Utilization of Olympic Stadiums: a conceptual stadium legacy framework

Abstract

Purpose

Olympic Stadiums are expensive and large constructions. The media often report on cost overruns based on the extravagant appearance of an Olympic Stadium and the lack of its postgames utilization. The aim of this paper is to provide a conceptual stadium legacy framework consisting of four dimensions and twelve functions that an Olympic Stadium can potentially have.

Design/methodology/approach

These were identified by an extensive literature research and an analysis of the findings. Additionally, we collected available data on the specific Olympic Stadiums under review (1984–2016).

Findings

The utilization of Olympic Stadiums varies greatly from city to city. However, 12 functions can be observed as being valid for Olympic Stadiums. The dimensions with its functions are interpreted by the positive/negative values which Olympic Stadiums can have for particular stakeholders. The benefits can be local, regional, national or international. The framework also delivers interconnections of the functions and shows how they interlock and how they can potentially boost the benefits.

Practical implications

Future bid cities that consider constructing a large stadium can plan their stadium legacy by developing business cases based on the 12 functions developed in this paper. This offers a direct link to marketing, as iconic stadiums and urban development support city marketing.

Originality/value

To date, the complexity of functions and their interconnections, as well as their potential values, have not been examined. Thus, many (media) critiques oversee the benefits an Olympic Stadium can have besides its proper sport utilization.

Citation

Preuss, H. and Plambeck, A. (2021), "Utilization of Olympic Stadiums: a conceptual stadium legacy framework", International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 10-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-06-2020-0110

Introduction

The existence of sufficient infrastructure is very important when a city is bidding for a major- or mega-scale sporting event. If that infrastructure is inadequate or missing, then the public costs are high, and the population may not support that event. If, in particular, a large stadium is not existing in a city, it is a good indicator that such a stadium is not needed. Before building one that is required for the mega event, a city should develop a postevent utilization plan that can be based on the 12 functions a stadium can have, which will be presented in this paper.

Regarding the Olympic Stadium for Paris 2024, David Proult (Elected, Sustainable urban planning, Saint-Denis, Paris) said at an Olympic Conference in June 2019: “The Olympic Stadium is the Centerpiece of the Olympic Games,” which promotes the fact that a stadium is more than just a location for the opening ceremony and athletics.

The aim of this paper is to contribute to the above by developing a model, which provides and explains the full variety and interconnections of stadium utilization. Thus, we construct a conceptual stadium legacy framework. In the literature and through the works of city planners, the postgames utilization of an Olympic Stadium is limited to being a sports venue and event location. Therefore, we undertook a rigorous research concerning stadium legacies, and we demonstrate that this approach is inadequate. Our stadium legacy framework is much broader and considers functions such as the architecture of the stadium, which can be a point of interest for tourists and a demonstration of state-of-the-art construction.

Systematization of postgames utilization of Olympic Stadiums

The literature review on the legacy of Olympic Stadiums started with a search of available databases about the legacy of stadiums. We found three papers on the wider spectrum of possible postgames utilization of Olympic Stadiums. A complete overview could not be found.

He et al. (2010) provide a tabular overview of the functions of various Olympic Parks, including Olympic Stadiums. Their approach appears incomplete and lacks a well-founded theory. Unfortunately, concrete references to sources are missing. Those authors categorize Olympic Stadiums according to three functions:

1. Landmark building with extraordinary architecture, which is a symbol for the host city and attracts visitors,

2. Sports facility open to the population, and

3. Further attraction that the host city can create by modifying the stadium.

Fang and Wan (2014) investigated the use of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Stadium and its influence on the development of the Asian-Olympic Business District. The authors provide little information about the various other uses of a stadium.

Preuss et al. (2014) did not investigate the use of Olympic Stadiums, but instead, they investigated FIFA World Cup Stadiums. They identified four dimensions of a possible utilization for a stadium after the World Cup:

1. “Stadium in use.” This includes a subsequent classic use of the stadium as a sports facility, event location or tourist attraction. The visitors pay for that.

2. “Stadium as iconic building.” This is viewed by all event spectators at worldwide and national levels. Politicians signal their exemplary leadership and hope to be commemorated. The population is proud to have a visible identification, and the city/country signals strength and wealth.

3. “Stadium is presented.” Here it is seen as an exhibition piece in the form of a state-of-the-art construction, plus the related know-how and design skills. Exports may be stimulated, and other event organizers may want to learn from the venues that are displayed.

4. “Stadium as catalyst.” This means the stadium is a nucleus to attract new business and the development of an area around the stadium. It can also attract another event. New business development or new events stimulate economic activity.

Preuss et al. (2014) schematically show that decisions to construct a stadium are manifold. Their paper only analyzes the efficiency of the stadiums that were constructed/rebuilt for the FIFA World Cups in Korea/Japan (2002), Germany (2006) and South Africa (2010). Their analysis is not based on all four dimensions above and focuses only on the seating capacity and utilization rates of the stadiums. Other functions were either not noted or not elaborated.

Many papers deal with one or another function of (Olympic) Stadium utilization. Therefore, we undertook an extensive review of the literature (Table 3) to find all publications on postgames Olympic Stadium use, and these are illustrated in the next section. In this way, we found a mostly complete variety of potential legacies regarding Olympic Stadiums for Games in the past. These are incorporated into a framework that is built upon the four dimensions of Preuss et al. (2014).

