This week I'll start a very detailed official Olympic Park thread in the main construction forum.

Nice one DarJoLe. A link to the new thread in this thread will be good! The number of different subforums on this site confuses the hell out of me!

:nuts:

(thanks)

will be in london 20/12/07..hoping they have an olympic park tour then

will be in london 20/12/07..hoping they have an olympic park tour then

you coming in the Winter Mo? :dunno: or you expecting to spend New Years here? :banana:

you coming in the Winter Mo? :dunno: or you expecting to spend New Years here? :banana:

yeah winter 20/12. london paris spain and hopefully beijing next year 20/08

:lol: clever

was that on purpose? :|

:lol: clever

was that on purpose? :|

prob only will leave cape town 24/12..20/08 is during the 2008 games so that made sense.

Few updates:
- The Olympic Village is likely to cost less than the £40m claimed by many papers
- The stadium is on track for completion in 2011
- The Aquatics Centre is over-budget and may have some facilities removed
- The landscaping budget will be just under £200m
- The Main Stadium will be launched next month with the design released at the end of the year. Apologies for missing out the date. The stadium will have a cable-net roof. In its legacy mode, it may have a partial roof. CABE are reviewing the stadium now. Details at the end of this year and more early next year. It's on budget.

What's a cable-net roof?

What's a cable-net roof?Good point! I can imagine a net of cables, but what is between them? A bit like Munich's Olympic stadium? Or some kind of lightweight fabric? - that would be make sense to me.

Oh a bit like the Dome. Interesting. More Munich stadium and less Montreal please.

Munich is seen by the ODA as one of the model Olympics for legacy.

Good point! I can imagine a net of cables, but what is between them? A bit like Munich's Olympic stadium? Or some kind of lightweight fabric? - that would be make sense to me.

lightweight fabric roof using a series of cables and supports, lowered(using the cable lever system) once the 80,000 capacity is reduced. thats what i think.

Olympic stadium with artistic side
Robert Booth

THE stadium for the 2012 London Olympics is to be sunk 20ft in the ground and wrapped in an artwork that may feature images of past Olympians.

Architects for the £500m centrepiece of the Games plan to carve the track-and-field arena into the London clay, around which there will be seating for 25,000. A steel structure will be built up from this “bowl” to accommodate a further 55,000 spectators. Plastic will be wrapped around its exterior on which artists will set to work.

The plastic “wrap” - 65ft high and encircling the 1,000-yard circumference of the stadium - will be visible from across London, according to the plans to be unveiled later this year.

Early designs show six-storey images of Olympic athletes including Cathy Freeman, the athlete who won the 400m for Australia in the Sydney 2000 Olympics. Other designs have used flags from around the world and sponsors’ logos, which so far include Visa, Lloyds TSB and Adidas.

Sir Nicholas Serota, director of the Tate Gallery who is a board member of the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), said the wrap should be used for more than sponsorship and could be thrown open to the art world to provide inspiration. “This could be a great opportunity for artists,” he said. “The way the designs are going shows huge potential to develop the form of stadium we haven’t seen before and which recognise we do not want to create a white elephant.”

To avoid repeating the errors of previous Olympic cities, which have been left with massive stadiums that they cannot fill, the upper steel seating structure will be removed after the closing ceremony.

The ODA hopes that it could be used to create a stadium that might be needed elsewhere in Britain or even sold to a future host city of the Olympics. The “bowl” left behind will become a 25,000-seat stadium for athletics, rugby and lower-league football after the Olympics.

The giant artwork is intended to mask the rudimentary structures supporting the temporary seats. Although the cost is still twice the £280m laid out in London’s winning bid document for the Olympics, organisers say it is effectively in line with the proposed budget when inflation and Vat are taken into account.

Tessa Jowell, the Olympics minister, is due to approve the plans at next month’s meeting of the Olympics board with Lord Coe, chairman of the organising committee, Ken Livingstone, the London mayor, and Sir Colin Moynihan, chairman of the British Olympic Association.

Jowell was severely criticised in March when she announced the budget for building the Olympic Park had risen from £2.4 billion to £9.3 billion. But a senior Olympic official said: “[The stadium] is cheap and cheerful for the two weeks of the Games. We are not worried that the 55,000 temporary seats are basically on a scaffold and there isn’t a great deal of architectural refinement.”

It will enable more of the money to be devoted to ensuring that the bowl housing the sports arena is of high quality, leaving a “legacy” of a 25,000-seat stadium in east London.

The approach contrasts with Beijing’s stadium for the 2008 Olympics. Herzog & de Meuron, the Swiss architects of Tate Modern, have designed a 100,000-seat stadium in the shape of a bird’s nest using four times more steel than London’s arena. It has won lavish praise from architecture critics as “a show stealer”.

The London Olympic stadium will have a roof that covers only two-thirds of the spectators, leaving about 26,000 exposed to any August downpours. Olympic officials said a full roof would have added millions to the cost.

The Olympics organisers also realised that some cover is essential to prevent winds that could render world records invalid. A six-month study found that a partial roof could reduce the chance of winds that can invalidate sprint and jump records from 50% to 5%.

There will also be no food outlets inside the 80,000-seat arena, which reduces the need for kitchens and higher levels of fire protection associated with cooking.

Instead, the architects at HOK Sport, which also designed Wembley and Arsenal’s Emirates stadium, have planned “party concourses” outside the stadium inspired by the successful “fan zones” at the 2006 World Cup in Germany, where spectators gathered to eat and drink and watch the action on big screens.

Very exciting :)

Mo: a big high five for you because I remember you designed a stadium that pretty much fits those specifications ages ago for the site :) The 25,000 permanent seats sunk into the ground and an additional 55,000 is a great idea! The architects must have been browsing these forums...

Very exciting :)

Mo: a big high five for you because I remember you designed a stadium that pretty much fits those specifications ages ago for the site :) The 25,000 permanent seats sunk into the ground and an additional 55,000 is a great idea! The architects must have been browsing these forums...

yip yip.

Apparently there's a diagram in the Sunday Times, though I haven't seen it. Has anyone seen a copy?

But a senior Olympic official said: “[The stadium] is cheap and cheerful for the two weeks of the Games. We are not worried that the 55,000 temporary seats are basically on a scaffold and there isn’t a great deal of architectural refinement.”

This whole Olympic project is turning into an embarrassment.

This whole Olympic project is turning into an embarrassment.

how so?

mangnificent aquatic centre, olympic village concept, prob a few funky ideas for temporary arenas, a schmart floating roof velodrome,

i suspect that the olympic stadium will look better than you guys expect..or maybe im more than suspecting

This whole Olympic project is turning into an embarrassment.

Glad to see you've written it off before you've even seen it!

It sounds risky, but I wouldn't say an embarrassment. Let's at least see the renders before we judge shall we?!

I agree with Mo, what we've seen so far (the bold aquatics centre, the Olympic village renders, the beautiful wooden velodrome, the renders of the Olympic Park in general) makes me confident everything will be fine.

It won't be an architectuaral statement like Beijing or even Athens (actually, from the outside neither of these stadiums quite 'do it' for me) but I don't think that actually matters a lot. Who remembers or really admires the aesthetics of Sydney's main stadium which also had temporary seats for the games? Very few, yet the games were the best in living memory. It's the people and the crowds that will make these games as good as Sydney (or not), not the architecture.

This whole Olympic project is turning into an embarrassment.

Think I would agree.

The Stadium is the centre piece, the mock up that the Sunday Times had made it look like a circus tent with a partial roof! I'll accept that this was their own interpretation, nevertheless the overall approach is radically different to that presented (such as a concertina approach to seating), and whilst changes are to be expected this is turning into dissapointment, and 'cheap' will look cheap it will be blocks of seats on scaffolding (with blocks probably unjoined or isolated in places) on scaffolding covered in tarpaulin with a partial, fabric roof. I would not call that innovative.

AJplus.co.uk
Published 01 October 2007 at 11:43
London 2012 Olympic Stadium begins to take shape


New details of the £500 million London 2012 Olympic Stadium have been revealed, almost a year after HOK Sport was appointed as architect of the scheme.
The stadium – the centrepiece of the Games – is to be sunk 7m into the ground.

And, according to the Sunday Times, the upper structural-steel truss above ground level will be swaddled with a 21m-tall ‘wrap’ which will be decorated with artworks.

A total of 25,000 spectators will be seated around the pitch below ground level. Above them a further 55,000 will be accommodated in a huge ‘bowl’. When the Games are over the upper tiers will be removed, leaving a 25,000-seat ‘legacy’ stadium.

The 900m-long drape adorning the circumference of the stadium will be a ‘polypropylene permeable wrap’ that will feature sponsors’ logos and images of past and present Olympic athletes.

It was also reported that the stadium, in an effort to save millions of pounds from the already doubled budget, will have a roof that covers only two-thirds of spectators.

HOK Sport was not available for comment.

by Max Thompson

Construction News -

Olympic Park secures final planning consent
Published: 01 October 2007 16:12

The Olympic Park, the multi-billion-pound development set to form the centre of London's 2012 Olympic celebrations, today finally secured the formal planning green light.

The Olympic Delivery Authority today announced that its planning committee, made up of externally appointed independent members, had approved the extensive development project in Stratford.

But it comes with a series of conditions that include the submission of further detailed plans for venues, landscaping and and other infrastructure.

Plans for new sporting venues, highways, bridges, river works, utilities, and open space at the site, along with its post-Games reconfiguration, were submitted eight months ago.

The development bill for games venues is now estaimated at about £3.1billion, though broader regeneration works carried out for the project will take the total cost beyond £9 billion.

The Stadium is the centre piece, the mock up that the Sunday Times had made it look like a circus tent with a partial roof!

Exactly. It's real shame that London is considered a world city and the financial centre of the world and yet it can't even build a decent stadium without resorting to emblazoning the whole thing with tacky corporate logos and sponsorship. This is why Atlanta failed in making their games a success - corporations with in your face logos and advertising everywhere. I really thought London would avoid this and have a tasteful park with fantastic urban structures that responded to the area, not what has now become a 'billboard' centrepiece.

Secondly, the idea of a bowl stadium on this site shows a complete lack and disregard of context of the area. This area is a flood plain - the canals and rivers running through the site were built to harness the rising water running through the Lea and power tidal mills that used to be along their lengths. They're building a lock down at the Prescott Channel so they can control the level of the water, but all it will take is a heavy downpour near the start of the Lea, in Luton, for the river to swell and this area to be submerged, just as it has done several times in its history. To literally build down below the level of the water and build a bowl stadium surrounded by two rivers is just asking for trouble.

I thought the IOC banned any sponsorship on venues. I like the idea of the artwork around the stadium but sponsors logos is a bit offputting, you're right.

When I first read the description I was really quite excited. Reading other peoples posts I'm thinking I should hate this thing we haven't seen yet!

1.Artwork sounds fantastic, sponsorsihp doesn't.

2.I don't see why it matters if it is dug below the canal water level. Most of the buildings along the Thames have basements below the Thames and then there's that little thing called the entire tube network! A small slope up over a little embankment concealed in the design is all that is needed to prevent any flooding.

They need to just get on with it now time is ticking!

Sunken Olympic stadium will be "engineering first"
1 October, 2007

By Helen Crump

The designers of the 2012 Olympic stadium are proposing sinking parts of the structure up to 20ft into the ground, as the Olympic Delivery Authority promises an “engineering first”.

The ODA says it is in the process of finalising designs for the flagship structure and claims that “work is going extremely well” on the project, whose lead architects are HOK Sport and Peter Cook.

Reports in the Sunday Times reveal that the final design could involve large “wraps” featuring artwork or branding, and that the stadium will provide seating for 25,000 with a further 55,000 temporary seats to be created on a steel structure built up from the bowl.

An ODA spokesman said: “The stadium will be an engineering first, a stage worthy of the Games and truly sustainable.”

He added: “There will be a large element of temporary structure and of course we will also be utilising the best in design to ensure the stadium looks stunning in 2012.”

In August, the ODA revealed that designs for the stadium were to be reviewed by another practice, after it issued a tender seeking an experienced architect to review the stadium from concept through to design development, along with similar notices to engineers.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=725&storycode=3096555&c=2&encCode=00000000013ac4f2

Why do people keep making out that sinking a stadium below ground level is some sort of revolutionary piece of engineering?

Loads of stadiums have been built over many decades like this.

Construction News -

French contractor Eiffel has pulled out of bidding the showpiece Olympic aquatic centre after a bust-up with the client over its procurement strategy.
The firm – builder of the innovative Millau Viaduct in its homeland – was a surprise bidder for the work when the shortlist was announced this spring. It was joined on the list by the more familiar names of Balfour Beatty and Hochtief.

But the contractor, which made its reputation by building the famous tower of the same name, has now decided to withdraw after disagreeing with the Olympic Delivery Authority over how the job should be procured.

