Temporary Just As Costly

A week or so ago, I was reading an article about the planned post-Games use for many of the PyeongChang Olympic venues.  This is the same legacy problem that has plagued Rio and Sochi and even Beijing (which will at least be reusing some of them when they go again in four years).  At a time when the Olympic Movement is struggling to find cities willing to host, mainly because of cost concerns, this is an alarming trend.

The IOC bigwigs are well aware of this.  That's why they're encouraging future bid cities to focus on existing and temporary venues rather than building shiny new permanent venues that will be used during the Olympics and Paralympics, but are unlikely to serve any purpose afterwards.

PyeongChang's Olympic Stadium, which was used for just the Opening and Closing Ceremonies, was one of these temporary structures.  The stadium is currently in the process of being demolished.  So, after spending $109 million on a purpose-built stadium that was used a grand total of four times (both ceremonies at both the Olympics and Paralympics), they're spending however much more to tear it down.  Not very cost-effective.

That was the entire point of the article, and it brings up a very good point that people rarely consider.  Are temporary venues cheaper than permanent ones?  Yes.  But there's still considerable costs associated with them.  Because with temporary venues, you need to account for the costs involved with dismantling the venue, as well.

Even permanent venues usually have these extra construction costs.  Take London Stadium.  It was an 80,000-seat venue that was packed to the gills for the Opening Ceremony and every track & field session at the 2012 Olympics.  Then it closed for nearly four years while it was rebuilt.  The top level was removed and the stadium now seats 60,000.

Same thing with Atlanta's Olympic Stadium, which is one of the best examples of post-Games legacy for any Olympic Stadium.  It seated 85,000 for the Ceremonies and track & field before being reconfigured into the 50,000-seat Turner Field, which was the home of the Braves for 20 seasons.

There's obviously a difference between venues that are intended to be permanent and those that aren't.  And temporary venues are a necessary evil.  They not only make sense, they often provide some of the most spectacular views of the Games (beach volleyball at Copacabana anyone?).

I think the scope of the temporary venue is important, too.  Venues are made larger for special events all the time with the addition of temporary seating, and a lot of temporary venues, at least the public portion of them, are often just portable bleachers/grandstands (in addition to all the associated backstage athlete-support areas).  I'm not talking about setting up a grandstand at Copacabana.  I'm talking about building an entire stadium from scratch, only to tear it down a few months later.

At the Summer Games, temporary venues are easy enough to find/create.  You can easily use an existing park or other large public area.  But in the Winter, it's not quite so easy.  You can't exactly build a temporary ski jump or speed skating track or bobsled/luge/skeleton track, and figure skating and hockey are getting the two largest indoor arenas in the city. 

Which leaves curling, alpine skiing, snowboarding/freestyle skiing and cross country/biathlon (which are being grouped because they usually share a venue).  Those are the only Winter Olympic sports that lend themselves to temporary venues.  But the alpine events require a ski resort, so, the stands can be as temporary as you want, you still need that mountain.  And what are you going to use that mountain for post-Olympics other than skiing?

It's an interesting dilemma that the IOC faces with the Winter Olympics.  Because temporary venues work much better in the Summer, where they can be put pretty much anywhere.  In the Winter, though, there are some things necessary for the competition that makes temporary venues somewhat impractical. 

Yet, they're encouraging the use of temporary venues, which is why some of the 2026 bids have gotten creative.  But is it really better to have the sliders get shipped all the way to Nagano if Sapporo is chosen, just so they don't have to build a bobsled track?  I'm not so sure.  It's cheaper, though.  And even cheaper than building a temporary venue.

So, they're definitely stuck in a catch 22.  And they probably will be for a little while.  Because, for the Winter Olympics, temporary venues don't really make a lot of sense for most sports.  And, even if organizers were to go that route, it would bring the price tag up.  Which is what's been scaring off potential Olympic hosts.  Even, potentially, some of the seven in the running for 2026.