Methodology

To develop the stadium legacy framework, we started with a literature review to find evidence of different utilizations of stadiums. We categorized the findings in terms of dimension and function, which were then interpreted by way of the value (benefits versus costs) the stadium provides for a city/nation. The values can be local, regional, national or international. In doing so, we could identify the interconnections of different functions and how they potentially boost the benefits.

A comprehensive literature search was carried out to examine the potential uses of Olympic Stadiums. We used the academic databases (SCOPUS, SportDiscus, SocIndex and Web of Science) and the online catalogs of the Universities in Mainz and Heidelberg, Germany. We searched articles that were published in peer-reviewed journals, using the Boolean operators AND and OR, between January 1, 1989, and December 31, 2018, using the following search terms (abstract, title, or keywords): ((“Olympic*Games*” OR “Major?Sport*?Event” OR “Mega?Sport*?Event”) AND (stadia?* OR venue* OR arena*) AND (architecture* OR design* OR construction* OR iconic?building?* OR monument* OR urban*development* OR catalyst)). Then, the lists of the papers found were analyzed to locate other relevant literature and cross-references were checked. In addition, the review on the legacy of the Olympic Games (Scheu et al., 2019) was used to cross-check and dig for additional sources. Finally, the intranet of the IOC was used because the IOC had built a database on Olympic Stadiums (IOC, 2020). After applying some broader exclusion criteria, we identified 150 relevant papers/studies.

Among the 150 papers, a considerable number had a focus on the impact or legacy of the Olympic Games but with no specific section discussing the functions of Olympic Stadiums. Many publications are merely descriptive or are written in the language of the host nation.

The present authors applied exclusion criteria that were defined in advance and then mutually agreed upon. The criteria for inclusion were: Refer to Olympic Stadiums and deal with the legacy of stadiums that are written in the English language. After applying these criteria, we identified n = 42 papers. Furthermore, 18 additional papers deal with aspects that are of high importance for our research but do not refer directly to Olympic Stadiums, but to other stadiums. We have included them because they contributed broaden our understanding of potential functions stadiums can have. Additionally, we could crosscheck that functions we found are also applicable to nonolympic major stadiums.

The conceptual framework underlies the four dimensions of Preuss et al. (2014) and was the foundation for the higher-level categories (the so-called functions) for our coding. We used (1) stadium as iconic building, (2) stadium as exhibition piece, (3) stadium as catalyst and (4) stadium as the venue. The second-level categories were developed inductively through our literature review and allowed us to build the functions of stadiums in each dimension. Snilstveit et al. (2012) note that the use of a coding framework is justified where the research question driving the analysis relates to defining or framing an issue which, in our case, is the legacy of Olympic Stadiums.

We used an inductive content analysis approach, as suggested by Marshall and Rossman (1999). This involved reading selected articles to identify themes and patterns that emerged from the text. Through a process of open coding, each of the present authors independently developed codes for describing key findings and different concepts related to the legacy of Olympic Stadiums addressed in the papers analyzed. Initial lists of codes were compared, discussed and consolidated by the two authors who then revisited the articles and sorted the findings into the four dimensions. Finally, we developed 12 sub-categories (functions) at the second level, and they were evenly distributed (n = 3) in each of the four major level categories (dimensions)

Results

We developed a framework, including all utilizations of stadiums and their interconnections. First, we illustrate twelve functions based on our literature review. Then we provide Table 1, including all Olympic Stadiums from 1984 to 2016, indicating how they are currently used. After that, we sort them by spatial considerations (national/international) and connect the benefits derived from the utilization by using causal-logic interactions.

Four dimensions and their functions

Based on the four dimensions in Preuss et al. (2014), we found as second-level categories twelve potential functions of an Olympic Stadium. The weight of each function is case sensitive (see Figure 1).

Dimension “stadium as venue”

The body of literature on the legacy of the Olympic Games has grown a lot in recent years (Scheu et al., 2019; Koengstorfer et al., 2019). The research on Olympic Stadiums shows that a solely sportive re-use was often problematic. An often-cited case is Athens, where the Olympic Stadium was not used for a long time (Wergeland, 2012). The costs of maintaining an Olympic Stadium, particularly due to its seating capacities, are immense, and therefore, Zimbalist (2017) refers to Olympic Stadiums in a populist way as “white elephants” (i.e. a costly purchase without a useful purpose). However, papers in the scholarly literature until 2018 do not provide an abundance of reliable data on how Olympic Stadiums are actually used after the Games. There are only a few data on the nonsport utilization, such as concerts or conferences using the stadium property and surroundings.

An Olympic Stadium is usually a place of interest. In addition to sports and nonsports events, there are many visitors and guided tours to show the Olympic Stadium as a building and past Games host. Sklair (2010) refers to this phenomenon as “stadium tourism.” The Olympic Stadium in Munich, for example, ranks second in terms of visitor numbers compared to other sights in Munich. Feng (2012) notes that Olympic Stadiums, which lack in utilization as sports or event location can generate revenues by becoming a sight-seeing venue for tourism purposes. According to Feng (2012), the main source of income for the Beijing Olympic Stadium is from stadium tourists. Beijing stadium is a classic example of sports usage failure due to the overcapacity of seating arrangements and high maintenance costs.