It is understood the firm wanted to carry out the job, which carries a price tag of at least £150 million, under a GMP contract. But the ODA refused to budge from its original plan of reimbursable target cost.
An ODA spokesman said it would not draft in a replacement bidder for the Zaha Hadid-designed project, which will be one of the flagship venues when the games begin in 2012.

He added: “We have carried out a high quality competitive dialogue process with three contractors competing to build the London 2012 aquatics centre and are looking forward to receiving strong tender submissions from two world class -construction companies.”

It is understood Eiffel had become increasingly unhappy with the ODA’s preferred method of contract.

One source said: “With a lump sum, the contractor is responsible for its own mistakes. But with target cost Eiffel was worried about the interference from the client and its programme manager, CLM.

“I think they were concerned about being landed with an architect they’d never met and end up being responsible for any mistakes from that firm.”

Privately, some contractors are annoyed that Sir Robert McAlpine is expected to carry out work on the main stadium under a different form of contract. One said: “They’re talking about target sum, which is a bit like a lump sum. If McAlpine can do it, then so should we.”

But the ODA spokesman defended its procurement method which he said “is a confidential element of the current procurement process”.

One main contractor which is not bidding the aquatic centre admitted target cost jobs can end up with more client meddling.

He said: “With lump sum it’s not in the client’s interest to interfere, because if they do they become liable for claims.

“Cost reimbursable is less risk than a GMP but you can’t make money out of the subcontracts and it also ties up a lot of resources in administration liaising with the client.”

Tender documents for the aquatic centre are out with the remaining bidders and a winner is due to be named by the end of this year.

Work on the site is set to start by the middle of next year.

Construction news should know that the quoted company, one of the biggest in the world, is called EIFFAGE.

Cost of Olympic stadium and swim centre doubles
Ross Lydall and Matthew Beard, Evening Standard
04.10.07

The London Olympics were hit by a new costs crisis today.

The bill for the aquatics centre is set to double to £150 million while the budget for the stadium will rise from £280million to £500 million.

Balfour Beatty is the only remaining bidder to build the aquatics centre after two shortlisted rivals withdrew.

German firm Hochtief said it had too much other work while French company Eiffel was unhappy with a tough bidding system designed to avoid a repeat of the fiasco over the rising cost of Wembley Stadium. Balfour Beatty, a shareholder in doomed Tube maintenance firm Metronet, recently posted half-year losses of £52 million.

The Olympics Delivery Authority has been forced to admit it has no realistic hope of keeping to the £75 million cost in London's official bid book, as a result of inflation, VAT and the fact the budget was set at 2004 rather than 2012 prices.

Similar pressures have driven the main stadium's cost to £500million. It also has only one contractor lined up - Team McAlpine, the consortium responsible for Arsenal's Emirates stadium - after others failed to meet the bid criteria.

Some £9.3 billion of public and Lottery cash has been earmarked for 2012.

Next week the ODA's new chairman, John Armitt, makes his first public appearance before the London Assembly.

Lib-Dem culture spokeswoman Dee Doocey said: "This is yet more evidence to show that the original estimates were made on the back of a fag packet. I look forward to quizzing John Armitt."

The aquatics centre, which should have been completed next year, is now set to open for test events in 2011. It will include two 50m pools and a diving pool.

It will also host synchronised swimming, water polo and elements of the modern pentathlon during the Olympics.

The ODA is said to be relaxed over Balfour Beatty being the only bidder in spite of the "challenging timetable".

Howard Shiplee, its director of construction, said: "We remain confident we will appoint a world class construction company."

He added: "A huge amount of work is already taking place"

Is anyone else starting to 'not care' about news like this? It doesn't really shock/surprise me at all, and it's obvious there will be other budget rises in the coming future...

Cost of Olympic stadium and swim centre doubles
Ross Lydall and Matthew Beard, Evening Standard
04.10.07

The London Olympics were hit by a new costs crisis today.

The bill for the aquatics centre is set to double to £150 million while the budget for the stadium will rise from £280million to £500 million.

Balfour Beatty is the only remaining bidder to build the aquatics centre after two shortlisted rivals withdrew.

German firm Hochtief said it had too much other work while French company Eiffel was unhappy with a tough bidding system designed to avoid a repeat of the fiasco over the rising cost of Wembley Stadium. Balfour Beatty, a shareholder in doomed Tube maintenance firm Metronet, recently posted half-year losses of £52 million.

The Olympics Delivery Authority has been forced to admit it has no realistic hope of keeping to the £75 million cost in London's official bid book, as a result of inflation, VAT and the fact the budget was set at 2004 rather than 2012 prices.

Similar pressures have driven the main stadium's cost to £500million. It also has only one contractor lined up - Team McAlpine, the consortium responsible for Arsenal's Emirates stadium - after others failed to meet the bid criteria.

Some £9.3 billion of public and Lottery cash has been earmarked for 2012.

Next week the ODA's new chairman, John Armitt, makes his first public appearance before the London Assembly.

Lib-Dem culture spokeswoman Dee Doocey said: "This is yet more evidence to show that the original estimates were made on the back of a fag packet. I look forward to quizzing John Armitt."

The aquatics centre, which should have been completed next year, is now set to open for test events in 2011. It will include two 50m pools and a diving pool.

It will also host synchronised swimming, water polo and elements of the modern pentathlon during the Olympics.

The ODA is said to be relaxed over Balfour Beatty being the only bidder in spite of the "challenging timetable".

Howard Shiplee, its director of construction, said: "We remain confident we will appoint a world class construction company."

He added: "A huge amount of work is already taking place"
those costs arent new....so what if costs rise? boo hoo

new costs are privately funded anyway...

Privately funded from where?

Didnt know where to post this but seeing as it will be built for the games aswell thought this would be an alright place to post it


Westfield signs M&S and Debenhams

09:36 | 05.10.07

Westfield has signed up Debenhams and M&S at Nottingham and Bradford.

By Laura Chesters

Westfield and Hermes’ at their Broadmarsh scheme in Nottingham have signed up both Debenhams and M&S to anchor the £700m redevelopment of the centre.

Debenhams will replace its existing 101,911 sq ft store with a 155,000 sq ft store. Marks & Spencer has agreed heads of terms at the 1.4m sq ft £700m Nottingham redevelopment. The overall scheme is planned to more than double the size of the existing Broadmarsh centre.

Debenhams and M&S have also agreed to open stores at Westfield’s 588,000 sq ft £300m Broadway regeneration project in the centre of Bradford.

Lastly M&S has also signed up at Westfield’s Stratford development in east London. Stratford City, the retail-led, mixed-use urban regeneration project adjacent to the site of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, already has John Lewis and Waitrose as anchors.

Stuart Rose, chief executive of Marks & Spencer, said: ‘As we’ve said before, opening new stores is an important part of M&S’ strategy for the future and we are committed to improving and increasing our city centre offer.

Both retailers will open at Westfield Derby’s scheme next week.

http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=297&storycode=3096956&c=1

^^ John Lewis and Waitrose same parent group!

So, back to the Olympics then.

Anyone got a list of what they've actually started building yet? Wasn't the Aquatic Centre meant to start being built by now?

Actually, it might be nice to get a list of proposed dates for construction to start - just so that we can see that it's still on schedule.

None of the venues have started construction yet, the site is currently in a state of demolition, soil reclamation and temporary building works for the construction side of things.

Hopefully all buildings will be demolished and the land will be ready for the big build at the end of the Beijing games next summer.

John Lewis and Waitrose same parent group!

Still, they are quite high-end shops. Hopefully this will ensure that the development attacks the middle-class clientele that tends to make-or-brake this sort of development. Two things that Stratford City needs, in my opinion at least, is a number of privately owned shops and businesses and some high-end science facilities. The first would certify that the traditional spirit of the area does not go AWOL and the second would hopefully lead to the advancement of incomes and jobs within the area.

The Olympic Delivery Authority today announced that an alternative site is being considered as the potential replacement venue for the Canoe Slalom events for the London 2012 Olympic Games.

Due to the risks of contamination at the planned Spitalbrook site in Broxbourne, Hertfordshire, an alternative site, six miles south of the planned site, is now being investigated.

The current venue designs could largely be transferred and accommodated to the new site, given its similarity to Spitalbrook.

David Higgins, Chief Executive of the ODA, said: 'Although the Spitalbrook site investigations are still continuing, the initial results indicate that the cost of cleaning up the land for this venue would be prohibitive given budget and time restrictions.

'We will continue to look at the Spitalbrook site but it is prudent to develop robust contingency plans at this stage. We have a very challenging timetable and it is important to take swift action when presented with problems.

'Venue designs continue to be developed so that a planning application can be submitted once the site discussions are completed. We are on track to complete the venue for test events in 2011.'

From London 2012 Website

On the whole, it is good that the ODA has noticed this, yet am I alone in thinking that this has taken a great deal of time to discover. Over two years to work out that the area is too polluted to use seems somewhat lackadaisical considering the amount of scrutiny placed upon the Olympic Park?

Only one company, Balfour Beatty, prepared to tender for the aquatic centre. That speaks volumes about the management and their procurement methods.
That one of the most prestigious Olympic buildings cannot attract competitive tenders is almost laughable and does not bode well for other venues.

Rustenburg a host city for the 2010 FIFA World Cup is using floating tiers to increase its capacity. Maybe an idea for the london olympic stadium.

http://www.rustenburg.gov.za/uploads/proposed%20pavilion%2003.jpg

^^Would the London Olympic stadium need a floating roof above those seats also? I can't see the stadium being built without some form of roof...

Rustenburg a host city for the 2010 FIFA World Cup is using floating tiers to increase its capacity. Maybe an idea for the london olympic stadium.

http://www.rustenburg.gov.za/uploads/proposed%20pavilion%2003.jpg

Darn - when you said 'floating tiers' I was really hoping for the stand to be held up by big balloons, or maybe kites, or a very well trained flock of birds :)

Big blow for us in Notts

Sport bosses in Nottinghamshire have said they are disappointed the county has been overlooked as a venue for the 2012 Olympics.
They said the watersports centre at Holme Pierrepont should have been considered after the original London site for canoeing was scrapped.

It would have been more economical and spread benefits of the games around the country, Sport Nottinghamshire said.

But Olympic organisers said they wanted a more central location.


Come to us and spread the games
Simon Starr, Sport Nottinghamshire

The future of Holme Pierrepont, which has a rowing lake and canoeing course, has been uncertain since Sport England withdrew £1.4m of funding.

The original 2012 canoeing course in east London had to be abandoned because of contamination.

But Simon Starr, director of Sport Nottinghamshire, believed money would be better spent upgrading it rather than building a new venue in London.

"There is nothing to stop us making representations to the London organising committee in the first place and say, 'Look we have a quality facility here put some investment here'.

Aging facilities

"You are already struggling on costs - we know that every Olympic Games does - so come to us and spread the games, let the people get greater access to the games and wouldn't that be a fantastic boost to sport in the county?"

A spokesman for the Olympic Delivery Authority said: "Broxbourne (in London) is the ideal location for the canoe facilities because it's easy for athletes and spectators to reach.

"In establishing an alternative site, we always intended to maintain our long-standing commitment to a facility in the Lee Valley."

Holme Pierrepont was opened 30 years ago and has seen many Olympians decide to train overseas.

London won the Games on the basis of it being compact - the security aspect of sending athletes to Nottingham would cancel out any possibly savings by having the events there.

London won the Games on the basis of it being compact - the security aspect of sending athletes to Nottingham would cancel out any possibly savings by having the events there.

Why should canoeing outside London have any more security implications than football or sailing?

Why should canoeing outside London have any more security implications than football or sailing?

The games unfortunately cannot include the whole city or country or UK. It cannot make everyone happy, it wont solve all social problems in the UK and it wont make the UK top the medals table. We so often expect mega-events to do everything and solve everything, but the reality is that it just can't. Venues and their locations have been selected for many reasons, based on past experience, IOC needs and regulations and advice from IOC's technical team.

"Big blow for us in Notts"

Is it really a blow? It would have been an unexpected bonus if you'd been given it.

As much as I like the watersports centre in Notts, I think the 2012 venue should be as close to London as possible.

And the football and sailing arguments are dubious. Football is always spread around the country for an Olympics, and sailing can't be in London.

I agree to an extent however... the developments in London will mess up a lot of other things around the country... for example...

Leicester had the National Cycling Centre before Manchester build a new one for the commonwealth games. Now Leicester Cycling centre is in decline as its lost its national status...

I guess a similar thing will happen here in Notts with the watersports centre.

But presumably all that will be built for the Olympics will be a white water canoe course. The watersports cerntre in Nottingham has much more than that.

Are they still planning to fill The Towers moat with water?

2012 legacy to be a Sainsbury's depot?
Amar Singh, Evening Standard
12.10.07

The media complex for the 2012 Olympics is at the centre of a row over conflicting legacy plans.

Hackney council wants the futuristic building to become a "digital city" and home to several leading companies after the Games.

But the council claims the Olympic Delivery Authority is considering plans for it to become a distribution depot and has approached Sainsbury's.

