review evaluates both qualitative and quantitative research} studies (Torraco, 2005).

2_{The creative class can be defined as people, who create value, are involved in} problem solving and provide meaningful solutions to existing problems. All people can be creative, but the creative class is fortunate enough to be paid for their creativity in their work (Florida, 2003).

3_{Festivalization and eventification refer to the use of a specific occasion by city} authorities to conduct city staging and promote urban development (Maiello & Pasquinelli, 2015; Steinbrink, 2013).

4 _{Image boosting refers to a form of city branding to improve the perception and} reputation of a city in peoples minds (Zhang & Zhao, 2009).

5_{Gentrified comes from gentrification and refers to the process when a shift from} lower income to higher-income households occurs in an area, which often also involves “a change in racial and ethnic make-up of a neighborhood’s residents and businesses” (Bates, 2013).

6_{The two additional Olympic villages for the canoeing and rowing events were} constructed 178 km and 130 km outside of Barcelona in La Seu d’Urgell and Banyoles respectively (International Olympic Committee, 2018).

7_{Rio+20 stands for the 2012 United Nations National Conference on Sustainable} Development that took place in Rio de Janeiro (Steinbrink, 2013).

8_{Declared a World Heritage Site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and} Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

(43)

12. References

III-Raga, M. (2016, August 5). From Barcelona 1992 to Rio 2016: A Tale of Two Olympic Cities. RioOnWatch. https://www.rioonwatch.org/?p=31258

2016 Summer Olympics – Rio Olympics Venues. KnowYourMeme.

https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1155585-2016-summer-olympics

2016 Venues (2020). Architecture of the games.

https://architectureofthegames.net/rio-2016_venues/

ACN & Marina Force (2016, October 17). 30 years since Barcelona’s Olympic nomination.

Catalan News.

https://www.catalannews.com/life-style/item/30-years-since-barcelona-s-olympic-nomination

Alexandri, G. (2018). PLANNING GENTRIFIATION AND THE ‘ABSENT’ STATE IN ATHENS. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 41(1), 36-50. DOI:10.1111/1468-2427.12566

Aragao, T. & Maenning, W. (2013). Mega Sporting Events, Real Estate, and Urban Social Economics – The Case of Brazil 2014/2016. Hamburg Contemporary Economic

Discussion. 47, 1-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2973312

Athens 2004 Organizing Committee (1999). Boxing (Pigmaxia). http://www.apada.com/2004/map_files/Boxing.html

Barcelona Bus Turístic. (2017). Olympic village Transports de Barcelona, SA. https://www.barcelonabusturistic.cat/en/olympic-village

Barcelona Film Commission. Port Olímpic de Barcelona. Ajuntament de Barcelona Institut de Cultura. https://www.bcncatfilmcommission.com/en/location/port-olimpic-de-barcelona

(44)

Bates, L. K. (2013). Gentrification and Displacement Study: Implementing an Equitable Inclusive Development Strategy in the Context of Gentrification. Urban Studies and

Planning Faculty Publications and Presentations.

https://doi.org/10.15760/report-01

Berlin, P. (2015, July 10). How the Olympics rotted Greece. Politico. https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-olympics-rotted-greece/

Bloor, S. (2014, August 13). Abandoned Olympic 2004 venues, 10 years on – in pictures. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/gallery/2014/aug/13/abandoned-athens-olympic-2004-venues-10-years-on-in-pictures

British Broadcasting Corporation.(2020, January 16). Rio Olympic Park: Judge order closure

of site over safety concerns.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-51133312

Busquets, J. (2006). Barcelona – The Urban Evolution of a Compact City. Harvard University.