In summary, we found three stadium functions under this dimension, Stadium as Venue: The utilization for sport (events), for tourists to visit and for nonsport events.

Dimension “stadium as catalyst”

In urban planning, “catalysts are facilities–usually buildings–that generate urban development in their surroundings, thereby meriting community support, possibly in the form of public subsidies” (Sternberg, 2002, p. 31). In the literature, we identified three stadium functions as catalysts.

1. Develop the surrounding areas

The stadium can be a seed to develop the surrounding areas even when the stadium itself is not properly utilized after the Games. Since 1960, the Olympic Games have increasingly been used as a catalyst to implement far-reaching urban renewal, and the stadiums are closely linked to that (e.g. Balletto et al., 2018; Chen, 2015; Kiuri and Teller, 2015; Gold and Gold, 2008; Shoval, 2002; Chalkley and Essex, 1999; Essex and Chalkley, 1998; Wu et al., 2016; Baade and Dye, 1990; Ahlfeldt and Maennig, 2010a). In this context, Rome 1960 was groundbreaking. For the first time in Olympic history, the authorities minimized the new Olympic sports infrastructure by upgrading, renovating and integrating existing buildings into their master plan (Brown and Cresciani, 2017). Also, Barcelona 1992 used the Games to accelerate urban redevelopment within the location of Montjuïc and its Olympic Stadium that was built in 1929 (Cresciani, 2008; Chalkley and Essex, 1999; Chen, 2015). Another example is the London-based development of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in 2012, which was the centerpiece for developing the sporting complex in Stratford and improving the surroundings of the park and stadium with a mix of retail, sport, cultural, residential and infrastructure functions (Chen, 2015). But, one can also find critical aspects such as displacement processes, which are set in motion and where the social fabric is subjected to a new order. Speculation in the real estate sector drives prices upwards (Balletto et al., 2018; Ren, 2008). Balletto et al. (2018) investigated the gentrification and its consequences for the local population in the context of the renovation of football stadiums in Italy. Those authors show that the construction in the surrounding environs has led to gentrification and that land prices and rents in the vicinity of stadiums have risen significantly.

Regarding the affected neighborhoods of new stadiums, in the case of the new football stadium in Munich, Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2012) state that its construction was generally supported at the city level while the direct neighborhoods were strongly opposed to this. However, Coates and Humphreys (2003 and 2006) found different results for stadiums in Houston and Green Bay, USA Watt (2013) looks in detail at the displacement mechanisms faced by two large groups of residents in Stratford during the construction of the aforementioned Olympic Sports facilities. That author found that the familiar environment of the residents was completely redesigned, and subsequently, they lost the feeling of being at home, even though they did not necessarily have to leave their actual household. Finally, Weimar and Rocha (2019) found that those residents in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, who were in least favor of the Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic Games were those individuals who lived in the immediate vicinity of the venues. These examples show that the expected catalyst effect is generally not appreciated by the neighborhoods as it means a radical change in the living environment.

• (2) Stimulate local economic activity

The stadium can stimulate economic activities in its surroundings. In the literature review by Scheu et al. (2019), Coates (2007) and the study by Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2009), no particular economic impact on the host locations after the construction of the venues was found. Although many structures of a city change (infrastructure, policies, etc.), the Games-related economic outcome for the city disappears in the usual “hustle and bustle” of other local economic activities. A broader consensus exists about the intangible factors (Szymanski, 2002), the most prominent of which, regarding the Olympic Games, is the promotion effect for the location (Chalip and Costa, 2006; Preuss, 2007).

Sternberg (2002) attributes a considerable catalytic effect potential regarding stadiums and museums and underlines the necessity of an integrated city location for the respective catalyst, as it must be in direct relation to its neighborhood for the generating of effects. Thus, an important street life is vital to stimulating economic development in the vicinity of the stadium. Further, a stadium gains attention if other tourist attractions, such as parks or shopping centers, are in the immediate vicinity. Taraszkiewicz and Nyka (2017) visualize clear advantages in locating a stadium (particularly with multiple functionalities) on urban brownfield land near city centers because this can increase the attractiveness of the district (Meyer-Künzel, 2000). Then, the stadium serves as a “new kind of public space that stimulates new genres of social relations, offers entertainment and free time activities, not necessarily related with sport” (Taraszkiewicz and Nyka, 2017, p. 1). This can lead to growth in the quarter, and jobs are created or at least secured.

Ahlfeld and Maennig (2009, 2010b) showed an increased property value in the surrounding areas of three buildings that were erected and/or modernized for 2000 Berlin Olympic Games bid, and a similar gentrification effect was found by Davis (2005), Tu (2005) and Ahlfeldt and Kavetsos (2014). However, modern stadiums require space for security (Yang, 2014) and the construction medium, which leads to constructions that complicate the dialogue between the building and its urban surroundings.

Ahlfeldt and Maennig (2009) discuss the connection between iconic architecture and the upgrading of its neighborhood. While this has not been proven conclusively because the economic effects of iconic buildings are difficult to measure (Ren, 2008), those authors propose that special attention should be paid to the quality of architectural design in urban contexts. In the event that this hypothesis is confirmed, then iconic buildings would further enhance the quality of the location (see next dimension below).

