Korea's Winter Olympic Bid

Today, I had the opportunity to sit down for an interview with Bahng Jae-Heung, Secretary General of the PyeongChang 2014 Winter Olympic Bid. It was the first time that I’ve been able to witness the thick of a bid process. Mr. Jae-Heung provided valuable insight on the Olympic movement in South Korea and how the 1988 Seoul Games laid the foundation for future Olympic success.

In little over a month the International Olympic Committee will vote to decide if South Korea will be only the second country in Asia to host the Winter Games. The other finalist candidate cities include Salzburg, Austria and Sochi, Russia. If I was a betting man, I’d put my money behind PyeongChang. For one, they benefit from a geographical advantage. By the time the 2014 Winter Olympic Games come around, they’ll have been held in North America twice (2002 & 2010) and Europe once (2006) since Asia was last host (1998). Often criticized for being overtly European-centric, the IOC has the opportunity to spread the Olympic message to an even greater part of the world.

In addition, the bid itself is solid and should win on merit alone. Unlike many Winter and Summer Olympic, the PyeonChang bid aims to accomplish something greater than the mere spectacle. In my experience, the legacy of such hosts has a greater long term impact than their uninspired counterparts.

Mr. Jae-Heung identified three key legacies that will be left for Korea. First, the Olympic investment will help develop the infrastructure of the Kangwon province. There has been efforts in recent years to encourage population growth outside of Seoul and this development could help the province immediately.

The second legacy ties in to the first and is one that would have an even greater impact on the larger Northeast Asia region. As the economies continue to emerge and mature, interest and participation in winter sports will advance as well. Korea provides a less expensive option for enthusiasts in Asia and could potentially emerge as a major actor on the winter sports scene. Such a development would have a direct impact on both the economic and social levels.

The real factor I am interested in is the third potential legacy. Instead of paraphrasing his response allow me to quote at length:

The third legacy would be the largest legacy that we could leave behind. The Korean peninsula is divided into South and North Korea. The Kangwon province is also divided. It is the only province in Korea that remains divided with the same name. Up until now, politics hasn’t worked to unite our country. Sports exchanges have been successful because sport goes beyond politics.

Last November we secured the official government support of North Korean for the 2014 bid. We paid an official visit to Pyongyang (N. Korean capital) and met with the North Korean President of the National Olympic Committee and we exchanged an agreement. They did not support or participate in the 1988 Seoul Olympics – they even told the citizens that the Games had been canceled - so this is very important. Included in the agreement is that the two countries will also go on to form a unified team and will participate in joint training programs. Not only that, the North Koreans will also participate in the cultural programs and the Games Ceremonies.

I believe this will make a meaningful contribution to the stabilization and peace of the Korean peninsula. The values pursued by the IOC movement, peace and harmony, are the same values of our bid. This kind of peace message will be further spread out around the world. And this is the greatest legacy we can leave behind.

All three Olympic candidates are capable of hosting the 2014 Olympic Games. But at the end of the day, the most important thing is which city and which Olympics can best suit the spirit and values pursued by the IOC. Our peace message and the development of winter Sports in Asia will be very great legacies to leave behind indeed. Even though we have very good causes behind our bid, the secret votes ultimately decide. So please, if you can spread our message around the world when you travel, that PyeongChang is doing something different, I would appreciate it.

Consider it done.

Why Peter Ueberroth has the USOC headed in the right direction

In case you were the only person in the U.S. whom failed to hear the news, Chicago beat out Los Angeles for USOC's bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. 'So what,' you say, 'it's just the nomination.' I know, I know. But as I've been harping for the past year, whichever American city receives the nomination will be the automatic front-runner. For if the bid has little else, it will have the geographic advantage. Since the Summer Olympic Games were last held in Atlanta, GA of 1996, they will have gone to Oceania (Sydney 2000), Southern Europe (Athens 2004), Asia (Beijing 2004) and Northern Europe (London 2012). So unless strong bids are presented from African or South American nations, all signs point to Chicago.

On a slightly different note, Chicago's selection reaffirms my belief that USOC Chairman Peter Ueberroth has things headed in the right direction.

Back in November, Mr. Ueberroth gave an address at the Domestic Candidate City Seminar. The full text pdf can be found here. In his speech, he discussed how the United States can regain footing in the Olympic movement and the world at large. They key is international relations.

To illustrate the distance we must go in repairing our image among the international sports community, you need only look to July 2005 in Singapore.

That’s when the U.S. Candidate City for the 2012 Olympic Games, New York City, was eliminated in the second round of voting.

After receiving just 16 votes. 16 votes...for which NYC2012 spent almost $60 million, along with untold time, energy and other resources.

Those 16 votes are, in some measure, a reflection of how the United States is viewed in the international sports community.

Which is why International Relations is now a key priority for the USOC. But not just because we want to win a bid. We have examined our relationship with the Olympic Movement. And in the process have recognized the critical importance of the Olympic Movement to our world.

Those wildly spitting Chinese

I hope you caught this gem of an article from the NYT: No Spitting on the Road to Olympic Glory, Beijing Says.

It discusses the city's efforts to improve manners and curb what may be offensive behavior to foreigners. One of the biggest obstacles, spitting in public.

Want to talk about night and day. The attention to detail by the Beijing Organizing Committee puts Athens to shame. I am looking forward to moving there in May, and I promise to post as much as I can during my two month stay.

Fearing Olympic backlash, China pushes Sudan's government

In recent news, China has finally decided to pressure Sudan's government for change in Darfur and help end the continuing genocide. The government had previously been able to resist American and European efforts because of the Chinese blind support. If you happened to miss the news, it is a good example of how the Olympic Games can, and should, be used as a tool for promoting humanity and democracy.