Clark, J. (2015, October 6). What L.A can learn from the 1992 Barcelona Olympics. Los

Angeles Times.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/livable-city/la-ol-1006-2024-olympics-burbank-barcelona-olympics-20151005-story.html

Dados, N. and Connell, R. (2012). The global south. Contexts. 11(1), 12-13. DOI: 10.1177/1536504212436479

Davis, S (2017, July 18). Rio’s $700 million athletes village was turned into luxury condos but is now reportedly ‘shuttered’ and 93% vacant. Business Insider.

https://www.businessinsider.com/rio-olympics-athletes-village-mostly-vacant-2017-7?r=DE&IR=T

(45)

Dendura, B. (2019). Olympic Infrastructure – Global Problems of Local Communities on the Example of Rio 2016, PyeongChang 2018 and Krakow 2023. Sustainability.

141(12), 1-19. doi:10.3390/su12010141

Drehs, W. & Lajolo, M. (2017, August 10). After The Flame. ESPN.

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/20292414/the-reality-post-olympic-rio Eisenhammer, S. (2016a, July 19). Rio risks empty Olympic legacy as real estate stalls.

Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-olympics-rio-realestate-insight-idUSKCN0ZZ179

Eisenhammer, S. (2016b, July 28b). IOC warned Rio on construction contracts five years ago: documents. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-olympics-rio- village/ioc-warned-rio-on-construction-contracts-five-years-ago-documents-idUSKCN1082MR

Essex, S. & Chalkey, B. (2003). Urban transformation from hosting the Olympic Games. University lecture on the Olympics. Centre’ d’Estudis Olímpics (UAB).

Evans, G. (2017, August 26). Haunting pictures show what the abandoned Rio Olympic Park

looks like now. Indy100.

https://www.indy100.com/article/rio-olympic-games-2016- haunting-pictures-of-venues-pool-velodrome-look-like-now-neglected-ghost-town-7913801

Evans, G. (2019). Creative Cities, Creative Spaces and Urban Policy. Urban Studies. 46(5,6), 1003-1040. DOI: 10.1177/0042098009103853

Facconi, I. M. (2017). “Mega-Sports Events, Gentrification and Social Mobilization in Rio de

Janeiro” [Specialization in Development Management, Faculty of Social Sciences].

University of Agder.

(46)

Girona.

Flamer, K. (2017, February 28). The Olympic Shames: Rio and Athens Sports Venues Abandoned. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/keithflamer/2017/02/28/the-olympic-shames-rio-and-athens-sports-venues-abandoned/#e4d571eca0c4 Florida, R. (2003). Cities and the Creative Class. City & Community. 2(1), 1-19.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6040.00034

Flyvbjerg, B., Stewart, A. & Budzier, A. (2016). The Oxford Olympics Study 2016: Cost and Cost Overrun at the Games. Saïd Business School Research Papers. University of Oxford. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2804554

Gaffney, C. (2016). Gentrifications in pre-Olympic Rio de Janeiro. Urban Geography. 37(8), 1132-1153, DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2015.1096115

Gao, X. & Bu, T. (2011). Research on Historical Origin of Olympic Village. Asian Social

Science. 7(3), 123-130. DOI: 10.5539/ass.v7n3p123

Gatopoulos, D. (2010, June 3). Did 2004 Olympics Spark Greek Financial Crisis. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/id/37484301#:~:text=%22Had%20Athens%20still%20been %20outmoded,on%20the%202004%20Games%20budget.

Gibson, E. (2019, January 25). UNESCO names Rio de Janeiro first World Capital of Architecture. Dezeen. https://www.dezeen.com/2019/01/25/rio-de-janeiro-world-capital-of-architecture-2020-unesco-uia/

Govan, F. (2011, June 23). Greece’s Olympic dream has turned into a nightmare for Village residents. The Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8595360/Greeces-Olympic-dream-has-turned-into-a-nightmare-for-Village-residents.html

(47)

Griffin, J (2016, June 15). Olympic exclusion zone: the gentrification of a Rio favela. The

Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jun/15/rio-olympics-exclusion-zone-gentrification-favela-babilonia

Hartley, J., Potts, J., MacDonald, T., Erkunt, C. & Kufleitner. C. (2012). The CCI Creative City Index. ARC Centre of Excellence in Creative Industries and Innovation (CCI). Queensland University of Technology, (QUT), Brisbane, Australia. DOI:

10.5334/csci.41

International Olympic Committee. (2004). Athens 2004 Olympic Games Global Television

Report. Lausanne: Comité International Olympique.