• (3) Attract future events

The existence of a stadium helps to attract future major events or concerts. The IOC sends an evaluation commission to bid cities to check what infrastructure is in stage and what is missing. Today the “future host commission” is in charge of checking the feasibility of staging the Olympic Games in a city. The main construction costs for sports venues are for the Olympic Stadium because it is large, and the legacy is questionable if that stadium is not existing before the bid. Therefore, if a large state of the art stadium exists, it helps, e.g. to win a bid for the staging of the Champions League finals or World Athletics championships.

Dimension: “stadium as exhibition piece”

An Olympic Stadium is a massive construction, and it can easily cost more than 500 million US$ and also have over 100,000 seats (IOC, 2020). An Olympic Stadium is highly visible, and there are not too many stadiums of this size that have been constructed. Thus, it becomes a rarely built structure that exhibits architecture, construction ability and can even become a heritage-listed building.

1. Companies and state-of-the-art construction

Construction companies and their engineers set standards in construction and technology and often under the pressure of tight schedules with a high risk of cost overruns (Preuss et al., 2019). After the Games, the Olympic Stadium serves as a state-of-the-art construction for the next mega-sized events. The actors involved in the planning and construction, especially the commissioned experts and companies, use this international stage to raise their reputation (Cresciani, 2008) and export their know-how.

• (2) Architects’ and designer’s know-how

At all mega-sized events, architects are invited to use their know-how and creativity to design spectacular stadiums that express the importance of the Games and the culture of the host. For this reason, prominent and influential designers are usually hired for the planning of the Olympic Stadiums (e.g. Calatrava in 2004, Ai Weiwei in 2008, Rod Sheard in 2000 and 2012) (IOC, 2020; Sheard, 2014) (see Table 2). The architects of Olympic Stadiums often win prizes.

• (3) Heritage-listed building

Olympic stadiums are constructed as architectural landmarks of their time. Thus, they often have value as a national heritage (Kiuri and Teller, 2012). As explained in (1) and (2) the extraordinary design of the stadiums sets new standards and gain, in connection with the Olympics, a great significance as a structural representation of that era. Therefore, Olympic Stadiums usually meet the criteria for monument protection (Kiuri and Reiter, 2013) and get financial support for their preservation (e.g. Stadium of Berlin, 1936). However, most stadiums will be entirely renovated after decades to meet modern spectator, marketing and media requirements, whereby they get a roof and their playing grounds and spectator areas change.

Kiuri and Teller (2015) named eight Olympic stadiums listed as heritage buildings (Stockholm, 1912; Amsterdam, 1928; Los Angeles, 1932/1984, Berlin, 1936; Melbourne, 1956; Mexico, 1968; Moscow, 1980; Sydney, 2000). Depending on their nationality, the stadiums had local, national or international protection status. Mexico 1968 has even been declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO, and Munich wants to achieve this status with its 1972 Stadium. Kiuri and Teller (2012 and 2015) note the potential conflicts of interest between the protection of a historic building and its subsequent use (see sports use above). “The history of architecture and the history of sport are clearly interwoven in the evolution of their design.” (Kiuri and Teller, 2015, p. 1)

Dimension: “stadium as iconic building”

Sklair (2006) defines iconic architecture as buildings that are famous in the eyes of the public at large and have special symbolic/aesthetic significance. Iconic buildings are often designed by famous architects (see Table 2, Tamari, 2019) and have an unusual formal language in their design. Large stadiums are nowadays often constructed in a particularly striking and futuristic manner. A combination of the impressive architecture (which leads to symbolic capital) on the one hand and the memories of the Olympic Games on the other, make an Olympic Stadium a landmark for the host city and the entire nation. Roult et al. (2016) confirm this through a large-scale survey on the Montreal 1976 stadium, which is recognized by tourists and locals as the icon that best represents Montreal as an international tourist destination. Tamari (2019) notes that Olympic Stadiums offer considerable opportunities for the host nations to give them a favorable image, and they may be able to enhance their place in the global hierarchy. We found three functions describing the dimension “iconic building”:

1. Host national symbolic capital

Olympic Stadiums are an international stage to present the host nation. The more iconic, artistic, symbolic and expensive the stadium that is built, the better it will transport messages regarding political and economic power. Iconic architecture is often used as an instrument of communication (Modrey, 2008). Modern marketing strategies of emerging cities have been increasingly focusing on a structural transformation of the urban landscape through iconic buildings to position themselves ahead of comparable cities (Burbank et al., 2002; Broudehoux, 2007; Tamari, 2019). The resulting competitive advantage with international reach is developed by symbolic capital, an intangible advantage that may transfer into a real and countable economic value (Broudehoux, 2007).

The Olympic Games are a great event from which to achieve symbolic capital because billions of people direct their attention to the Games and the host country. For Bourdieu (1990), conspicuous expenditures are an ultimately strategic action designed to accumulate symbolic capital. The highest profits in symbolic capital can be attained when someone acts in ways that reliably demonstrate a lack of interest in the material acquisition by engaging in conspicuous consumption. Behaviors that appear at first glance to be economically “absurd” show that one has surplus resources. The value of the display in terms of its symbolic capital lies in the cost of the investment. Beijing, as an example, conspicuously invests billions of dollars into its Olympic Stadium. Bourdieu (1990) further argues that the accumulation of symbolic capital is just as rational as the accumulation of economic capital. Regarding the costly signaling theory on national morale, the great construction and superlatives increase the glory of the Games, which, in turn, increases the symbolic capital. By this, the Beijing Olympics signal self-confidence in their own strength and the intent to reduce a feeling of inferiority, regarding other nations, in the Chinese population (Preuss, 2007).