According to sources, a "plan B" to relocate Billingsgate Fish Market into the centre at Hackney Wick has also been mooted. Council chiefs, furious over the alleged plan, are desperate to prevent the high-tech facility from turning into a "brownfield" factory area.

Hackney mayor Jules Pipe said: "To allow this amazing facility to be turned into warehousing, providing few jobs and blighting the area, would be a travesty not a legacy."

The futuristic building - divided into the International Broadcast Centre and the Main Press Centre - will have over 1.3 million square feet of office space accommodating more than 20,000 journalists during the Games.

Council officials are working at luring big businesses and are hoping one flagship tenant would pave the way for others to follow. They are also keen to attract Soho's cluster of media production houses, where companies have to pay substantial overheads for office space.

Hackney Wick and surrounding areas such as Stoke Newington and Bethnal Green are also home to a growing number of media professionals and they are hoping this will help attract tenants.

The huge centre is the biggest for a sporting event and will be within walking distance of Hackney Wick station,five miles from City airport and in the heart of the Olympic village.

Four teams led by Babcock & Brown/Balfour Beatty, Bouygues, Carillion and Norwest Holst are bidding to build it. Mr Pipe added: "We want high quality employment in media, creative and technology sectors; a media hub for east London, which will have a transformative effect on the area. The centre will have fantastic transport links and state-of-the art technology. It represents a unique opportunity for both Hackney and the media industry."

The ODA started advertising in March for potential legacy users. An ODA spokesman said: "We are looking to establish the legacy use of the IBC/MPC alongside appointing a developer. Our procurement process is designed to ensure the best media facility for the Games and maximise the legacy benefits."

The ODA today hit back saying it had not approached Sainsbury's. A spokesperson said: “There have been no talks between the ODA and Sainsbury.”

Meanwhile, Olympics chiefs have pledged that local people will not be excluded from the benefits.

At a public meeting in Stratford last residents were assured that jobs, contracts and reasonably priced tickets would be available. The panel was asked about issues ranging from the replacement of the Eastway Cycle Circuit to how best to deal with feral cats on the site.

2012 stadium cost rises by £216m
The Olympic stadium for the 2012 Games will cost £216m more to build than originally predicted, the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) has said.
While bidding for the Games the projected cost was £280m but since then the figure has risen by more than 77%, the new ODA chairman John Armitt said.

He said "inflation, VAT, legacy conversions and earthworks" had resulted in the escalation in expenses.

The budget for the Games was increased to £9.3bn by the government in March.

Costs 'in line'

Addressing London Assembly members on Wednesday, Mr Armitt said: "To suggest that the costs have doubled from the bid book represents a grossly misleading figure for the public.

"This figure represents a 2012 outturn cost which includes inflation, VAT, legacy conversion and earthworks.

"The bid figure was a 2004 figure which all the bidding cities were asked to give. Insofar as a comparison can be made with the bid book the figures are broadly in line," he said.

The designs for the 80,000-seat stadium will be unveiled later this month, he said.

After the Games the stadium will be scaled down to accommodate 25,000 people.

He went on to add that the final cost of building the 20,000-seat aquatic centre, which will include a wave-shaped roof, is still not clear.

"I'm not sure where we are going to finish up... the important thing is that it does the job that is required."

The bidding document said the aquatic centre would cost £75m to construct.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/london/7039499.stm

Published: 2007/10/11 12:01:23 GMT

© BBC MMVII

No real surprise, yet in a choice between a bland but cheap building and an architecturally fine but expensive stadium if feel that I would choose the latter.

Are they still planning to fill The Towers moat with water?

I have been hearing that for over ten years....even some London Bus guide people were saying the same thing to tourists. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the tower via traitors gate, in a boat.

yet in a choice between a bland but cheap building and an architecturally fine but expensive stadium if feel that I would choose the latter.

Unfortunately we're getting a bland and expensive stadium.

I expect an ugly, messy stadium rather than the sheer class of a bland one; though I am intrigued by what has been written about it. :)

Unfortunately we're getting a bland and expensive stadium.

not true. tick tock

I always wondered what it would be like to enter the tower via traitors gate, in a boat.

Agree that would be very nice.
DarJole since youre an Olympics expert maybe you could tell us what are they planning to do with the moat?

I have no idea. It's not anything to do with the Olympics.

Hmm now thats strange...I swear I heard somewhere that they are going to hold rowing(?) on the moat.

Koolhaas on shortlist for Olympic legacy masterplan

16 October, 2007

By Helen Crump

The shortlist for the Olympic legacy masterplan team has been announced and looks set to be another Dutch bonanza, with Rem Koolhaas in the final cut.

Koolhaas’s Rotterdam-based practice OMA features alongside Dutch firms KCAP, Maxwan and West 8 in the final battle for the crucial job, along with Anglo-dutch firms Maccreanor Lavington and S333.

British architects Allies & Morrison, Caruso St John, Stirling runners up Haworth Tompkins, and McDowell & Benedetti are also members of consortiums vying for the work.

Mayor of London Ken Livingstone and former deputy prime minister John Prescott have both previously championed the use of European firms in the Thames Gateway.

Manny Lewis, Chief Executive of the London Development Agency (LDA), said: "We are delighted by the high calibre of applications we received. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to transform east London and the quality of design is crucial to creating thriving and sustainable communities.

"By working closely with the ODA, the local boroughs and our partners we will ensure the designs complement plans to retain sporting venues and the wider regeneration of the Lower Lea Valley."

The shortlisted practices, selected from 34 submissions by a panel comprising the LDA, the ODA and Design for London, were judged against criteria including expertise and track record.

They now have six weeks to set out their approach and legacy vision, and to explain why they are able to do the work.

The full shortlist is:

. A consortium led by EDAW with Allies & Morrison, McDowell & Benedetti, Caruso St John, Haworth Tompkins, Maccreanor Lavington, Panter Hudspith, S333, Vogt, Camlin Lonsdale, Buro Happold, Faber Maunsell, Beyond Green, JMP, PMP, Vision XS, Nick Ritblat.

. A consortium led by Arup with Fletcher Priest Architects, West 8, RPS, Leaside Regeneration, Dialogue.

. A consortium led by Urban Practitioners with Maxwan, URS Townshend, L&R consulting.

. Kees Christiaanse Architects and Planners.

. Office for Metropolitan Architecture.

. Witherford Watson Mann.

Pool centre decision nears

The Olympic Delivery Authority has said it is prepared for the possibility that Balfour Beatty, the sole bidder left on the aquatics centre, could pull out.
The firm is expected to put in its bid for the project at the end of this month.

ODA chief executive David Higgins said: “We do expect them to submit a bid but if they don’t, we have a plan B. But they are a world-class company and they are very interested in the project.”

Rivals Hochtief and Eiffel have both pulled out over the past few weeks.

Mr Higgins said: “In an ideal world we’d prefer them to be both there, but we would have got to the stage we are now with one bidder.”

He declined to say if the ODA was continuing discussions with other major contractors
as part of its plan but said: “Balfour Beatty is eminently capable of doing the job but the main issue will be the supply chain.”

As well as the aquatic centre, Balfour Beatty is also eyeing up a 250 m long footbridge that will run from Stratford City to the swimming pool complex and is being included in the deal. Mr Higgins said the water polo venue is likely to be tacked on as well.

He declined to put a figure on how much the deal will cost - £150 million is the latest estimate - but he said the ODA will submit its investment case for the project to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on December 13.

Olympics minister Tessa Jowell is expected to announce a decision in January and the ODA hopes to sign a deal early next year.

Construction work will begin in the third quarter of 2008.

How the other big jobs are faring

Along with the main stadium and the aquatics centre, the other permanent structures will be the media centre and the velodrome.

The media centre will be awarded by the middle of next month. The 1.3 million sq ft site will be turned into a mixed-use development after the Games.

Three firms are left in the race. The Rosemound team – which includes Norwest Holst – is no longer on the list.

Bids are with the ODA from teams featuring Carillion, Balfour Beatty and Bouygues.

Six firms – Alfred McAlpine, Carillion, FCC, ISG, Shepherd and Wates – are working up bids for the 6,000 seat velodrome.

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/News/pool_centre_decision_nears.html

They've found low level radium in the soil in the north part of the site, so expect a tabloid frenzy about the Park being radioactive and a danger to visit in the next couple of days.

AJPlus.co.uk
Published 18 October 2007 at 11:15, updated 11:36
Heneghan Peng bags Olympic footbridge comp

http://www.ajplus.co.uk/Images/Articles/1810_HPengGames_main.jpg
Heneghan Peng Games mode

http://www.ajplus.co.uk/Images/Articles/1810_Hpenglegacy_T1L.jpg
Heneghan Peng legacy mode

Heneghan Peng Architects (HPA) has won the competition to design the London 2012 Olympic Park’s Carpenter’s Lock footbridge.

The victory is another coup for the Dublin firm, which has won several major competitions in recent years, including the Grand Egyptian Museum in Cairo (AJ 28.06.07) and the (now shelved) Giant’s Causeway visitor centre scheme in Northern Ireland (AJ 13.09.07).

The practice teamed up with engineer Adams Kara Taylor to beat five shortlisted entries for the bridge, which will cross the River Lea in East London and link the Olympic Stadium to the Aquatic Centre and Basketball Arena.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1317/649128207_b839e8a2ef_o.jpg

The bridge will have two 6.5m-wide spans 41m apart which, during the Games, will be infilled with ‘material made up of ground-up, recycled trainers’.

An Olympic Delivery Authority spokesman said HPA’s concept design was singled out for ‘making the bridge a spectacle in Games mode by using the landscape for colour and activity’.

‘In legacy mode, the jury was impressed by Heneghan Peng’s plan to open up the Carpenter’s Lock area, creating links between the bridge concourse and riverside levels,’ the spokesman added.

HPA directors Roisin Heneghan and Shih-Fu Peng issued a statement saying they were ‘thrilled’ at the prestigious win.

The footbridge is one of more than 30 bridges that will criss-cross the Olympic Park. But, controversially, it is the only one to have been put out to competition – the others will all be based on a template by Arup (AJ 07.06.07).

The runners up were:
# McDowell + Benedetti with Jane Wernick Associates, Craft Pegg and Sutton Vane Associates
# Future Systems with Adams Kara Taylor;
# Tonkin Liu with Atelier One, Grant Associates and BDP Sustainability;
# Softroom with Eckersley O’Callaghan; and
# Ron Arad Associates with Buro Happold and BBUK Studio.

by Max Thompson

This is what Carpenters Lock looked like earlier this year.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1330/703538811_55dc263351_b.jpg

Ahaha! a lot of work is necessary! This project sounds funny and clever!
I'm loving this London twist to the game!

Why do they put such small renders on the Internet!? I don't have a clue what's going on in either one! I'm happy it's good news this time though :)

AJPlus.co.uk
Published 18 October 2007 at 11:15, updated 11:36
Heneghan Peng bags Olympic footbridge comp

http://www.ajplus.co.uk/Images/Articles/1810_HPengGames_main.jpg
Heneghan Peng Games mode

http://www.ajplus.co.uk/Images/Articles/1810_Hpenglegacy_T1L.jpg
Heneghan Peng legacy mode

Heneghan Peng Architects (HPA) has won the competition to design the London 2012 Olympic Park’s Carpenter’s Lock footbridge.

The victory is another coup for the Dublin firm, which has won several major competitions in recent years, including the Grand Egyptian Museum in Cairo (AJ 28.06.07) and the (now shelved) Giant’s Causeway visitor centre scheme in Northern Ireland (AJ 13.09.07).

The practice teamed up with engineer Adams Kara Taylor to beat five shortlisted entries for the bridge, which will cross the River Lea in East London and link the Olympic Stadium to the Aquatic Centre and Basketball Arena.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1317/649128207_b839e8a2ef_o.jpg

The bridge will have two 6.5m-wide spans 41m apart which, during the Games, will be infilled with ‘material made up of ground-up, recycled trainers’.

An Olympic Delivery Authority spokesman said HPA’s concept design was singled out for ‘making the bridge a spectacle in Games mode by using the landscape for colour and activity’.

‘In legacy mode, the jury was impressed by Heneghan Peng’s plan to open up the Carpenter’s Lock area, creating links between the bridge concourse and riverside levels,’ the spokesman added.

HPA directors Roisin Heneghan and Shih-Fu Peng issued a statement saying they were ‘thrilled’ at the prestigious win.

The footbridge is one of more than 30 bridges that will criss-cross the Olympic Park. But, controversially, it is the only one to have been put out to competition – the others will all be based on a template by Arup (AJ 07.06.07).

The runners up were:
# McDowell + Benedetti with Jane Wernick Associates, Craft Pegg and Sutton Vane Associates
# Future Systems with Adams Kara Taylor;
# Tonkin Liu with Atelier One, Grant Associates and BDP Sustainability;
# Softroom with Eckersley O’Callaghan; and
# Ron Arad Associates with Buro Happold and BBUK Studio.

by Max Thompson
WOW

Why do they put such small renders on the Internet!? I don't have a clue what's going on in either one! I'm happy it's good news this time though :)

I agree. I've been looking at this and the newest Olympic Park renderings and trying to work out how they fit; but I'm having trouble. Be nice to see the detail too.

