The Olympic Village as a catalyst for Urban Transformation in the South of Buenos Aires

Authors

cover transactions 10

Downloads

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24306/TrAESOP.2026.01.005

Published

30-06-2026

How to Cite

The Olympic Village as a catalyst for Urban Transformation in the South of Buenos Aires. (2026). Transactions of the Association of European Schools of Planning, 10(1), 65-79. https://doi.org/10.24306/TrAESOP.2026.01.005

Keywords:

Mega-event, urban planning, urban catalyst, transformation, vision

Abstract

Urban developments resulting from mega-events have generated divergent territorial outcomes, ranging from market-driven restructuring to more integrated forms of urban regeneration. In Buenos Aires, the 2018 Youth Olympic Games led to the development of the Olympic Village in Comuna 8, a historically disadvantaged and fragmented area of the city. This article examines how the Olympic Village was reinterpreted as a catalyst for a broader territorial vision of the city’s southern area. Using a qualitative, interpretative, and ex post case-study approach, it analyses planning documents and empirical materials produced during the formulation of strategic visions between 2022 and 2025. The paper defines a catalyst as an intervention that enables the development and scaling of planning frameworks and institutional arrangements, rather than one that directly produces spatial transformation. From this perspective, the Olympic Village functioned as a methodological and institutional pilot case. The findings indicate a partial and conditional success: while the experience contributed to reframing planning approaches, its spatial effects remain limited and dependent on ongoing implementation capacity and metropolitan coordination. The article shows that catalytic interventions in fragmented contexts operate primarily through institutional and methodological transformation rather than immediate territorial change.

Author Biographies

  • Joaquín Tomé, National University of General San Martín

    Joaquin Tome is an academic and practitioner in urban planning and economics. He earned his Master's in Urban Planning from Harvard University's Graduate School of Design as a Fulbright Scholar. Before this, he completed a Master's in Urban Economics at Universidad Torcuato Di Tella and a Bachelor' s in Political Science at Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina.​ Currently, Prof. Tomé serves as the Director of the Center for Urban Economics Studies at Universidad Nacional de San Martín (UNSAM), where he also teaches Urban Economics and directs the Diploma in Sustainable Cities. His research focuses on urban development, housing policies, and sustainable city planning.​In addition to his roles at UNSAM, he is an adjunct professor at IE University in Spain, where he teaches Urban Strategies 2, Sustainable Cities, Climate Policies for Cities, and other specialized seminars and executive education courses.

  • Carolina Chantrill, National University of General San Martín

    Carolina Chantrill is General Project Coordinator at the Centro de Estudios Económicos Urbanos (CEEU) at the Universidad Nacional de San Martin, and Director of Sustainable Mobility at Asociación Sustentar. She co-chairs the LEDS LAC Steering Committee, promoting climate action in Latin America and the Caribbean. With over 15 years of experience across public, private, academic, and civil society sectors, she has led urban development, sustainability, and infrastructure projects, including work with the Inter-American Development Bank and the Buenos Aires provincial government. She holds a degree in Environmental Engineering (UCA), a diploma in Project Management, and a Master’s in Urban Planning from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

  • Micaela Alcalde, National University of General San Martín

     

    Micaela Alcalde is an architect (UBA), holds a Master's degree in Urban Economics (UTDT), and a Diploma in Government Management (UBA-ENA). She is an associate researcher at the Centro de Estudios Económicos Urbanos of the Escuela de Economía y Negocios at Universidad de San Martín. She researches and consults on mobility, transportation infrastructure, knowledge economy, habitat, and urban heritage. She teaches in the Diploma in City Management at Universidad de San Martín and was an assistant professor at Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, both in urban economics and public policies.

  • Luciana Pacheco, National University of General San Martín

    Luciana Pacheco is an architect (UBA) and a Master’s candidate in Urban Economics (UTDT). She is currently a Project Manager at the Centro de Estudios Económicos Urbanos (CEEU) of the Escuela de Economía y Negocios at Universidad de San Martín (UNSAM). Her work focuses on transport and mobility, urban regeneration processes, and the role of urban design in shaping inclusive cities. In addition to her research and project management roles, she teaches courses on Urban Morphology and Urban Economics at UNSAM.

References

ACIJ. (2023). ¿Cuánto avanzó el proyecto de reurbanización de la Villa 20? Impactos del periodo 2016–2023. https://

acij.org.ar/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/informe-Villa-20.pdf

Arqueros, S., & González Redondo, C. (2017). La política de distritos del sur de Buenos Aires: una mirada

en perspectiva. Quid 16: Revista del Área de Estudios Urbanos, 7, 7–29. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/

articulo?codigo=6055074

Beccar Varela Arquitectos Asociados. (2024). Plan de viviendas para BO. https://mbvaa.com/concursos/plan-deviviendas-

para-la-villa-20/

Campos-Sánchez, F. S., Abarca-Álvarez, F. J., & Domínguez, A. (2018). Sostenibilidad, planificación y desarrollo

urbano. En busca de una integración crítica mediante el estudio de casos recientes. ACE: Architecture, City and

Environment, 12(36), 39–72. https://doi.org/10.5821/ace.12.36.5145

Carmona, R. (2017). Los distritos económicos en la CABA como nueva forma de intervención urbana. Revista de Direito DOI: https://doi.org/10.12957/rdc.2017.30771

da Cidade, 9(4), 1862–1883. https://doi.org/10.12957/rdc.2017.30771

CEEU. (2023). Una nueva visión para el BO. Unsam, Buenos Aires.