• (2) Politicians symbolic capital

Politicians like to support the building of stadiums to build up personal symbolic capital and to “bask in reflected glory.” They or their entire regime set monuments in history with extravagant and expensive buildings. Even today, iconic buildings are erected for this purpose. First, politicians like to get connected to develop the city through the Olympic Games and then to “bask in reflected glory” (Snyder et al., 1986). Second, the demonstrative consumption of resources to build iconic buildings feeds the symbolic capital of the political party but also the city and nation (Veblen, 1899). However, no papers were found concerning using Olympic Stadiums to build up a political reputation. However, Drapeau (Mayor of Montreal, Games, 1976) could have been one, and Hitler (Games, 1936) was definitely using the architecture to gain prestige. In general, the development of mega-sized projects can be seen as prestige projects. These are costly and easier to realize in authoritarian or totalitarian regimes than in democracies because they have a regulating mechanism on planning through participation processes. Therefore, the politician can only build up symbolic capital if the majority of the population backs the project. In this context, Ponzini (2011) describes large-scale development projects in Abu Dhabi and Katzer (2010) points to the architectural style of the former Soviet Union under Stalin, which had a special political and ideological character, also with regard to sports facilities.

• (3) Increases national identity

In the past, the formal language of sports facilities and Olympic parks has also helped to overcome political ideologies of the past that have become disagreeable and to give the world a sign of the dawn of a new era. For example, in Japan in 1964 and in Germany in 1972 attempts were made to overcome the negative urban images of nationalism and totalitarianism. The light and transparent roof construction of the Olympic site in Munich was interpreted by the world public as a structural contrast to the National Socialist complex of the 1936 Berlin Olympic Park (Cresciani, 2008; Katzer, 2010; Preuss and Alfs, 2011). Tokyo took the opportunity of the 1964 Games to set an example with the architectural images: the new Japan presented itself as an aspiring, liberated nation that had shed the burden of its political past after the end of the Second World War and let its capital shine in new urban splendor (Cresciani, 2008; Katzer, 2010; Ren, 2008). These send signals to the national population, as well as to the world (Preuss and Alfs, 2011), and then they can create national pride (Barget and Gouguet, 2008; Bruni; Porta, 2007). Ren (2008) describes the dynamics of the construction of the National Stadium of Beijing for the 2008 Olympics as nation-building. China, as a very tradition-conscious nation with enormous historical background, wanted to present itself as a modern economic power. Ren (2008) concludes that architecture is a major vehicle employed by territorial elites to negotiate national identity and express national ambitions. This development is primarily supported by young Chinese professionals, who are well educated and have mostly studied abroad. Ren (2008) writes that national heritage identification can be observed. In preparation for the Games in Tokyo in 2020, the Japanese metropolis had this time initially chosen a renowned British architect (Zaha Hadid) for the construction of the new Olympic Stadium. After fierce criticism from national experts, however, these plans were rejected by the decision-makers, and a Japanese design by Kengo Kuma was preferred, which should better embody the national traditions in times of globalization (Tamari, 2019). These are discussed in the next paragraph.

Benefits from the use of Olympic Stadiums

The four dimensions and twelve functions of potential utilization have different and case-specific importance based on the targets the owners have. There are four different value areas when the stadium fulfills the functions. We elaborated on these values based on the literature analysis.

Value 1 Revenues: Olympic stadiums with their sport, nonsport or sightseeing tours utilization (stadium as a venue) generate revenues, and thus, can contribute to the return on investment or at least to the stadium maintenance. But it also can be value destruction, in case the stadium turns out to be a “white elephant” and it only creates costs.

Value 2 Development: Stadiums can serve as a catalyst for urban, economic, sport and cultural developments. Development can make a situation better or worse for a particular stakeholder, for example, economic development and gentrification lead to increased property prices, and thus, there are crowded lower stratifications. However, in most cases, Olympic Stadiums contribute significantly to urban development (Balletto et al., 2018; Shoval, 2002; Gold and Gold, 2008; Chalkley and Essex, 1999; Chen, 2015; Kiuri and Teller, 2015). This can be reached in the best way when it is integrated into a city-wide development plan, and accompanying investments foster a greater change (Brown and Cresciani, 2017; Meyer-Künzel, 2000). Parks and urban green belts, which usually form a unit with the stadium, serve to enhance the urban landscape and create an attractive public space for locals and tourists. In addition, an Olympic stadium can be seen as a catalyst for economic development under the conditions noted above. It forms a nucleus for other businesses, attractions and services that settle in its surroundings (Taraszkiewicz and Nyka, 2017). This, in turn, increases revenues in the form of taxes for the local community. An Olympic Stadium can also provide further encouragement in the field of high-performance sports as a training ground or also as a competition venue, thus contributing to a public value (e.g. as a training center for national athletes). In this case, the training of national athletes is a common good (Brookes and Wiggan, 2009). Stadiums can thus make a valuable contribution to the society. Vice versa, the sports development value can be neutral if the stadium does not attract national teams or home teams. Regarding the increase of sport participation, an Olympic Stadium cannot contribute to this (Weed et al., 2015). Finally, the culture can benefit from an Olympic Stadium. Often the Olympic Parks around the stadiums offer a space for street artists and permanent sculpture exhibitions (e.g. Seoul, 1988; Munich, 1972). In London (2012), an “Olympic Park cultural legacy strategy” was developed. At all Games, the Olympic Stadium is the place of the opening ceremony, which facilitates a global display of the culture of the host nation.