Bigger pic would be good.

Olympic stadium construction might jump starting gun

Work could begin on the main Olympic stadium months earlier than planned, the Olympic Delivery Authority’s chief executive David Higgins has revealed.

Construction on the main stadium had been expected to begin by the middle of next summer. But the ODA has said it could be in a position to start as early as March - up to five months ahead of schedule.

Speaking to CN in an exclusive interview, Mr Higgins said although it was not definite work would begin by the earlier date, faster progress than expected had been made in sorting out the design and clearing the site.

He added: “If we can start earlier, then we will. Whatever time we gain is better. The design is very good and very compact. We have done very well with it.”

Designs for the 80,000-seat venue will be unveiled at the end of the month. The ODA expects to sign a deal with the Sir Robert McAlpine team by the middle of November.

The stadium is scheduled to finish by the middle of 2011 but an early start could see it completed by the end of 2010.

Mr Higgins said a year has been built into the end of the construction programme to take up any slack but he added: “If we can bring things forward, then we build capacity into the process.”

The stadium is expected to demonstrate a dramatic reduction in the amount of steel used compared with other major stadia of recent times - such as Wembley and the main stadium going up in Chinese capital Beijing for next year’s games.

Wembley has around 26,000 tonnes of steel while the Beijing venue, known as the Bird Cage, features more than 40,000 tonnes.

The London 2012 stadium will have considerably less, with some estimates that it could be as low as 4,000 tonnes.

The steelwork contractor is Severfield-Rowen.

Last week, the ODA was forced to admit that the cost of the stadium stood at just under £500 million - an increase of nearly 80 per cent on the £280 million figure quoted in London’s original bid document.

The roof of the main 2012 stadium is being designed with world records in mind.

It has been one of the main sticking points in the design and discussions have raged over how much of the stadium it will cover and even whether there should be a roof at all.

But one issue is immovable, according to David Higgins, and that is that the stadium in no way affects athletes’ performance negatively. He said: “We can’t have a stadium that has a world record that is later dismissed because it was seen as wind-assisted.”

As a result, Team McAlpine, which includes designer HOK, will complete the roof so that records such as that of the fastest man over 100 m , Asafa Powell, cannot be challenged by athletics’ governing body.

After the rough ride it had on the cost of the main stadium and the hullabaloo of firms quitting the aquatics centre, the ODA needs a bit of a fillip.

Yet chief executive David Higgins does not seem too fazed by recent events and, indeed, even appears sufficiently emboldened to suggest work on the main stadium could start earlier than planned.
Time is the name of the game for a job like this and Mr Higgins knows the advantages of firing the starting gun on the showpiece venue of the 2012 games are two-fold.

First, it sends out a message to the naysayers that work is well and truly under way. As important as clearing the site is, many will only truly accept construction on the 2012 site is real when the first of the venues starts to rise out of the ground.

But most importantly, as Mr Higgins’ chairman John Armitt said when taking up the role at the start of summer, an early start could build some extra float into a programme with an immoveable deadline.
Mr Higgins is too savvy to push the button on the main stadium too early if things are not ready.

The ODA is hedging its bets at the moment - it is reluctant to fully commit to a definite spring start date for fear of being a hostage to fortune - but if Mr Higgins says he thinks there’s a chance work can start in early spring, then contractors should prepare.

Author: David Rogers. News Editor

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/News/olympic_stadium_construction_might_jump_starting_gun.html

Lots of pics of the other bridge designs here

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=431&storycode=3097827&c=1&encCode=00000000013c5dc6

Dublin-based architect Heneghan Peng, working with engineer Adams Kara Taylor, has beaten a field of 46 entrants in the competition to design a footbridge at the centre of the 2012 Olympic park.

The bridge will span 26m over Carpenter’s Lock on the River Lea waterway, and will form part of the central pedestrian concourse linking the Olympic stadium, aquatics centre and basketball arena.

A key requirement of the design is that its surface area has to be reduced significantly after the games are over.

The winning scheme is designed to be visually continuous with the concourse, and incorporates a sacrificial area comprising a surface composed of multiple coloured lights. These can be programmed to give a confetti-like appearance, to reveal the Olympic rings embedded within the pattern, or to present the colours of a victorious country’s flag.

Removing the surface after the games will reveal a grass amphitheatre that relates to the language of the surrounding park, and which will allow access between the elevated concourse and the waterway.

that bridge alone should silence some of the naysayers who are are afraid of the quality of the olympic park and its venues

Olympic aquatics centre scaled back for third time
19 October, 2007
By Stuart Macdonald, Dan Stewart

Distinctive roof of Zaha Hadid-designed pool could be timber rather than steel to cut costs

Zaha Hadid’s Olympic aquatics centre is facing a third set of design cutbacks, it has emerged.

Project insiders say the distinctive wave-form roof designed by Hadid could now be built using timber instead of steel to drive costs down.

Talks over the change have come after the design of the roof was twice put through a value engineering process amid concerns about the construction programme’s budget.

The pool itself is likely to be built out of stainless steel, understood to be a first for an Olympic pool. As a result, the client and the sole remaining bidder, Balfour Beatty, are looking to minimise the use of steel elsewhere in the structure. This is understood to be a key reason why Eiffel, a steel contractor, dropped out of the running for the project. It is also thought to have contributed to Hochtief’s decision to pull out.

Balfour Beatty is now working with partners to value engineer the project to an acceptable cost.

John Armitt, the chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority, told the London Assembly last week that it was too early to give a final budget for the aquatics centre, but said the cost of building the Olympic stadium was now £496m, compared with £216m in the original bid.

A project source said: “Changing the material from steel to timber has been discussed. The roof has been changed twice already and now this is being looked at a third time. It is really frustrating for everyone involved.”

Hadid scaled back the design in November 2006, cutting the size of the roof by almost a third.

An ODA spokesperson said: “A position has not been taken on what materials will be used for the construction of the aquatics centre. It is a decision that will be made with the contractor when the bidding is finalised.”
Lee McIntire, president of CH2M Hill, has replaced Ray O’Rourke as chairman of Olympic delivery partner CLM. The role will rotate on an annual basis.

Oh ffs!

I reckon Zaha will walk off this project.

She shouldnt have been taken 'on board' in the first place.Yes shes great architect but Olympics is just too important an event to screw up and we all know her ego.
Its shame this is happening (I mean all this dumbing down)...oh well we just have to thank all the moaners for this.

report in Construction news about the Olympic stadium might start a few mths earlier than next summer as apparently they are ahead of schedule for clearing the site etc. Design to be released by end of month & construction contracts signed early next month.

It also mentions they are planning the design of the roof so that all Olympic records will be valid & not wind assisted- so who knows if it means a roof over the whole structure or part of it. One final snippet the stadium will have around a 1/4 the steel used for the Beijing stadium

report in Construction news about the Olympic stadium might start a few mths earlier than next summer as apparently they are ahead of schedule for clearing the site etc. Design to be released by end of month & construction contracts signed early next month.

It also mentions they are planning the design of the roof so that all Olympic records will be valid & not wind assisted- so who knows if it means a roof over the whole structure or part of it. One final snippet the stadium will have around a 1/4 the steel used for the Beijing stadium

yes that was in a news article

Olympic aquatics centre scaled back for third time
19 October, 2007
By Stuart Macdonald, Dan Stewart

Distinctive roof of Zaha Hadid-designed pool could be timber rather than steel to cut costs

Zaha Hadid’s Olympic aquatics centre is facing a third set of design cutbacks, it has emerged.

Project insiders say the distinctive wave-form roof designed by Hadid could now be built using timber instead of steel to drive costs down.

Talks over the change have come after the design of the roof was twice put through a value engineering process amid concerns about the construction programme’s budget.

The pool itself is likely to be built out of stainless steel, understood to be a first for an Olympic pool. As a result, the client and the sole remaining bidder, Balfour Beatty, are looking to minimise the use of steel elsewhere in the structure. This is understood to be a key reason why Eiffel, a steel contractor, dropped out of the running for the project. It is also thought to have contributed to Hochtief’s decision to pull out.

Balfour Beatty is now working with partners to value engineer the project to an acceptable cost.

John Armitt, the chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority, told the London Assembly last week that it was too early to give a final budget for the aquatics centre, but said the cost of building the Olympic stadium was now £496m, compared with £216m in the original bid.

A project source said: “Changing the material from steel to timber has been discussed. The roof has been changed twice already and now this is being looked at a third time. It is really frustrating for everyone involved.”

Hadid scaled back the design in November 2006, cutting the size of the roof by almost a third.

An ODA spokesperson said: “A position has not been taken on what materials will be used for the construction of the aquatics centre. It is a decision that will be made with the contractor when the bidding is finalised.”
Lee McIntire, president of CH2M Hill, has replaced Ray O’Rourke as chairman of Olympic delivery partner CLM. The role will rotate on an annual basis.


Sydney 2000 Dome
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/tournaments/thumbnails/olympics_2000/sydney_dome.jpg

fantastic venue.

if anybody is worried about timber being used for the aquatic centre roof

the savill building has a timber roof
http://*************************/oxford/jpgs/savill_building_twilight_cest_wsweeney.jpg
http://*************************/oxford/jpgs/savill_building_moon_cest_wsweeney.jpg

now doesnt that look similar to the aquatic centre. my question is though..will the cost savings of using timber allow the full initial design to be built?

which leads me to the question; is the Hadid design an original or a copy of the Savill Building?

http://www.glennhowells.co.uk/images/070907-1706__gh-savillgarden_7.jpg

Hadid doesn't 'do' timber.

I would really like to see how much this building is really costing and how they aim to value enginneer something similar for less money ( which usually means comprimise after comprimise). The problem is the building was probably never costed correctly in the first place which is an age old problem.

The real biggest problem was choosing Hadid before winning the bid. She designed a wonderful sculptural building but it was obvious to anyone that there was simply no way it would have been built in that manner if London had of won the Games. London 2012 simply chose her design because they needed a wow factor and the one overriding factor why she was chosen was because she was born in Baghdad to almost spin the fact the Iraq war didn't matter and politics wouldn't be part of the bid process. The idea of a 'budget' at this point wasn't even considered.

When London finally won, Hadid was asked to redesign the structure to slim down the sculptural aspects and reduce the amount of steel and actually see if could be created within budget. Also, by this time in the Olympic process the ODA were making sure the legacy portion of the new buildings was in a sense designed first, and the Games time considered an 'add-on'. Notice how it wasn't until the redesign was shown to the public we were given the first pictures of how the building will look after the Games in legacy mode. Simply put, Hadid's original design was never intended to be 'scaled down' after the Games, and was built as a Games time venue first. Had the opposite been true from the start, and the legacy mode designed first, I expect the ODA wouldn't be in the pickle they are today.

Now Hadid has essentially been put on the back burner and the engineers brought in to bring costs down, I fear for the real long term quality of this building. Hadid's buildings only work if they are built in the way Hadid wants them to be built. They are incredibly precious and detailed designs that require the highest quality of concrete and steel, and the idea of giving it a timber roof kind of goes against the reason the design is the way it is in the first place. It will still have a wow factor, and I'm sure it will be fine for the Games, but I expect, as with a lot of the contract-led venues, up close and away from the view of the cameras they will be quite shabby and not up to a real high quality finish that only having architects on site and working with the developers throughout the whole process produces. I expect ten years down the line a lot of the permanent venues will be incredibly flawed and need a lot of refurbishment. That's not to say they won't produce the legacy of regeneration promised, but whether we look back and wonder if it might have been wiser to spend more money getting better designed venues that would have lasted longer, and not kept compromising designs for the sake of sticking to a budget to save politicians face.

Your probably right, But sometimes I think Hadid for once could be a bit more than just an expert in sculptural buildings and for once think about economy and enviromental factors. The result could be even more interesting. In regard to the endless cost cutting in the London Olympics I think its a false economy as you say. I really don't want to be left with a bunch of crappy tempory looking buildings that will be a stark contrast to the beijings lavish buildings.

I disagree with this statement.

"I expect ten years down the line a lot of the permanent venues will be incredibly flawed and need a lot of refurbishment"

Your probably right, But sometimes I think Hadid for once could be a bit more than just an expert in sculptural buildings and for once think about economy and enviromental factors. The result could be even more interesting. In regard to the endless cost cutting in the London Olympics I think its a false economy as you say. I really don't want to be left with a bunch of crappy tempory looking buildings that will be a stark contrast to the beijings lavish buildings.


I'm sorry but trying to compete with Beijing would be more trouble than it's worth. They're spending ridiculous amounts of money and are answerable to nobody. We'd always fall short of Beijing in this respect so there's no point in doing the games their way.

