In August, I had the very fun opportunity to explore the Paris 2024 Athletes' Village through the IOC Olympic Studies Centre. Highlights included Andy Murray walking by me on what would be the last day of his career (too slow on my phone), talking our way into New Zealand's house/coffee shop, and casually stumbling upon a now 14x (!!) Olympic medalist.
Athletes' villages are also one of my research topics. They're often the most financially risky projects associated with multisport mega-events such as the Olympics. Although the Paris village has seemingly avoided the overruns that plagued similar regenerative visions in London and Vancouver, the €1.5 billion village at Saint-Ouen is by far the largest facilities expenditure of Paris 2024.
Is it value for money? With 40% social housing, the French state won't recoup its financial investment, but it will meet a need in a traditionally troubled banlieue. Market unit sales are slow and the buildings require post-Games work to finish interiors (currently without kitchens). On the plus side, the development is well-linked to metro lines and will provide a critical mass (4,000 homes) that may spur further medium-term private construction.
As with many Olympic projects, the prospective legacy value is in creating political will to redirect central government funding into specific localities or capital projects that may not have otherwise been prioritized in a "no Games" alternative. While it's hard to say these are "great" financial decisions, we can go with "far less bad" than previous hosts.
You can find some of my UK village research (London 2012, Glasgow 2014 CWG) here:
Comments