International Olympic Committee. (2013). Olympic Legacy. Lausanne: Comité International Olympique.

International Olympic Committee. (2017). IOC Legacy Strategic Approach: Moving

Forward. Lausanne: Comité International Olympique.

International Olympic Committee. (2018). Olympic Summer Games Villages from Paris 1924

to Rio 2016. The Olympic Studies Centre. Lausanne: Comité International

Olympique.

International Olympic Committee. (2019). Olympic Charter 2019. Lausanne: Comité International Olympique.

Jordan, G. (2017, July 21). Barcelona 25 years on from 1992 Olympics: a city still glittering a little too much? Catalan News.

https://www.catalannews.com/society- science/item/barcelona-25-years-on-from-1992-olympics-a-city-still-glittering-a-little-too-much

Landry, C. (2008). The Creative City: a toolkit for urban innovators. Earthscan.

(48)

Comedia Publications Limited.

LDK Consultants. (2018). Olympics Village, Athens, Greece.

https://www.ldk.gr/index.php/en/component/ldkprojects/?view=project&id=154-olympic-village-athens-greece

Li, S. & McCabe, S. (2013). Measuring the Socio-Economic Legacies of Mega-events: Concepts, Propositions and Indicators. International Journal of Tourism Research.

15(4), 388-402. DOI: 10.1002/jtr.1885

London East Research Institute. (2007). A Lasting Legacy for London? Assessing the legacy

of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. Greater London Authority.

University of East London.

Maiello, A. & Pasquinelli, C. (2015). Destruction or construction? A (counter) branding analysis of sport mega-events in Rio de Janeiro. Cities, 46, 116-124. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2015.06.011

Malfas, M., Theodoraki, E. & Houlihan, B. (2004). Impacts of the Olympic Games as mega-events. Municipal Engineer. 157(3), 209-220. DOI: 10.1680/muen.157.3.209.49461 Marsh, L. (2016). Branding Brazil Through Cultural Policy: Rio de Janeiro as a Creative,

Audiovisual City. International Journal of Communication. 10, 3022-3041. MBM Arquitectes. Olympic Village, Port and Litoral.

https://www.world- architects.com/en/mbm-arquitectes-barcelona/project/olympic-village-port-and-

litoral-park#:~:text=The%20budget%20for%20this%20project,700%20millions%20%E2 %82%AC%20private%20financing).

(49)

McBride, J. (2018, January 19). The Economics of Hosting the Olympic Games. Council on

Foreign Relations.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/economics-hosting-olympic-games#main-content

Molinaro, R., Najjar, M. K., Hammad, A. W., Haddad, A. & Vazquez, E. (2020). Urban Development Index (UDI): A Comparison between the City of Rio de Janeiro and Four Other Global Cities. Sustainability. 12(3), 823.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030823

Muñoz, F. (2006). Olympic urbanism and Olympic Villages: planning strategies in Olympic host cities, London 1908 to London 2012. The Editorial Board of the Sociological

Review. 54, 175-187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00660.x

Myers, J. (2016, July 29). The cost of hosting every Olympics since 1964. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/the-cost-to-cities-of-hosting-the-

olympics-since-1964/#:~:text=A%20Summer%20Olympic%20Games%20now,only%20include%2 0sports%2Drelated%20costs.&text=In%20fact%2C%20nearly%20half%20have,ov erruns%20of%20more%20than%20100%25.

Organizing Committee of Olympic Games Barcelona '92. (1992). Official Report of the

Games of the XXV Olympiad Barcelona 1992: Volume 1 – The Challenge.

COOB’92, S.A.

Organizing Committee of Olympic Games Barcelona '92. (1992). Official Report of the

Games of the XXV Olympiad Barcelona 1992: Volume 2 – The means. COOB’92,

Transformative Legacy of the 2016 Summer Olympic Structures on Rio de Janeiro as a Creative City