Our games will have a completely different feel to them. Sydney's venues didn't have as much wow factor as Athens' but I defy anyone to say the Athens Olympics were the more successful. We should be aiming to do what Sydney did, not what Athens did: I'd rather have big crowds in decent venues than virutally no crowds in amazing venues.

Furthermore, I'm really not fussed about having huge monolithic icons like Beijing and would much rather the focus was on getting the environment and the park right. A big English garden park; the "Wimbledon look" on a massive scale.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/419917716_8382b42f59_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/148/419909560_58e729de2c_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/126/419920515_9556b4684f_b.jpg

Beautiful.

Olympic stadium site in July 2007.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1349/889790950_98fcf8f8e7_b.jpg

Olympic stadium site September 2007.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1214/1429137206_3e04c3fc1a_b.jpg

Olympic stadium site October 2007.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2305/1677334014_c2c0566187_b.jpg

I'm sorry but trying to compete with Beijing would be more trouble than it's worth. They're spending ridiculous amounts of money and are answerable to nobody. We'd always fall short of Beijing in this respect so there's no point in doing the games their way.

Our games will have a completely different feel to them. Sydney's venues didn't have as much wow factor as Athens' but I defy anyone to say the Athens Olympics were the more successful. We should be aiming to do what Sydney did, not what Athens did: I'd rather have big crowds in decent venues than virutally no crowds in amazing venues.

Furthermore, I'm really not fussed about having huge monolithic icons like Beijing and would much rather the focus was on getting the environment and the park right. A big English garden park; the "Wimbledon look" on a massive scale.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/419917716_8382b42f59_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/148/419909560_58e729de2c_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/126/419920515_9556b4684f_b.jpg

Beautiful.

you calling a hadid aquatic centre, floating timber velodrome roof..wimbledon..wembley..etc...decent?

Well we're only talking about the Olympic Park as the venues outside of it, as we know, are world class. But you're right, even the new venues (the velodrome, aqauatics centre etc.) should be more than decent

But as I've said (and this was my point), even if it wasn't the most inspiring architecture, if the park aspect was done properly and we got the crowds in, I'd be more than happy.

As it is I think we'll have great architecture in the park (maybe not on the same scale as Beijing but that was never going to happen), a beautiful environment, and great crowds. The only thing I'm nervous about is the weather, lol!

Well we're only talking about the Olympic Park as the venues outside of it, as we know, are world class. But you're right, even the new venues (the velodrome, aqauatics centre etc.) should be more than decent

But as I've said (and this was my point), even if it wasn't the most inspiring architecture, if the park aspect was done properly and we got the crowds in, I'd be more than happy.

As it is I think we'll have great architecture in the park (maybe not on the same scale as Beijing but that was never going to happen), a beautiful environment, and great crowds. The only thing I'm nervous about is the weather, lol!

while charming..a large square bubble structure doesnt impress..their major indoor arena doesnt have much on the O2. their stadium is def iconic...

Well we're only talking about the Olympic Park as the venues outside of it, as we know, are world class. But you're right, even the new venues (the velodrome, aqauatics centre etc.) should be more than decent

But as I've said (and this was my point), even if it wasn't the most inspiring architecture, if the park aspect was done properly and we got the crowds in, I'd be more than happy.

As it is I think we'll have great architecture in the park (maybe not on the same scale as Beijing but that was never going to happen), a beautiful environment, and great crowds. The only thing I'm nervous about is the weather, lol!

You're absolutely correct. Spending billions just for the sake of aesthetics is absurd. Just look at the boring, generic venues that Sydney gave the world, yet their Olympics turned out to be the best ever.

A big English garden park; the "Wimbledon look" on a massive scale.

^^
Sounds perfect!

Well a wooden roof is much more of-the-moment. It's a whole lot more sustainable than thousands of tonnes of steel.

I really don't rate the Beijng stadia. At first glance it's WOW, but a few minutes later it's on to the next photo opportunity. And they're the sort of photos you'd skim past when looking back a few years later. Grand set-piece stuff doesn't do it for me. They always seem to be such desolate places after, which is 99.99% of their lifetime. I love the winning bridge design. I'd be far more worried if the park looks nothing like Robs third pic than any change of roof material on the swimming pool. The park and facilities have to work as a landscape and as buildings. I still don't see any threat to that. In fact the ODA seem to be making a big thing of the main stadium being fit for world records. The fact we're spending time designing a bridge is actually quite a luxury and shows focus in the right area.

I'd be far more worried if the park looks nothing like Robs third pic than any change of roof material on the swimming pool.

You're absolutely correct. Spending billions just for the sake of aesthetics is absurd. Just look at the boring, generic venues that Sydney gave the world, yet their Olympics turned out to be the best ever.

I'm glad other people agree with me (Bob and Vanguard)! That's not to say we shouldn't aim high, but I think London 2012 should have other priorities other than what Bob calls "Grand set-piece" architecture and getting the park and environment right is one of them for me.

The Evening Standard had a story about how the ODA have already allocated £350m (I might have made that number up) of the contingency fund on various projects.

The Evening Standard had a story about how the ODA have already allocated £350m (I might have made that number up) of the contingency fund on various projects.

and?

each project has its own contingency allocation..allocation does not equal spending. its prob a legal requirement for each venue to have one. cape towns world cup stadium has one, and so do all others..the gvt will also prob create an additional contingency fund to allocate to cities as needed.
Its not some giant pot that gets taken from when needed. a temp venue might only need a 1% contingency where as the olympic stadium might require 7%

I disagree with the multiplex approach, good architecture is expensive full stop. However good architecture is usually most cost effective in the long run. Perhaps clever engineering to show off with is not particularly needed but good quality architecture definitely is. However due to people and in particular accountants and the media getting confused with what good architecture actually is it means it is usually the first to get the axe. Being left over with a lot of multiplex sheds isnt exactly the stuff of legacy in a symbolic or environmental capacity.

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/olympicstadium.jpg

London Olympic park structure...for a second it reminded me of one of the new york olympic stadium proposals

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/olympicstadium.jpg

London Olympic park structure...for a second it reminded me of one of the new york olympic stadium proposals

Hehe.

I think that was my favourite stadium proposal of all the 2012 bids tbh. I really liked the brutal, no nonsence, American look of it. If London lost I would have loved to see the Olympics in a stadium like that (though of course, even if NYC won, that stadium wouldn't have been built anyway as it was scrapped last minute from what I remember)

BTW Mo, thanks for the kind words in the Glasgow thread on Gamesbids! :)

It's one of the temporary bridges for construction vehicles.

AJPlus.co.uk
Published 24 October 2007 at 11:47
‘No more cuts to Zaha’s Aquatic Centre’ says ODA chief

The chief executive of the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) has put his reputation on the line by pledging not to scale back Zaha Hadid’s troubled Aquatic Centre.

When asked if there would be any more cuts to the key venue, David Higgins, who was speaking at Emap conference ‘The Games Briefing’, said: ‘No. It will continue to be enhanced.

‘With the preferred bidder in place [Balfour Beatty] I am confident the design will progress well. I have watched it take shape for the last 18 months and I think the design gets better and better.’

Last November Hadid’s original scheme, which featured a striking wave-like roof, was radically overhauled in an effort to slash costs. The result was a roof almost three times smaller (Zaha reveals radical changes to Olympic Aquatic Centre).

Commenting on the previous cutbacks, Higgins went on to claim that they had actually improved the overall aspect of the Olympic Park.

He said: ‘There is a huge public space outside the Aquatic Centre that is bigger than Trafalgar Square. The previous value engineering allowed for this better public space.’

its ironic..the temporary structure masters, Nussli, the same company that did the detail planning and design for the 7 temporary pavillions as part of the Paris 2012 bid will probably get the contract/tender to work on some if not all of the temporary arena's for london 2012.

Last November Hadid’s original scheme, which featured a striking wave-like roof, was radically overhauled in an effort to slash costs. The result was a roof almost three times smaller (Zaha reveals radical changes to Olympic Aquatic Centre).


I've read that it was reduced by a third, not three times smaller. So, is it three times smaller as your article suggests or is it actually twice this size?!

http://www.wolffolins.com/images/casestudies/london2012/london_left.jpg

to all those that hated the logo at the start has it grown on you now or still feel the same?
i always liked it and seeing the pic darjole posted above makes me like it even more

there was def no growing..the logo was and is awful

to all those that hated the logo at the start has it grown on you now or still feel the same?
i always liked it and seeing the pic darjole posted above makes me like it even more

I think it has been saved by the bell.:D

still like it very much

Two left in 2012 media centre
26 October, 2007

By David Blackman and Dan Stewart

Bouygues and Carillion battle it out to build the Olympic media centre as Balfour Beatty exists shortlist

Teams led by Bouygues and Carillion are battling it out to build the Olympic media centre after it emerged that Balfour Beatty was no longer on the shortlist.

The consortiums Bouygues with Development Securities, and Carillion with regeneration investor Igloo are the only two remaining from an original shortlist of four.

It is understood that Norwest Holst and Rosemound left the list this month, and the team of Balfour Beatty and Babcock & Brown is also understood not to have made the final cut.

A source close to the process said it was likely that the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) did not want Balfour Beatty to build the media centre and the aquatics centre, for which it is the sole remaining bidder.

The contract to build the 1.3 million ft2 media centre is due to be awarded by mid-November.

The ODA would not confirm that Balfour Beatty was no longer on the shortlist. A spokesperson said: “We give bidders an assurance of confidentiality and have no intention of breaching that.”

Meanwhile, it has emerged that Olympic chiefs are considering building a green visitor centre for the Olympic park to showcase sustainable construction.

It is understood that the building would be zero carbon equivalent to level six of the Code for Sustainable Homes. It is likely to be built with sustainable materials and contain a biomass boiler and photovoltaics.

A source said: “It wasn’t initially in the masterplan, but there was always talk about showing the best in sustainable construction. It’s at the ideas stage.”

Sustainability at the Games was in the spotlight this week as the Olympic transport plan was unveiled. There will be no private car parking for spectators at any venue, except disabled patrons. Plans for park-and-ride car parks on the M11 and M25 have been shelved.

The ODA published a sustainability strategy in January, announcing it would put on the “greenest Olympics ever”.

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=284&storycode=3098516&c=1

Stadium designs are being released to the media sometime within the next ten days according to Seb on some news discussion show on yesterday.

oooh! Very exciting!

Stadium designs are being released to the media sometime within the next ten days according to Seb on some news discussion show on yesterday.Ooh I'm looking forward to this.

What do we reckon people, one or two slightly fuzzy images (about 350 x 350 pixels) taken from a location and angle we can't quite find. There will probably be a fly through on tele (I'll see the last 2 seconds) , but it wont be available on the net for months. At least one major bit of conflicting info, i.e. "costs have been kept in line at €500m, 2012 prices", "costs have rocketed to £500m not including steel inflation". One journo will say it will hold 2500, one 250,000 and one 80,000 post games. It will be the biggest / smallest / cheapest / most expensive stadium built in the central hemisphere. Of course there will be a barrage of negative press, but I'll ignore that and blow happy bubbles / pieces of rainbow towards Daily Mail HQ.

We already have a vague idea as to how it will look so I'm not sure many people here will be shocked (I could be very wrong of course). What the rest of the country/world makes of it, who knows?!

oooh! Very exciting!

its unique

how do you know Mo?

is that unique in a good way or unique in a 'special' way ?

i was once called unique, so i dont have a lot of faith

Olympics chief urges 2012 action
The International Olympic Committee has urged London 2012 organisers to get on with their preparations for the Games.
IOC boss Jacques Rogge told BBC Sport that London "is doing OK" but must focus on delivering the Games on time.

"We urge them to work as soon as possible and to prepare today for the unforeseen of tomorrow," said Rogge.

He also said the IOC had "no regrets" about giving the 2008 Games to Beijing despite recent international criticism of China's foreign policy.


Interview: IOC president Jacques Rogge
Rogge stressed that the Swiss-based IOC was "basically happy" with the progress in London and remained optimistic a permanent tenant for the Olympic stadium will be found.

"That would be something that would please the IOC very much and we are very keen on that," he said.

"We know that Seb Coe and LOCOG (the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games) are working very hard to find a solution."


The current plan is to reduce the stadium's capacity from 80,000 to 25,000 in 2013 and use it as a multi-sport venue with athletics and community facilities at its heart.

But that plan depends on a football or rugby club becoming an "anchor tenant" to subsidise the stadium. So far that has proved to be beyond Coe and his team, partially because the post-2012 plans do not include a roof for the majority of the seats.

Premiership club West Ham have already said they are not interested in moving to Stratford as the capacity is too small, and Leyton Orient are reported to be concerned the capacity is too high.

A spokesman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport told BBC Sport: "We completely share Jacques Rogge's view that there is not a day to waste as we prepare for the 2012 Games.

"His endorsement of the progress made so far reflects the IOC's very positive comments during their visit to London in June.

"And we whole-heartedly agree with his assessment of the importance of a strong long-term legacy for venues including the Olympic Stadium - which is exactly what we are working towards.


