The Student Village: Munich, Germany

The Olympic Village used for the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, Germany is composed of two housing complexes. In the main terraced buildings, made famous by the hostage situation, the male athletes were housed. After the games these units were sold as condominiums. In the other section there were a series of bungalows for the female athletes. Today, these bungalows form a student housing village. Each of the units is basically a cement block. But what makes them so unique is that each resident is free to paint at will the exterior. Their house becomes their canvas.

The result is a labyrinth of color and personality. It is achieves the often difficult task of humanizing large-scale public housing projects - though I doubt it was ever an official policy. Just thought I would share a few of the photographs while I am still getting settled in.

Mexico 1968: A Question of Planning

Perhaps most important though, is the legacy of the government investment. In Mexico, a total of $98.96 million dollars was spent on the new installations, city works, and villages (in terms of inflation, this number would equal 542 million USD in 2005). The majority of my time in Mexico was spent visiting these Olympic installations, analyzing their function, condition, and the benefit provided to the public. According to MOC at the time, “Though built to fill specific needs during the competitions, these installations were designed to provide lasting service and utility.”

For the most part, this remains true nearly 38 years after the Games. By spreading the installations throughout the city, a greater number of people are able to benefit from their use. Except for one, all of the installations are government-run and operate to develop youth sport. In spite of their frequent use, almost all sites are in dire need of renovations. Each has long past the shelf-life for your average sports facility.

These sites though, are hardly remembered for their Olympic past. Little of the design lends itself to admiration or praise. They are, in a word, pragmatic – and little else. In none of the installations, nor the rest of the city, are there any memorials or museums to the glory of the ’68 Olympics. Each has a small plaque that displays the date of construction and the Olympic rings, but little else. These installations, which remind me of junior college facilities, led me to seek noted Olympic scholar, Ariel Rodriquez, to ask him, “What if dutiful, cost-efficient planning steeped in pragmatism and moderation leads to a weak memory, or legacy, of hosting the Olympic Games? Or in other words, does a city need a white elephant or pervasive memorial to ensure a strong legacy?” Professor Rodriquez then leaned back in his chair, thought for a moment before remarking, “That’s a good question, I don’t know.”

Map of the Olympic Installations