Value 3 Know-How: A stadium as an exhibition piece leads to network-building because the participating construction companies, designers, architects and artists have to collaborate. Later, the stadium is displayed to the world audience and attracts potential customers (city planners, future events hosting cities, architects, etc.) who are interested to see the state-of-the-art construction, which often is on the margins of environmental standards, economic efficiency, smart security solutions and multipurpose utility. The knowledge gained to plan, construct and operate a huge stadium builds expert knowledge, and that also may be requested by subsequent host cities and city planners. Finally, the reputation of the construction companies involved may increase (Cresciani, 2008) and can lead to additional exports. For example, a steel company (BNP) in Australia used the stadium construction to build up its international customer network (Bluescopesteel, n.d.) which then increased its exports (Preuss et al., 2014).

Value 4 Image: To date, the stadium as an exhibition piece builds up a positive image, dictating how others see and value it, and that image is built from the knowledge of the stadium and its location. If it is additionally iconic, i.e. with a special artistic design, then it achieves even greater awareness. Whether it is a positive or a negative image depends on the valuation of the information that is dispersed. A positive radiance of the stadium is often reached by famous architects who aim to connect the design with national culture (e.g. Bird’s Nest in Beijing, 2008). Then the stadium signals (Preuss and Alfs, 2011), for example, wealth, technical knowledge, heritage or environmental responsibility and by this forms a certain image of the host city and entire nation (Thornley, 2002; Georgiadis; Theodorikakos, 2016; Kennett and Moragas, 2006; Singh and Zhou, 2016). The image that an Olympic Stadium can achieve is co-created by the image of the city itself and the Olympic Games. In other words, the knowledge about the Games and the city connects to the knowledge about the stadium.

Figure 2 visualizes the conceptual stadium legacy framework where the arrows show the direct and indirect influences. These are drawn by logic considerations. For example, more tourists will have an economic impact on the hospitality industry. A direct influence is given, when a function, which is fulfilled directly, has an impact on another function; e.g. a heritage-listed stadium has a direct influence to attract tourist visits because the stadium gets a historic mark and appears in tour guides, etc. An example of indirect influence is that if a country gains symbolic capital, then it is not a direct prerequisite for better economic development, but it certainly is contributing to it.

As the utilization of Olympic stadiums is case-specific, the arrows we have drawn can be either supporting or hindering. For example, an iconic building directly influences the interest of tourists to visit the venue. But the awarding of becoming a heritage building may hinder the attraction of an event as the stadium may not be modern enough regarding VIP lounges, security and media space, etc.

Spatial levels of dimensions

The stadium construction differs according to the value that shall be achieved. A good case study is the construction of the Olympic Stadium in Athens, as described in Preuss et al. (2019). According to those authors, ATHOC President Angelopoulos-Daskalaki swiftly understood the importance that successful Olympic Games would have on the psyche of the Greek people. Her vision was that the success of the Olympic Games, the most high-profile and costly undertaking in Greece’s recent history, would give the country a boost of confidence. This effect had not only a political aspect, but also a psychological parameter that had to reach the hearts and minds of the people, in both a mental and a visual way. From the position of President of ATHOC, she understood that this could be achieved by building illustrious and impressive sports venues that would capture the spectator’s eye in the short-term and still be there after the Olympic Games to remind the Greek people of the triumphant Athens 2004 Olympic Games. To this end, Angelopoulos-Daskalaki was instrumental in the decision of the Greek state to incorporate design excellence and signature architecture for the renovation of the Olympic stadium (Pollalis, 2006). Thus, renowned architect Calatrava signed the contract in October 2001 for a direct commission for the design of works at the OAKA, so that the Games would have a highly aesthetic dimension and the “signature” of an international architect (Pollalis, 2006). This case shows the different values of the stadium. It gives national identification, creates a monument for a politician, helps in building up symbolic capital and attracts the design of an international architect. This illustrates the national and international importance of a stadium.

Figure 2 illustrates the two spatial levels which structure the planning process and address another geographical area. Reading it from bottom-up, this means that every change in the urban fabric of the stadium has an impact on its immediate neighborhood or district (lowest level), the city, the region or even the whole nation (highest level). The lower level considers stadium function as a sports venue, event location and sightseer venue and as a catalyst for further developments. These two dimensions (venue and catalyst) have a local or urban influence. But if a stadium is constructed to become an exhibition piece or even an iconic landmark, then it gains regional, national and international significance. The more it is extravagant, eye-catching and memorable and has the highest technical and artistic level, the more the nation gains recognition. Then the “basic use” of the stadium becomes an “extended use.”