SPORT EDITORS' BLOG

Sports news commissioning editor Richard Burgess

"We are committed to venues that both serve our top sportsmen and women and provide lasting benefit for local communities, with long-term 'anchor' users providing stability and security for these facilities."

The shadow recently cast over the preparations for the 2008 Games in Beijing is of a very different nature.

China has been condemned by human rights campaigners for its links with the Sudanese government which is embroiled in a four-year conflict with rebels in Darfur.

China buys two-thirds of Sudan's oil output and is the African state's biggest arms supplier following a 25-fold increase in weapons sales between 2002 and 2005.

International experts say 200,000 people have died and 2.5m have fled their homes in Darfur since the conflict started in 2003.

The Save Darfur Coalition - an umbrella group of 180 religious and human rights groups - has accused China of taking an "ambiguous" stance towards Sudan.

China has also been attacked for its continued support of the military regime in Burma, where recent pro-democracy demonstrations have been crushed.


The Games will contribute but the Games will not solve all the problems of the world
Jacques Rogge

The Chinese government only agreed to back a critical statement from the United Nations Security Council to Burma when the threat of an Olympic boycott was raised by campaigners.

Rogge said he understood why human rights groups used the Olympics to apply pressure on China, but disagreed with those groups' criticisms of the IOC itself.

"I respect them for what they're doing. It is absolutely legitimate that they get the most from the Olympics," he said.

"But where they make an error is to criticise the IOC for not solving the problems.

"Why would we be able to succeed where generations of heads of state and governments who have come to Beijing have not succeeded? We are a sports organisation - there are limits to what we can do.

"Does that mean that we don't strive for human rights? No, of course we are in favour of human rights, and we've proven that many times in the past.

"But don't expect from the IOC what the IOC cannot do. The Games will contribute but the Games will not solve all the problems of the world.


"We gave the Games to a country that represents of one fifth of mankind. We gave the Games to a country that will change, that is changing. We have no regrets."

Rogge pointed to recent reforms in China's judicial, media and property laws as evidence that the Olympic effect was already being felt. He also praised the emerging superpower for addressing its poor record on child labour.

The 55-year-old, who sailed for Belgium in three Olympics, said he was also satisfied with the steps the Chinese were taking to tackle doping and brushed off concerns about Beijing's air quality.

A recent United Nations report was critical of China's attempts to improve the air quality in Beijing, stating that pollution was three times higher than the level recommended by World Health Organisation standards.

And on Friday, Beijing's weather office warned children and the elderly to stay indoors as heavy fog was exacerbating the city's air quality problems.

An IOC inspection team visited Beijing last week and admitted that pollution remained a concern but said it was confident proposed traffic controls and factory shutdowns would have a positive effect.

Rogge added: "If the atmospheric pollution is too high at certain times then we might consider rescheduling.

"But this is not exceptional for the Olympics. We have a similar situation in the Winter Games with snow. And it's the same with the wind and sailing, rowing or canoeing."


Jacques Rogge was interviewed by BBC Radio 5 Live sports news correspondent Gordon Farquhar
Story from BBC SPORT:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/sport1/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/7056985.stm

Published: 2007/10/30 06:51:34 GMT

© BBC MMVII

I must say that this surprises me. Hopefully it is just a bit of advice as opposed to a real sense of cold feet.

Watch the real interview, as this article doesn't really reflect what he said.

Towers make way for Olympic park
Sri Carmichael, Evening Standard

http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10/25a_30_demolition_415x275.jpg

One of Europe's largest wrecking machines is tearing through the Olympic Park site.

Nicknamed Olymposaurus by site workers, the 50-tonne monster is demolishing two 12-storey former University of East London buildings, floor by floor. The last one is being razed to the ground today.

The work will clear an area linking the Olympic Village and VeloPark. Much of the material will be reused.

The Olympic Delivery Authority is almost half way through preparing the site, having demolished 106 buildings since the summer.

Lord Coe, who chairs the London 2012 organising committee, said: "This is another milestone in the transformation of the Olympic Park site. In the last year, much of the work has taken place underground on the powerlines. Now you will see an increasing amount of work at ground level as remediation and demolition gather pace."

ODA chief executive David Higgins said: "The demolition of these buildings is a symbol of how the progress we are making on the Olympic Park will help transform a neglected part of London."

The IOC are fully aware of the in depth planning of London 2012 compared to any other host city before. The level of detail goes beyond any previous host city.

The boost to the economy across the UK created by the 2012 Olympics is estimated at 21 billion pounds says a new report.

BDP forced out of race for 2012 media centre
29 October, 2007

By Rory Olcayto

BDP has been forced off the shortlist to design and build the London 2012 games’ media centre after its partner Balfour Beatty was dropped by the Olympic Delivery Authority, it has been reported.

The development, which the ODA refused to deny, leaves just two architects - Hopkins and Allies & Morrison - left in the running to design the enormous 120,000 sq m scheme.

The news follows the recent elimination of Hadfield Cawkwell Davidson Architects, which a source said was dropped from the shortlist over ODA fears its legacy proposals were inadequate.

The remaining consortia are:

• Bouyges with Development Securities and Hopkins Architects

• Carillion with Igloo and Allies & Morrison

Both Balfour Beatty and the ODA declined to comment.

BDP forced out of race for 2012 media centre
29 October, 2007

By Rory Olcayto

BDP has been forced off the shortlist to design and build the London 2012 games’ media centre after its partner Balfour Beatty was dropped by the Olympic Delivery Authority, it has been reported.

The development, which the ODA refused to deny, leaves just two architects - Hopkins and Allies & Morrison - left in the running to design the enormous 120,000 sq m scheme.

The news follows the recent elimination of Hadfield Cawkwell Davidson Architects, which a source said was dropped from the shortlist over ODA fears its legacy proposals were inadequate.

The remaining consortia are:

• Bouyges with Development Securities and Hopkins Architects

• Carillion with Igloo and Allies & Morrison

Both Balfour Beatty and the ODA declined to comment.

Does this mean Balfour Beatty have also been dropped from the aquatic centre which would mean there are no contractors tendering to build it.

No.

Does this mean Balfour Beatty have also been dropped from the aquatic centre which would mean there are no contractors tendering to build it.

Nope - it means the opposite.

The ODA are being very cautious and not allowing companies to take on too many projects at the same time.

So, if Balfour Beatty are the main contender for the Aquatic Centre, they probably wouldn't get any of the other 'big' projects (Stadium, Velodromem, Arena and Media Centre).

i am getting impatient, when will we see this bloomin stadium design!!

Monday I reckon.

I can't remember exactly but I think the ceremony is on Wedneday. I will double check though. The ODA board, including Nick Serota, love the stadium. Although the design will be very simple, with only two thirds covered seating and a building budget of around £300m, the exterior will be quite revolutionary in stadium design, displaying artwork connected to competing countries.

Edit: I can confirm the launch will be Wednesday morning.

oh god 300million? doesnt sound too promising.

I can't remember exactly but I think the ceremony is on Wedneday. I will double check though. The ODA board, including Nick Serota, love the stadium. Although the design will be very simple, with only two thirds covered seating and a building budget of around £300m, the exterior will be quite revolutionary in stadium design, displaying artwork connected to competing countries.

Edit: I can confirm the launch will be Wednesday morning.

a cable here and a cable there

Nope - it means the opposite.

The ODA are being very cautious and not allowing companies to take on too many projects at the same time.

So, if Balfour Beatty are the main contender for the Aquatic Centre, they probably wouldn't get any of the other 'big' projects (Stadium, Velodromem, Arena and Media Centre).

Thankyou for that.

Are the ODA then checking against the general construction market. There is something of a mini-boom in the London Office market leading up to 2010, even outside of the more prestigious supertall market. Heathrow East will be constructed concurrently with the Olympic project.

I doubt Cross Rail in itself will have a great effect as it is a Civil Engineering project but there will be ancillary architectural and refurbishment works that will need resourcing.

What effect will this have on the Olympic project?

2012 stadium work to start early

Work on the Olympic Stadium was scheduled to begin in July 2008
London 2012 officials have revealed that building work on the Olympic Stadium will start three months early.

David Higgins, chief executive of the Olympic Delivery Authority, told BBC Radio 4 that construction would now get under way in April or May 2008.

"The quicker we start the more time we have to ensure completion in an effective time to allow the test events to happen in 2011," he said.

The design of the £496m stadium will be officially unveiled on Wednesday.

It was originally expected to cost £280m when London set its budget in 2004.

But that figure has risen dramatically, chiefly because of inflation and the fact that VAT was not factored into the original bill.

Higgins added that he was confident there would be no further rise in building costs.

News that the stadium work will begin ahead of schedule comes just a week after International Olympic Association president Jacques Rogge urged London organisers to step up their plans in order to deliver the Games on time.

Demolition across the whole site has gathered pace over the last few weeks. There are now few buildings left along the northern edge of the site. The only building left intact is the former Tibbet & Britten warehouse that is still be used as a bus garage. This building is looking increasingly isolated and I would imagine will be flattened as soon as it is vacated. Another building that was to be used as the press centre in one of the earlier masterplans looks as if demolition has commenced. I would say that that is the largest builing left.

A nice couple of before and after renders:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/london_olympics_aquatics_centreg-1.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/london_olympics_aquatics_centrelega.jpg

I can't find any pictures of the dumbed-down aquatics centre. Is this the latest design:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/london_olympics_aquatics_centregame.jpg ??

It's leagues better than the one they're building in Sunderland:
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://195.97.193.36/img/dyn-img.php/projects/2535723584.jpg/637/339/fill&imgrefurl=http://www.redboxarchitecture.com/selectedproject.php%3Fsector%3D3%26id%3D81&h=339&w=637&sz=160&hl=en&start=25&tbnid=39fp8cgSkNlv7M:&tbnh=73&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlondon%2B2012%2Baquatics%2Bcentre%26start%3D21%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D21%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

^ They are all the current design of the Aquatic Centre. The first and third are how it will look during the Games the second is how it will look after the Games in legacy mode.

This was the original bid design. Note how the roof was a lot longer.

http://www.tate.org.uk/40artists40days/artworks/zaha_hadid/Aquatic_Zaha_Hadid.jpg

Thanks DarJole. I wasn't too keen on the uber-long roof, but would have preferred the first design that covered up the nasty temporary scaffolding.

but would have preferred the first design that covered up the nasty temporary scaffolding.

The temporary scaffolding will appear on a lot of the venues. I hope everyone who visits and watches the Games on TV acknowledges that the Games themselves are not meant to be a dressy affair, and that the legacy is what will make them special.

I'm expecting plenty of press reports before the games with talk of "scaffolding", "looks like a construction site" etc. I agree that the legacy is far more important.

I'm sure it'll all look fine. As I keep saying, as long as they get the park and the environment right, visitors won't worry too much that the venues aren't architectural statements.

Athens had a stadium many think was one of the best. But their park looked to me like a construction site because it lacked greenery and natural beauty.

In other words, I'd rather a decent functional stadium in a beautiful park than an amazing stadium in a dust bowl. And that applies to all other venues as well.

those scaffolding structures in the hadid design are awesome..adds an industrial feel and is better than the sort of scaffolding use for the sydney games at the bondi beach venue and the beijing 2008 beach volleyball venue.

Well they Athens park was not green because it was intended to have an "earth" feel ...well thats what they say

are we gonna see the stadium tomorrow?

No in about 4 years time.

are we gonna see the stadium tomorrow?

Renders of, yes.

No in about 4 years time.

thats what multiplex said

I went to the games in athens and the best development they did was with their underground stations which were brilliant. admittedly they can get hold of marble rather easier than most cities but they used very high materials and even incorporated historical artifacts and trenches containing ancient ruins! I suspect people might be thankful for the games when transport is improved and the city is cleaned up, hopefully.

Well Greece has tons of white elephants left over after the games, at least London is thinking about legacy :yes:

Here's the stadium site being cleared: http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/sol/newsid_7080000/newsid_7081300/7081328.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&nol_storyid=7081328&news=1

Live on BBC Media now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_7080000/newsid_7082500?redirect=7082583.stm&news=1&nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1

Looks amazing. Albeit incredibly temporary. But then that's the point really.

certainly no wow-factor, just one big, relatively bland, unexciting bowl. one of the most unimaginative olympic stadiums in living memory.

still, at least we got the logo right...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44223000/jpg/_44223286_stadium203.jpg

I really like it. I love the athlete's on the outside of it.

It gets my vote.

Simple but pleasing design :okay:

distinctly average, but thats what you get when designing a temporary stadium I suppose

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2007/11/07/2012_olympic_stadium_large_470x370.jpg

The most boring generic stadium I've ever seen. WTF is wrong with this country? Why do we always go for the "safe" option?

It is very dissapointing, so bland and uniform :ohno:

Why do we always go for the "safe" option?

Cost, deadlines and political fear.

