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.