CEEU. (2025). Una nueva visión para el sur de la ciudad. Unsam, Buenos Aires.

Cortés, V. C., & Elinbaum, P. (2019). Heterotopías urbanas. Modalidades e innovaciones en la producción del espacio

estatal porteño. EURE, 48(144), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.7764/EURE.48.144.01

Dempsey, N., Power, S., Bramley, G., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.417

urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(4), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.417

Friendly, A. (2020). Planning reconfigurations in a mega-event context: The case of Rio de Janeiro. In D. Rukmana (Ed.), DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003038160-25

The Routledge handbook of planning megacities in the Global South (pp. 341–353). Routledge.

GCBA. (2025a). Puente Olímpico Ribera Sur. Buenos Aires. https://buenosaires.gob.ar/desarrollourbano/desarrollo/

puente-olimpico-ribera-sur

GCBA. (2025b). Parque Olímpico. Secretaría de Deportes. Buenos Aires. https://buenosaires.gob.ar/jefaturadegabinete/

deportes/parque-olimpico

Gorelik, A. (2013). Miradas sobre Buenos Aires: Historia cultural y crítica urbana. Siglo XXI Editores.

INDEC. (2024). Censo Nacional de Población, Hogares y Viviendas 2022. Resultados definitivos: Condiciones habitacionales de

la población, los hogares y las viviendas. https://www.estadisticaciudad.gob.ar/eyc/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/

ir_2024_1877.pdf

IVC. (2025). Legado Olímpico: Información institucional e infografías. Buenos Aires. https://legadoolimpico.buenosaires.

gob.ar/gobierno-abierto/infografia/instituto-de-vivienda-de-la-ciudad

Marconi, P., Perelman, P., & Salgado, V. (2022). Green in times of COVID-19: Urban green space relevance during the DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-374687/v1

COVID-19 pandemic in Buenos Aires City. Urban Ecosystems. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01204-z

Motta, J. M., & Almansi, F. (2017). Gestión y planificación por proceso - proyecto para el mejoramiento de villas y

asentamientos a gran escala. El caso de la reurbanización de Villa 20 en la CABA. Medio Ambiente y Urbanización, 86 (1),

145–168. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/iieal/meda/2017/00000086/00000001/art00007

Muñoz, F. (1997). Historic evolution and urban planning typology of Olympic Villages. Centre d’Estudis Olímpics UAB.

http://olympicstudies.uab.es/pdf/wp091_eng.pdf

Observatorio Económico Social. (2018). Créditos UVA en Argentina: Origen, cálculo y perspectivas (Informes Especiales

del Observatorio UNR N° 44, Informes Especiales N° 16). Universidad Nacional de Rosario. http://hdl.handle.

net/2133/17543

Pírez, P. (2005). Buenos Aires: Ciudad metropolitana y gobernabilidad. Estudios Demográficos y Urbanos, 20(3), 423– DOI: https://doi.org/10.24201/edu.v20i3.1206

447. https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S0186-72102005000300423&script=sci_abstract

Roitman, A. (2016). La Comuna 8 y los planes urbanos para Buenos Aires. Revista HACHE, (3), 38–65. https://

publicacionescientificas.fadu.uba.ar/index.php/Hache/article/view/332

Torres, H. (2001). Cambios socioterritoriales en Buenos Aires durante la última dictadura militar. EURE, 27(80). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0250-71612001008000003

https://doi.org/10.4067/S0250-71612001008000003

Watson, V. (2009). Seeing from the South: Refocusing urban planning on the globe’s central urban issues. Urban Studies, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009342598

46(11), 2259–2275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009342

Zapata, M. C. (2013). Toma de tierras en la ciudad de Buenos Aires: Un análisis de las causas estructurales que DOI: https://doi.org/10.14409/pampa.v1i9.4157

anunciaron el conflicto del Parque Indoamericano. Revista Perspectivas de Políticas Públicas, 2(4), 97–120. https://

www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?pid=S2314-02082013000100003&script=sci_arttext

Zhang, J., & Wu, F. (2008). Mega-event marketing and urban growth coalitions: A case study of Nanjing Olympic New DOI: https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.79.2-3.4

Town. Town Planning Review, 79(2–3), 210–225. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.79.2-3.4