An inexpensive, functional stadium with standard architecture will, therefore, only ever be able to offer a basic use potential with the resulting benefits. A technologically innovative and iconic stadium, on the other hand, can potentially create all possible benefits at all spatial levels. In other words and in a basic language: you get what you pay for.

Conclusion on the conceptual stadium legacy framework

Our holistic model (Figure 2) challenges the previously often taken solo-focus of our reviewed papers on economic benefits or sport utilization of large stadiums. We could show that the legacy of stadiums must be seen as much broader and many functions are soft, strategic in terms of being catalysts and psychic income. These reasons may have often been the driving factor for stadium constructions and the extravagance that has been put in them. Taking deviating behavior (i.e. corruption) and mismanagement out, the functions also help to explain why stadiums are constructed in the way they are, often very expensive and oversized.

Figure 2 illustrates our newly developed conceptual stadium legacy framework, but the direct and indirect influences are not statistically proven yet. They are developed by causality in general terms. But the utilization of Olympic Stadiums is location-specific and case-specific. Therefore, an analysis must consider the target system for its construction. Thus, legacies must be planned from the beginning, reflecting the stakeholder interests for the long-term and not only the utilization during the Olympic Games. The framework presented here is designed to capture the complexity of potential legacies while also accounting for stakeholder perceptions after the Games. All twelve functions can create a positive or negative value for particular stakeholders. It is also obvious that some functions are in conflict with others, as well as the fact that some stakeholders gain from a function, while others suffer (e.g. many visits and events bring revenues, but the neighborhood suffers from over-tourism; the extravagant design brings symbolic capital but the taxpayer has high opportunity costs).

Our goal is to contribute to practice and to extend the perspective of Olympic Stadiums by “consider[ing] variables of interest within the bigger picture that can help to explain a phenomenon” (Thomson et al., 2018, p. 14), and in this case, the tangible and intangible legacy of a stadium because the media will often reduce the function to the future sport utilization and will largely perceive great architecture as a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Practical implementation of the framework and outlook

This framework can now be used to design an evaluation tool, which measures the legacy of Olympic Stadiums or other sports facilities. At a primary effort, we have done that for Olympic Stadiums from 1984 until 2016 (in Table 2) with secondary qualitative data but without actual quantitative evidence.

Future bid cities that consider to construct a large stadium can plan their stadium legacy by developing business cases based on the 12 functions. Sports federations, and in particular, FIFA and the IOC, can use the framework to evaluate the use of the newly constructed stadiums and then promote the hopefully positive utilization. This offers a direct link to marketing, as iconic stadiums and urban development support city marketing. Events (sport and nonsport or tourist attractions) can further be used to market the city as a valuable place to live. Last, but not least, seeing stadiums as exhibition pieces also supports the marketing of the architect, the location and the nation.

The most difficult step will be to give each evaluated function a proper quantitative value. However, the valuation has to reflect the (political) target system to consider the different stakeholders’ interests, and this will offer future research potential.

Figures

Figure 1

4 dimensions and 12 functions of Olympic stadiums

Figure 2

Twelve functions of a stadium, its values and spatial meaning

Table 1

Sizes, the purpose of construction and today’s functions of Olympic Stadiums 1984–2016

Olympic year	City	Seat capacity today	Purpose	Seat capacity games time	Construction finished	Function today
1984	Los Angeles	77,500	L.A. veterans of First World War	105,000	1923	Major sporting events, concerts and hosts two football teams as tenants
1988	Seoul	69,500	10th Asian games	100,000	1984	Home field for Seoul E-land Football club. Some concerts (Coldplay, EXO) are also organized every year
1992	Barcelona	55,926	International exhibition	60,000	1929	Concerts, Sports Competitions and city events. Also corporate and TV events. Not used recently for sports competitions
1996	Atlanta	24,333	Olympic games	85,000	1996	Home field of the Georgia State University baseball and American football teams (Panthers)
2000	Sydney	83,500	Olympic games	110,000	1999	Hosts: National Rugby League Grand Final, State of Origin rugby league, Bledisloe Cup Test match rugby, Socceroos internationals and fixtures featuring touring European football clubs, many concerts and other entertainment acts. Home ground for two rugby league teams (Canterbury Bulldogs, South Sydney Rabbitohs)
2004	Athens	69,618	1982 European championships in athletics	72,000	1982	AEK Athens football club is playing in the stadium once every two weeks
2008	Beijing	80,000	Olympic games	91,000	2008	Some Chinese football matches, 2017 League of Legends final
2012	London	60,000	Olympic games	80,000	2011	In use every second weekends by the West Ham Football Club and also for concerts and other sports events (2017 = 31 events)
2016	Rio de Janeiro	78,838	FIFA world cup	87,000	1950	In 2018, the stadium was used for football matches such as the Copa Libertadores 2018 and the Brasileirao Series A (First division championship) and served for four concerts

Source(s): IOC (2020), Searle (2002), Sheard (2014)

