| Abstract | This paper critically analyses the recent tendency for Olympic hosts to stage events in temporary venues. This fits into a wider trend in which ‘pop-up’ facilities and temporary uses are increasingly proposed as urban solutions, particularly in times of economic crisis. Although there is a long tradition of using temporary stadia to stage events, this practice has become more obvious and more strategic in recent editions of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. This paper analyses the advantages and disadvantages of temporary arenas by focusing on the case of London 2012. Organizers constructed a series of temporary structures to stage events such as basketball, hockey, equestrian and shooting. The London case is also interesting because venues like the Aquatics Centre (that had permanent and temporary elements) blur the distinction between temporary and permanent venues. The paper highlights the key benefits of temporary arenas: their relative efficiency and the way they provide opportunities to concentrate events and use more central and ‘iconic’ city locations. However, the paper also identifies several key problems. The complexity and costs of building these venues means they do not necessarily offer simple or cost effective solutions to the venue dilemmas faced by contemporary host cities. Furthermore, the controversies associated with constructing venues in public spaces needs to be acknowledged as a significant disadvantage that offsets any city marketing benefits. |
|---|