As we’ve discussed at length here at ArchDaily, an Olympic Bid is no thing to take on lightly. Our 3-part series on the subject, “How NOT To Host the Olympics,” made very clear that this mega-event is a major urban project with long-term economic, social, and environmental consequences. So, it’s no surprise that Olympic bidders research and strategize well in advance – consider London 2012‘s “Sustainable Olympics” bid or OMA’s perhaps premature interest in Turkey- to ensure, first, that they get the bid and, second, that the Games leave renewal (rather than destruction) in their wake. Architecture, Research, and Urbanism practice, XML, are already taking on the task of preparing its home country, the Netherlands, for its 2028 bid. Their just-released report compares Olympic City bids across the globe – from the 2020 contenders of Madrid, Istanbul, Dohan, and Tokyo to a 2024 contender, South Africa. Interestingly, they’ve noted a cyclical nature of the Games’ socio-economic significance and have thus come up with a 3-prong strategy that will position the Netherlands to spearhead a new Olympic paradigm. You can check out XML’s full Report, well worth a look, after the break...
The following is taken from XML’s Olympic Cities web site XML presents Olympic Cities report XML has completed a comparative study on Olympic candidatures commissioned by the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment and Atelier Making Projects. The study placed Dutch aspirations to host the 2028 Olympic Games in an international perspective by comparing the various bids by Madrid, Istanbul, Doha and Tokyo for the 2020 Games and the South African bid for the 2024 Games. Furthermore, XML developed three models for a possible Dutch bid for the 2028 Games. On the eve of the London Olympics, the two parts of this study are combined in the publication ‘Olympic Cities: the Netherlands as Game Changer.’