Some insist that the Olympics should completely rid itself of politics. In our interconnected, globalized world this is pure foolhardy and it's good to see efforts being made. The time has come for China to start acting like the global superpower it inspires to be.

Back in December of 2006 the Washington Post was the first major news sources to tie the two issues. The editorial, China and Darfur: the Genocide Olympics? asked, "Doesn't China feel qualms about propping up this ogre?"

The former actress, Mia Farrow, in particular, has taken up the cause of pressing China on this front. In her recent Wall Street Journal editorial, editorial, she writes:

"One World, One Dream" is China's slogan for its 2008 Olympics. But there is one nightmare that China shouldn't be allowed to sweep under the rug. That nightmare is Darfur, where more than 400,000 people have been killed and more than two-and-a-half million driven from flaming villages by the Chinese-backed government of Sudan.

Finally, the New York Times piece, Darfur Collides With Olympics, and China Yields, updates on the political results.

However, if I were a major NGO, I would be hesitant to persistently use the slogan, "Genocide Olympics." I believe China will do what it must, but continually offending something they hold so dear could be problematic.

What Makes an Icon?

At each and every Olympic Games, certain athletes perform with such virtuosity and perfection that they distinguish themselves from the rest of the field. The 1972 Summer Games of Munich were no exception. U.S. swimmer Mark Spitz accomplished the impossible by winning seven gold medals while the tiny Olga Korbut of the Soviet Union became the media starlet with her dramatic success in gymnastics. mbols. The design must feature memorable forms yet still summon unique images for each viewer. By providing these multiple and enigmatic meanings, the building achieves the status of a popular architectural icon.


After a prolonged competition, the Munich organizing committee selected the Gunter Behnisch and Partners architect firm to produce the conceptual design for the Olympic Park. The city provided three square kilometers of undeveloped municipal grounds for Olympic purposes. Formerly a dump, the land had been slated for development for some time. In all, the park was to feature four new installations while incorporating the previously existing television tower.

Following the direction of the organizing committee, the conceptual design was to be the visual antithesis of the 1936 Berlin Olympics. As previously mentioned, the organizers had to battle with Germany’s historical experience and tainted Olympic past. Hosting the Games, provided the stage to make a statement about democracy rising in West Germany. Society was ready for reform and innovation. Therefore, whereas the architecture of the Berlin Games featured imposing facades and grand squares awash in red, the Olympic Park was to embody the openness of democracy in a natural environment.

Behnisch architects were faced with the rather daunting challenge of translating these formulated principles into architecture. With the help of Frei Otto and more than 25,000 construction workers from 24 countries, their design was turned into a reality.


When walking around the park, visitors feel the openness that the organizers had hoped for. All the major installations are sculpted into the landscape, so spectators enter the stadiums from the upper rim and have an immediate view of the playing fields below. This allows the landscape to maintain a natural feel. Undoubtedly the most important feature of the conceptual design though is the roof.

Wanting to maintain the landscape principle, the architects rejected the rigid geometry of typical stadium roofs. Instead, they connected the various installations into a harmonious nexus of sport with a system of transparent tent shapes. Not without controversy, during the construction the roof was subsequent to great public debate. Many felt the extensive time commitment and high costs were not worth its novelty. Thankfully, the architects remained steadfast in their vision.

Today, visitors find that the rising silhouette of the roof mirrors the alpine panorama in the distance. Some think the roof provides a sense of flight while still others insist the tent structure makes the installations appear lighter and less imposing. No matter the interpretation, few can argue against its iconic status. According to the architects, “The roof turned out as we had all imagined it: transparent, surprising, novel, unusual.” For the city of Munich, it has had enduring success. As Wilfrid Spronk, the current General Manager of the Olympic Park, explains, “The architecture, especially the silhouette of the tent roofs, has become a symbol, a brandmark.”



Now, if I have done a proper job in this analysis, you might have had the same “ah-ha” moment that hit me a few weeks back. Should all host cities shoot for the proverbial moon with innovative architecture in the hopes of creating their own icon? Well, that is not as easy as it sounds. Let us remember the delicate balance of factors required of an icon. Unlike sports icons, there isn’t a concrete recipe for success. It is never a sure thing. Just ask star architect Frank Gehry, who has his fair share of failed icons.

If you are an architect and the city council calls on you to build a functional office building that is one thing. But when they ask you to create a popular icon that will project a positive image of the city at home and abroad, you might start you sweat. It is a challenge, both creatively and financially.

That said, the Olympic Games have become a stage for unveiling the latest attempts. Three years ago in Athens, Santiago Calatrava added steel arches and other touches to an existing stadium in the hopes of providing the boost needed to become an icon. Never to be outdone, the Chinese are in the midst of constructing their own Olympic Stadium with iconic aspirations. The Beijing National Stadium designed by Swiss architects Herzog and de Meuron, and also known as the Bird’s Nest, appears to have intriguing possibilities.

With such an intense spotlight, architectural error can have a negative impact on the enduring legacy for a host city. Organizers would be wise to take note of Montreal’s 1976 Olympic Stadium. As a result of horrendous planning and management, the stadium was a disaster. The supposedly retractable roof has never functioned properly and the inside gives off an uninviting atmosphere of a damp, concrete jungle. In the end, the stadium clouds any potential benefits from hosting for the people of Montreal.

Lastly, to return to the question I presented in the title of this entry, what makes an icon? Though definitions exist, I honestly do not think anyone can say exactly. You only know after it is finished. That may sound a bit risky, but in the case of Munich the gamble has paid substantial dividends.