Description

“The history of this settlement,” wrote architectural critic Manfred Sack, “is like a fairytale: At the beginning, it is bombastically and angrily doomed […], then, seized by a miraculous transformation, at the end cheered and transformed into a paradise dwelling that has now become almost priceless and unattainable.”[1] Among the large housing estates of post-war modernism, the Olympic Village in Munich plays a special role. Due to the context of the Olympic Games, the project was driven by a particular ambition and was realized under extreme time pressure.

Part of the Olympiapark ensemble, it has been a listed building since 1998 and is today one of the most sought-after residential locations in Munich. However, in the years immediately after the Olympic Games, when the approximately 12,000 athletes had moved out and the renovated apartments were up for sale, the image of the new city was rather negative — branded in the media as a “concrete fortress” and “ghost town” — which resulted in a high vacancy rate for years.[2] The rather inhospitable surroundings, such as the industrial area to the east and north, the still sparse greenery of the open spaces contributed to the rather sluggish sale of apartments.

The planned city started out as part of the “Olympics of Short Distances,”  to be held on the 280-hectare site of a former airport about four kilometers north of Munich’s city center. The 1967 competition for the Oberwiesenfeld Olympic site was one of the largest of its time, with around 100 participating offices. Stuttgart firm Günter Behnisch with Jürgen Joedicke won the first prize. After reworking the stadium roofs of the first and third prize winners, the Olympic construction company commissioned Behnisch with the sports facilities in the entire southern area and the Stuttgart firm Heinle, Wischer und Partner, third prize winners, with the planning of the Olympic Village, the Olympic press center, and the outdoor facilities. With only five months time, Heinle, Wischer und Partner started the first conceptual and planning phase for the men’s Olympic Village. Shielding against traffic noise from the north and east had to be taken into account, the apartments had to face the park to the south, and central access to the residential city from the underground station had to be ensured. The orientation towards the Olympic Park located to the south is an essential aspect of the living quality. Programmatically, spatially, and in its architectural formulation, the Olympic Village thus references its interior and the park. A contextual reference to the urban surroundings (traffic arteries and industrial areas) is largely absent. Three basic areas can be distinguished from each other: the men’s and women’s Olympic Villages (high-rise and low-rise schemes), and the “village center.”[3]

With the idea of the “street,” as the winning design for the area of the former men’s village was titled, access becomes a structuring component of the entire complex. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic are horizontally separated from each other, so that the entire above-ground residential quarter is accessible exclusively on foot and by bicycle. The three pedestrian streets are bordered by highly densified, south-facing residential clusters and are accompanied by a guidance system of colored tubes (media lines).[4] The different color and design concepts in the residential clusters is formative and creates a sense of identity. The densely populated residential areas are interconnected with three public green spaces. Narrow paths and cross-connections between the residential buildings add spatial contrast to this landscape expanse.

The central area, the “backbone” of the residential city, was given particular attention in planning. It is the central landmark of the residential city with a concentration of infrastructural facilities. The broad pedestrian platform, linked to the underground station, connects all main routes. From here, paths lead to the three residential clusters, to student housing, to the social and cultural facilities (primary school, kindergarten, churches, and cultural forum with cinema). Shops, restaurants, a medical center, and a hotel can be found in a partially covered arcade. Despite high ambitions, the dark shopping arcade, the spatially unclear expansion of the square, an overall undifferentiated formulation of the exterior space, and problems with store occupancy make the center the weakest part of the residential city today.

The urban residential structure with around 5,000 units (of which about 2,000 are now in the former women’s village) ranges from one-room apartments, to penthouse apartments in high-rises, to single-story atrium row houses with gardens. A total of about 70 different floor plans (one- to five-room apartments) are distributed throughout seven different types of residential buildings. A pronounced profiling of the facades on the terraced south sides contrasts with the simply designed north sides. This is particularly evident in the up to 14-story, stepped terrace tower buildings. High, vertical staircase towers and bands of windows contrast with the fully glazed south facades, ground-level private gardens, and upper-floor terraces that extend the living space outwards (“green rooms”). Concrete planters create a boundary for the terraces and were designed in such a way that it is neither possible to see in from the side nor from the apartments above or below, creating a characteristic overall image of a “hanging garden.”

The separation of the individual residential units was coupled with a modular cross-wall system, designed to be visible from the exterior. 20-centimeter-wide, cantilevered cross-walls sloped on the underside and set at an axial distance of 3.9 or 7.8 meters articulate the outer appearance of the southern elevations of the entire former men’s village. The massive concrete planters and continuous floor slabs structure the facade horizontally while simultaneously providing views of the landscape from the upper floors and of the public outdoor areas from the lower levels.

The interior lighting of the relatively deep floor plans of the apartments is ensured by full glazing to the south and skylights set at strategic spots. The floor plans are characterized by flowing spatial transitions. Arranged in the core areas are the bathrooms, kitchens, storerooms and, in the case of the multi-story stepped terrace buildings, the internal access as well.  The division of the apartment floor plans into clearly defined common areas and flexible individual rooms takes into account contemporary living requirements. At the same time, the basic idea of combining private and public, individual and community is transferred from the urban planning principle to the small scale of the individual apartment. In the early 1970s, the era of growth, major planning, and thus also of large housing estates, gradually came to an end. In addition, urban planning and architectural leitmotifs shifted towards new issues and social demands on housing. As a result, the Munich Olympic Village has remained a unique prototype for living and housing to this day.

 

---

Originally published in: Gerhard Steixner, Maria Welzig (eds.), Luxury for All. Milestones in European Stepped Terrace Housing, Birkhäuser, 2020. Translated by Anna Roos, abridged and edited for Building Types Online.