Video of the new stadium: http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/sol/newsid_7080000/newsid_7082700/7082740.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&nol_storyid=7082740&news=1

Probably the single most annoying video ever! I can't see 80,000 seats either :( It looks like a 50/60,000 seater.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2007/11/07/2012_olympic_stadium_large_470x370.jpg

I actually love it! (Sorry naysayers)

It looks circular for some reason, and also the roof will only cover about 2/3rds of the crowd not a very wise idea considering the typical english summers

I like it as well.

After the over-the-topness of Beijing the 'Muscle' stadium would've just looked like we were copying them (stadium with a strange structure on the outside).

Anything with an arch would've been compared to Wembley and/or Athens.

And look at the Telstra stadium in Sydney - it doesn't look any different from the many out-of-town football stadiums now being built in this country (except that it's a bit bigger).

This stadium will be instantly recognisable during the Olympics and will be a landmark.

Inside:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/WC2018/view-from-inside-during-games340x18.jpg

What the hell happened to the old design's roof? At least we should have kept that in?

Its rather bland to say the least.

First the Logo and now the Stadium.

Boring and bland. The theme for our olympics seems to be "done on the cheap" (even though it's actually costing us a hell of a lot of money).

I think this quote from the chief architect of HOK sport sums it up quite nicely "This is not a stadium that's going to be screaming from the rooftops that it's bigger and more spectacular". You got that right, mate. :ohno:

and also the roof will only cover about 2/3rds of the crowd not a very wise idea considering the typical english summers

The roof is not for the spectators, it's to protect the running athletes from winds and to make sure their records are valid.

They said in the press conference London will not be the only city that has had to deal with rain during the Olympics and that it has never dampened the spirits of the spectators when it has.

It's a good solution. Isn't it about time the Olympics was more about the two weeks of sport rather than the self-congratuatory, self-indulgent, look-how-fantastic-we-are-on-the-world-stage crap that goes with it.

The most boring generic stadium I've ever seen. WTF is wrong with this country? Why do we always go for the "safe" option?

It's going to be mostly dismantled after the games. What do you want? I dare you to describe the Atlanta Olympic stadium or the Sydney Olympic stadium (both boring as hell)?

For me the the Olympic Park is far more important.

As for the logo, well, close your eyes and think of the London logo, then do the same with the Beijing logo. I rest my case!!!

it looks like a smaller, cheaper version of the MCG. legacy mode looks alright though, which is probably the most important thing.

makes you think, you've really got to hand it to the new owners of liverpool for adding a bit of imagination to stanley park, and in full knowledge that by doing so it'd cost them an absolute fortune. imagination draws attention, provides identity and, when done well, evokes pride. this polo mint of a stadium is by no means revolting, but you'd think when the olympics comes to town we would've at least got the best silverware out.

oh well. let's just hope legacy mode provides a platform for a new generation of athletes, and that new anfield opens in 2011 on time. :D

The most boring generic stadium I've ever seen. WTF is wrong with this country? Why do we always go for the "safe" option?

erm, Wembley Stadium? The Emirates? New Anfield? I wouldn't call any of those stadia bland or generic. Some of the other venues in the Olympic Park look pretty exciting, IMO. This is an excellent solution to the 'white elephant' problem.

It's going to be mostly dismantled after the games. What do you want?


I wouldn't mind so much if they'd just been honest from the start, rather than getting our hopes up with those earlier (clearly far more impressive) renderings. Part of our bid presentation was based around that stunning original design - admittedly a minor part of the overall presentation - but its dropping in favour of this cheap bland rubbish now seems dishonest.

Anyway, Britain is one of the richest countries in the world - surely we can spare a few extra million to get a decent looking stadium to impress the world. As usual it seems we have to down-down everything.

I wouldn't mind so much if they'd just been honest from the start, rather than getting our hopes up with those earlier (clearly far more impressive) renderings. Part of our bid presentation was based around that stunning original design - admittedly a minor part of the overall presentation - but its dropping in favour of this cheap bland rubbish now seems dishonest.

Bid presentations are always glammed up to win Olympics. Beijing didn't have a new stadium in their bid, yet no-one has called them dishonest for building a completely new one in reality for their Games. Sydney's bid was vastly different to what was actually done, and that became the best Games ever.

The reason why we won the Games over Paris or the others was not because of how flashy our graphics or how wow factor our venues were, it was because of our ideas about regeneration, about sustainability, about showing how a city can host an Olympics and come out of it without white elephants and to bring the Olympics to the attention of the youth of today so it's future will be secure when they have to organise Olympics.

So far, in everything London 2012 have done, they have achieved and will achieve all of those.

Anyway, Britain is one of the richest countries in the world - surely we can spare a few extra million to get a decent looking stadium to impress the world. As usual it seems we have to down-down everything.

Since the theme of our bid was actually regeneration, i'd hardly think a willy waving contest should be top of the agenda tbh

The only two 'iconic' Olympic stadiums I can think of are Athens and Beijing. All the rest have been pretty bog standard affairs.

There's more to a successful Olympics than simply having a wow factor stadium.

I don't think anyone sitting in the Olympic stadium with 79,999 other people all cheering along and caught up in the moment when Jacques Rogge announces the London 2012 Olympic Games open and the flame lights up are going to be sitting their going 'do you know what, I'm not enjoying this because this stadium simply isn't iconic enough'.

The only two 'iconic' Olympic stadiums I can think of are Athens and Beijing. All the rest have been pretty bog standard affairs.

There's more to a successful Olympics than simply having a wow factor stadium.

I don't think anyone sitting in the Olympic stadium with 79,999 other people all cheering along and caught up in the moment when Jacques Rogge announces the London 2012 Olympic Games open and the flame lights up are going to be sitting their going 'do you know what, I'm not enjoying this because this stadium simply isn't iconic enough'.

:lol: true.

I think if this was to be a permanent stadium, then it would look more spectacular, but they have to produce something that will be good for athletes, enclosed stadium, no open ends, open because olympics is an outdoor event, and will be a better spectacle from above and during opening closing ceremony, and convertible to a later reduced capacity use, all with a budjet in mind. Good idea to remove the catering outside the stadium to reduce costs, no doubt some will complain about not being able to scoff a hot dog in the stadium without having to walk there to get one.

It should at least make a statement! This does'nt. Its woeful and just begs the question ... would Paris have been so dull? For 500m pounds on that when New Street Station cant even get rebuilt is a fucking disgrace.

The roof is not for the spectators, it's to protect the running athletes from winds and to make sure their records are valid.

They said in the press conference London will not be the only city that has had to deal with rain during the Olympics and that it has never dampened the spirits of the spectators when it has.


Sorry, but thats pathetic. £400 odd million and they can't even afford a roof! So what if its rained at other Olympics, we want ours to be remembered. Its highly likely I'll be a spectator in 2012, and tbh I'd rather not get wet! I have a season ticket at Loftus Road and even that has a roof ffs!

I was expecting something like that, for once the PR was not overstating the structure.

For sure, it wont be an iconic structure. But it is very much in line with the focus on regeneration and avoiding white elephants when so many cities failed on that in the past.

I don't think we should appreciate it like a centrepiece in London's olympic plans. It is part of jigsaw with other symbolic structures such as the velodrome (eco friendly signature) or the aquatic centre (a signature architecture).

I quite like the idea of iconography on the exterior façade and the general simplicity of the building. It is not eye catching nor bold...something that can be negative for some people.

I wouldn't mind so much if they'd just been honest from the start, rather than getting our hopes up with those earlier (clearly far more impressive) renderings. Part of our bid presentation was based around that stunning original design - admittedly a minor part of the overall presentation - but its dropping in favour of this cheap bland rubbish now seems dishonest.

I'm actually very relieved that it looks nothing like either of the designs seen previously (the bizarre "muscle" roof and the one with lopsided stands and big gaps).

Its woeful and just begs the question ... would Paris have been so dull?

Yes.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/france/ile_de_france/saint_denis1.jpg

we want ours to be remembered.

Of course it will be remembered. Even if it does rain, there's plenty of other indoor events that will be as just amazing as events in the stadium. A bit of rain is not going to stop Brits going mental at the sight of the Olympic flame being lit or athletes breaking world records.

It rained at the Manchester Commonwealth Games and they were fantastic.

It should at least make a statement! This does'nt. Its woeful and just begs the question ... would Paris have been so dull? For 500m pounds on that when New Street Station cant even get rebuilt is a fucking disgrace.

Would Paris have been so dull?:lol::lol::lol:



Stade de France is their Olympic Stadium!!!


Dull, dull, dull.

How dull can you get??????

"The stadium will be the centrepiece for the 2012 Games and will host the opening and closing ceremonies as well as the athletics events.

The main features of the design are:

* a sunken bowl built into the ground for the field of play and lower permanent seating, designed to bring spectators close to the action

* 25,000 permanent seats, 55,000 demountable

* a cable-supported roof that will stretch 28 metres the whole way around the stadium, providing cover for two-thirds of spectators

* a fabric curtain will wrap around the stadium structure, acting as additional protection and shelter for spectators

* facilities such as catering and merchandising will be grouped into self-contained 'pod' structures

Chief architect Rob Sheard, of HoK Sport, said the stadium would make a big impact, but not in the same way that previous Olympic stadia had.

"This is not a stadium that's going to be screaming from the rooftops that it's bigger and more spectacular," he said. "This is just a cleverer building. This is a cleverer solution."

I think this is a really attractive piece of architecture. It's light, neat & smooth. I think it will sit well in the English countryside style of park that appears to be taking shape. It's exactly what I wanted and IMO compares very well against the heavy, semi-complete death star that has been put up in Beijing.

It's a London Eye with the pods scattered around it. There you go, more London theming.

http://www.building.co.uk/Pictures/web/y/r/t/all_axo.jpg

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/u/h/e/grab2.jpg

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/y/j/d/grab4.jpg

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/x/o/v/grab5.jpg

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/t/s/h/grab7.jpg

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/k/h/p/grab6.jpg

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/s/e/r/grab1.jpg

The more I look at it, the more I like it. There's something incredibly British and quirky about it. Very industrial, gritty - almost like a gas holder - which, when you think about, perfectly harks back to the history of the area which it sits within. The more I think about that and how it works with the Lea Valley, the more I think it's a genius piece of design.

Forget the whole spectacle of the Olympics and the global fanfare, but think locally and think London and its industrial past and how the capital is a place where buildings and industry is being reinvented for the 21st century, and I think you start to realise how incredibly iconic the thing actually is.

Anyway, Britain is one of the richest countries in the world - surely we can spare a few extra million to get a decent looking stadium to impress the world. As usual it seems we have to down-down everything.Britain don't do spending millions for arrogant statements. Why does this continually surprise people again and again and again. Everything has to have a purpose, a reason or need. Sometimes that need creates something spectacular, extremely high office rent = skyscrapers, for example. But if there ain't the need it wont happen. There is no need for statement architecture for the Olympic stadium. Actually I think we're ahead of the game. This is an environmental / common sense statement, raising issues such as sport and urban realm above monuments.

boring stadium.. i want open ohter countrys 2012 Olympic

Why isn't the stadium permanent? I appreciate the zoning in the area for housing etc., but shouldn't this be a legacy for culture and sport (irrespective of the design)? It really does seem a big waste to spend nearly half a billion pounds on a stadium for a few years use. Another example of lack of foresight in this country... everything is built because of excessive demand, not in anticipation of it.

Anyway, a large stadium in the east would help move the centre of gravity of the city further in that direction as may happen over the next 50 years.

About the design... I think it looks okay - not ugly, not amazingly special either. Am disappointed with the use yet again of those awful construction/scaffolding-type pylons for roof support and incorporation into the design. Does every large building have to look like the London Eye and Wembley?? At least paint them a metallic, Rogers-esque colour to spice it up a bit.

boring stadium.. i want open ohter countrys 2012 Olympic

Lesson 1.

When trying to insult something, it generally helps if you make yourself understood ;)

Why isn't the stadium permanent? I appreciate the zoning in the area for housing etc., but shouldn't this be a legacy for culture and sport (irrespective of the design)?

When would an 80k stadium in east London be used?

Of course it will be remembered. Even if it does rain, there's plenty of other indoor events that will be as just amazing as events in the stadium. A bit of rain is not going to stop Brits going mental at the sight of the Olympic flame being lit or athletes breaking world records.

It rained at the Manchester Commonwealth Games and they were fantastic.

Agreed again! Half the world would have said ":Olympics in Britain? doesnt it rain all the time there?' They will expect to see some rain, its part of Britians reputation and wihtout repeating notes from an old thread, London has less annual rainfall than much of Europe!

I am astounded by the numbers of forumers who reside in this country complaining about not enough money being spent. For God sake, half of the people here will be guaranteed to be complaining elswhere about the price tag already!

That reminds me about the arguement against architects for building substandard buildings or houses...it depends on what funds are availalbe. Look at 1060's tower blocks!

Too many of us would complain about the cost. Wanting cake and eating too there I think.

boring stadium.. i want open ohter countrys 2012 Olympic

you are opening the olympics? I demand that someone else opens our olympics!!!