Table 2

Utilization, Architects and 12 functions of Olympic Stadiums 1984–2016

Olympic			Dimensions
Year	City	Architects/artists	Iconic			Exhibition			Catalyst			Venue
				Symbolic capital	Politicians	Identification	Companies	Architects	Heritage listed	For bidding	Econ. development	Urban development	Non sport	Sport	Tourism
1984	Los Angeles	John and Donald Parkinson		x		x			x	x	x		x	x	x
1988	Seoul	Swoo-geun KIM		x		x				x			x	x	x
1992	Barcelona	Pere Domènech		x		x				x	x	x	x	x	x
1996	Atlanta	Heery International (Rod Sheard)								x		x	x	x	x
2000	Sydney	Populou and Bligh Lobb Sports Architecture		x		x	x		x	x	x	x	x	x	x
2004	Athens	Santiago Calatrava		x	x	x		x					x	x	x
2008	Beijing	Herzog and de Meuron, Arup, Ai Weiwei (artistic consultant)		x	x	x	x	x		x	x	x	x	x	x
2012	London	HOK Sport Ltd (Rod Sheard)		x		x		x			x	x	x	x
2016	Rio de Janeiro	Ramos, Galvao, Feldman, Valdetaro, Bastos, Azevedo, Carneiro				x			x			x	x	x	x

Note(s): *Dimensions indicated are from literature and can relate to any time of the life cycle of the stadium

Source(s): IOC (2020) and from literature review in Table 3

Table 3

Literature review about 12 functions of stadiums by author

					Dimensions
Author/s	Pub. Year	Olympic stadium	Location	Other stadium	Iconic			Exhibition			Catalyst			Venue			∑
					Symbolic capital	Politicians	Identification	Companies	Architects	Heritage listed	For bidding	Econ. developm	Urban developm	Non sport	Sport	Tourism
Ahlfeldt and Kavetsos	2014		UK	x								x	x				2
Ahlfeldt and Maennig	2009		Berlin	x							x	x	x				3
Ahlfeldt and Maennig	2010a	x	Various	x	x	x	x					x	x				5
Ahlfeldt and Maennig	2010b		Berlin	x							x	x	x				3
Ahlfeldt and Maennig	2012		Munich	x									x				1
Baade and Dye	1990		USA	x								x	x				2
Balletto et al.	2018		Italy	x								x	x				2
Barget and Gouguet	2008		Paris	x			x										1
Broudehoux	2007	x	Beijing, Barcelona, Montreal		x												1
Brookes and Wiggan	2009	x	London										x		x		2
Brown and Cresciani	2017	x	Rome, London										x		x		2
Bruni and Porta	2007		General	x			x										1
Burbank et al.	2002	x	Los Angeles, Atlanta, Salt Lake City		x												1
Chalip and Costa	2006		Various	x	x							x					2
Chalkley and Essex	1999	x	Various	x								x	x				2
Chen	2015	x	Various									x	x				2
Coates	2007		USA	x								x					1
Coates and Humphreys	2003		USA	x								x	x				2
Coates and Humphreys	2006		USA	x								x	x				2
Cresciani	2008	x	Various				x	x	x								3
Davis	2005		UK	x								x	x				2
Essex and Chalkley	1998	x	various										x				1
Fang and Wan	2014	x	Beijing									x	x				2
Feng	2012	x	Beijing											x		x	2
Georgiadis and Theodorikakos	2016	x	Athens		x		x										2
Gold and Gold	2008	x	Various		x								x				2
He et al.	2010	x	Beijing, various						x				x	x	x	x	5
Katzer	2010	x	Munich, Soviet Union	x	x	x	x										3
Kennett and de Moragas	2006	x	Barcelona		x		x										2
Kiuri and Reiter	2013	x	Various						x	x							2
Kiuri and Teller	2012	x	Various							x							1
Kiuri and Teller	2015	x	Various							x			x				2
Meyer-Künzel	2000	x	Various	x					x	x		x	x				4
Modrey	2008	x	Rome, Munich		x	x	x										3
Pollalis	2006	x	Athens						x								1
Ponzini	2011		Various	other buildings		x	x					x	x				4
Preuss	2007	x	Beijing		x												1
Preuss and Alfs	2011	x	Beijing		x		x										2
Preuss	2014		various	x	x	x	x	x	x		x	x	x	x	x	x	11
Preuss et al.	2019	x	Various				x	x	x								3
Ren	2008	x	Beijing		x	x	x	x	x			x					6
Roult et al.	2016	x	Montreal		x		x							x	x	x	5
Searle	2002	x	Sydney	x									x	x	x	x	4
Sheard	2014	x	Various	x					x								1
Shoval	2002	x	Various										x				1
Singh and Zhou	2016	x	Beijing		x		x									x	3
Sklair	2006		Various	other buildings	x	x	x		x				x				5
Sklair	2010	x	Sydney, London, Barcelona	x	x		x					x	x			x	5
Sternberg	2002		USA	x								x	x			x	3
Tamari	2019	x	Tokyo		x	x	x		x								4
Taraszkiewicz and Nyka	2017	x	London, Gdańsk	x								x	x				2
Thornley	2002	x	Various	x	x		x					x	x				4
Tu	2005		USA	x								x	x				2
Watt	2013	x	London										x				1
Weed et al.	2015	x	London										x				1
Weimar and Rocha	2019	x	Rio de Janeiro										x				1
Wergeland	2012	x	Athens											x	x	x	3
Wu et al.	2016	x	China	x								x	x				2
Yang	2014	x	Various					x	x			x	x				4
Zimbalist	2017	x	Rio de Janeiro											x	x	x	3
				∑	19	8	19	5	12	4	3	25	35	7	8	10

Source(s): See in table