Um about the stadium everyone will see it from the ground where the logos and skin will look quite impressive I feel. The birds eyeview is a tad pointless. Looks quite pleasingly light and delicate too something which Wembley doesnt manage at all!

Why isn't the stadium permanent?

25,000 seats of it are.

London doesn't need another 80,000 seater stadium, it would be a white elephant apart from once or twice a year. Having a lower capacity means it can be used in a variety of ways after the Games.

I see it as a massive tent pitched up next to stream with pebbles lying about. It's summer in the English counrtyside, it's glastonbury. I expect some wanted massive cliffs next to Niagara falls, bad luck! My only concern is the pictures on the outside. Those illustrated are fine, but will they turn into corporate logos?

Those illustrated are fine, but will they turn into corporate logos?

I thought the Olympic people didn't allow advertising in the stadium?

I quite like it, it's simple, elegant and will do the job well. At least we are not getting a monstrosity like the Beijing stadium.

ive now lost all interest in the olympics after seeing that design, what a shambles.. it looks like a silo tank tower thingy.. shockingly industrial, no grace... compared to the superb conceptual design which really looked 21st century and a brilliant leap on from the bejing birdnest.. what will they call this.... the stratford shitpot perhaps :S

25,000 seats of it are.

London doesn't need another 80,000 seater stadium, it would be a white elephant apart from once or twice a year. Having a lower capacity means it can be used in a variety of ways after the Games.

If I hadn't laughed out loud about this I'd be banging the desk in anger. You're absolutely right - maybe could have let the National football stadium exist outside London after all....:bash:

I remember the 1976 Montreal Olympics and the purpose built stadium....and I gather it is still not paid for and is falling apart. I think things have learnt from that experience.

If I hadn't laughed out loud about this I'd be banging the desk in anger. You're absolutely right - maybe could have let the National football stadium exist outside London after all....:bash:

I am so tired of stupid people being allowed on the Internet.

Pity poor you.

I didnt actually understand your previous comment

I see it as a massive tent pitched up next to stream with pebbles lying about. It's summer in the English counrtyside, it's glastonbury. I expect some wanted massive cliffs next to Niagara falls, bad luck! My only concern is the pictures on the outside. Those illustrated are fine, but will they turn into corporate logos?

I believe they haven't fixed the design for them yet, I must admit I like the athletes on them.

The architect mentioned the material used could after the olympics be possibly recycled in to shopping bags which would be both fun and in keeping with the environmental creditentials of these games.

The architect mention the material used could after the olympics be possibly recycled in to shopping bags which would be both fun and in keeping with the environmental creditentials of these games.

Yes - there is also talk of the 'wrap' being made up of hundreds of panels designed by schoolchildren from across the UK and after the Games it being dismantled, cut into sections and used as memorabilia to give to spectators, schools, art galleries and museums.

That's quite an emotional and powerful statement for a public building to have.

Anyone seen the London 2012 video on the BBC website? Its like the teletubbies are running it!

I really like it.

But I wish it was fully permanent with 80000 seats.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44223000/jpg/_44223626_stadium_design416.jpg

I think its pretty nice.

Something that'll hopefully fit in with the park nicely rather than being the focus of it.

It would be nice if the Pudding Mil river were restored in legacy mode, even if it had to be re-aligned.

ok it looks like it was designed in 1990. Not far off a new Tesco. everything about it screams CHEAP rather than 'understated' or 'functionale', mostly because its meant to be the CENTREPIECE.

I dont care how 'minimalist' it is (which will be very dated come 2012) there is no X Factor, not a shred. (Remember that giant moving torch tower in Athens?)

We're definitely going to have to rely on the fireworks for the wow factor.


What would you prefer for Legacy? Interesting buildings we're forced to close down and become white elephants, or shitty cheap buildings we're forced to look at and use for another 40 years?

Everything about this is atypical of a business plan done over expense lunch: lets build em cheap, charge em high and make em live with it. Its exactly what happened in postwar cities across the board, we're stuck with these 'functional' 'projects'. Whats worse is the world is watching too, and this is meant to be representative of the country as a whole.


To obviously degrade the Olympics to a function is the worst crime of it.

I think some people are forgetting this is only a small part of a much larger Olympic Park and Olympic Games which will be taking place in venues with plenty of X Factor wowness.

shame this 'small part' houses 80,000 people and will be the most watched event, the 'stage' for the opening and closing ceremonies I may add, and all the most popular events eg track and field. I need not go on, its the Main Stadium.

to quote a certain tv character, the fucking liberty! Do they really take us for muppets?:

I don't understand some negative comments, it is a very nice design in my opinion.

God those images get worse and worse! who designed this a 3 year old!?

Is'nt it funny how only Londerners seem to like this! Shows a lack of imagination and complete overvalue!

Id rather spend 200m on a new stadium and the rest going to help the bottleneck that is Brum New Street so Britons can get down to watch it easily rather then being second best to parisians who can get there quicker then half our own nationals!

Goverments a fucking joke and so is this!

Imagine though in July/August 2012 when sports reporters are outside of the stadium doing a live link back to the studio.

Behind then, over their shoulder, you'll see the giant athletes and you'll instantly recognise it is as the Olympic Stadium

Compare that to next year in Beijing, over the shoulder of the reporters you'll see a mess of concrete pylons and you'll only know that it's the Olympic stadium if you already knew what it looked like.

I like it. It does the job and it does, in my opinion look good. It's clean, but with the pictures on the outside, and the pods scattered around, it's still got an element of fun and I think it will still be an impressive site.

People complained about the Dome being too grand and a white elephant, they complained about Wembley being too ambitious and a waste of money, and now they're complaining about the Olympic Stadium because they're playing more safer and have a practical solution that does the job it's intended to do?

Think of the starving children :|

shame this 'small part' houses 80,000 people and will be the most watched event, the 'stage' for the opening and closing ceremonies I may add, and all the most popular events eg track and field. I need not go on, its the Main Stadium.

Yeah and? Anyone would think the way people are frothing here that because London's stadium isn't as showy as Athens or Beijing's the whole project is going to collapse and the UK will be a laughing stock.

Plenty of Olympic Games have taken place in stadiums that are far, far duller than what London's is going to be. May I point to Atlanta's, Barcelona's and even Los Angeles - and they all hosted good Games.

Games aren't remembered or considered the best because of flashy stadia - they are remembered by the atmosphere, the passion and the incredible hospitality of the host city, of which London has in buckets. Just because the stadium doesn't have a wavy roof or some kind of jaunty steel girder or a big arch over the top doesn't make it any less likely to host an exceptional opening and closing ceremony.

They money is being spent on the venues that London does need the most - the Aquatic Centre and the Velodrome, which East London desperately needs. These will be the gems in the shots of the Olympic Park and the buildings tourists visit after the Games are over.

Compare that to next year in Beijing, over the shoulder of the reporters you'll see a mess of concrete pylons and you'll only know that it's the Olympic stadium if you already knew what it looked like.

That is an excellent point.

People complained about the Dome being too grand and a white elephant, they complained about Wembley being too ambitious and a waste of money, and now they're complaining about the Olympic Stadium because they're playing more safer and have a practical solution that does the job it's intended to do?

Well said. As someone else has also said, Beijing looks like a death star.

Is'nt it funny how only Londerners seem to like this!

Could this be because Londoners understand the concept of sustainable design and the idea that a London Olympics is paving the way in showing an Olympic Games doesn't have to be an overblown architectural wankfest?

I need to get off this forum, the lack of basic understanding about this project scares the hell out of me.

Thankgod Spliff Fairy can look beyond his location! Its rubbish! and you all know it!

If the canvas looks as good in reality, I think it will actually be a great stadium.

I personally like it. Yes, it does not have the wow-factor of the Bejing stadium, but China and the UK have different objective with the games. I believe it is innovative in its simplicity and I really like the sunken bowl as a legacy. I think where they succeed very well is on how it is integrated in the succounding landscape and that is something where Wembley fails in contrast.

At the same time they demonstrate they have their delivery schedule under control. Before VAT it will cost £420 mio when built, which is 50% over the original budget of £280 mio at 2004 prices. That difference corresponds to a construction cost inflation rate of 7% p.a. which seems about right. Although the press would not dare to write anything positive about the preparations fro 2012, so far their stadium is on budget after adjustment for VAT and inflation.

Could this be because Londoners understand the concept of sustainable design and the idea that a London Olympics is paving the way in showing an Olympic Games doesn't have to be an overblown architectural wankfest?

I need to get off this forum, the lack of basic understanding about this project scares the hell out of me.

Maybe you need to get off your high-horse first! If Londerners understamd the concept of sustainable design why the fuck was the Millenium Dome, London Eye built? All buildings have time lines.

The Olympic games is a SHOW - people pay for the experience. Sorry but turning up to an "architectural wank bucket" like that is'nt going to get the excitment going!

And its not a basic lack of understanding, Its a common disagreement that the price is far to much for what was arguably classed as the biggest party and event the UK will host for decades.

The fact that we continue to pump money into temporary projects for London to boost its ego pisses me and others off. Spread the wealth. 500m on that just IS NOT WORTH IT!

doesnt Wimbledon Centre court look a bit like this stadium? its not too flashy which is nice.
i think its OK.

The fact that we continue to pump money into temporary projects for London to boost its ego pisses me and others off. Spread the wealth. 500m on that just IS NOT WORTH IT!

The regeneration of the Lower Lea Valley and the future of the east of London will contribute significant profit to the UK's economy- which will end up being spent on projects the north so desperately need.

The London Olympics, if you looked into it properly, is far, far more than just two weeks of sport in a temporary 80,000 stadium.

The Olympic games is a SHOW - people pay for the experience. Sorry but turning up to an "architectural wank bucket" like that is'nt going to get the excitment going!

And its not a basic lack of understanding, Its a common disagreement that the price is far to much for what was arguably classed as the biggest party and event the UK will host for decades.

The fact that we continue to pump money into temporary projects for London to boost its ego pisses me and others off. Spread the wealth. 500m on that just IS NOT WORTH IT!

Well, to put it bluntly, those is favour are the winners here, those against are the losers.

This is what they're going to build. The whole park is coming together and it will look amazing both during the olympics and afterwards. There's no need for a showy temporary stadium - it'll cost more to build and cost more to dismantle afterwards.

And as Londoners are paying more towards this than everyone else (with a rise in their council tax to help pay for the games), they're the one who should have the biggest say in whether it's good or not.

Maybe some Birmingham politicians should campaign in the next election on a 'We will rebuild New St - but it'll cost you £25 a year per household to pay for it' manifesto.

I think many people here were queuing up to complain about this ever since they announced there was a redesign. They could've come up with a stadium designed on the Crown Jewels and people would've complained about it being too showy/tacky/expensive. They could've come up with a stadium similar to the original design but with several cutbacks to make it more affordable and people would've complained about money ruining a good design and these games being too focused on money and not enough on spectacular structures. They was no way they could win with this.

The same thing happened after the Aquatic Centre redesign - everyone complaining about dumbing down, cost savings driving everything, there not being a 'wow' factor to the new structure, looking too industrial with the temporary seating. Now everyone seems to love the Aquatic Centre design.

Thankgod Spliff Fairy can look beyond his location! Its rubbish! and you all know it!

I'm not living in London at the moment (and I have not lived in London so far), nor do quite a few people who praised it, so your "only Londoners like it" theory is not accurate.

i think its ok, just ok though, not shit, but i also think if it was us that had the idea for the birds nest in china then lots would just say it looks like someone has been fly tipping scaffold poles, if we built something that was amazing people would of still hated it.

Is'nt it funny how only Londerners seem to like this!


I'm in Stoke and I think it's great.

The regeneration of the Lower Lea Valley and the future of the east of London will contribute significant profit to the UK's economy- which will end up being spent on projects the north so desperately need.

The London Olympics, if you looked into it properly, is far, far more than just two weeks of sport in a temporary 80,000 stadium.

.... indeed, it is just a continuation of the regeneration of East London, which needed a government push once in a while, whether it is LDDC, DLR, JLE, O2, etc, but it has yielded enormously and apart from being an urban success it is also a huge financial success. It is regarded as the most successful large-scale regeneration scheme in Europe that is held up as a benchmark in all other countries. I am very glad that the Olympics are being used to that effect as well. Having visited Barcelona it shows what can be achieved, and East London has a good track record in that respect so I am confident.

also dont forget that the olympic movement is at a dead end. It can not continue to be a rich mans show. The movement will be looking to move to less well off countries over the next century and hopefully this will offer a starting point for a fresh start, a blueprint or at least lessons learnt about the new direction. China marks the end of an era, London the start of a new one. Ok infrastructure will always be costly but the investment can be harnessed into something that will exist long after the game then a country or place will only gain.

I'm in Stoke and I think it's great.

I can understand people thinking its ok but great? :nuts:

I think the fact that certain posters have had to post endlessly on this thread to defend how wonderful stadium this is, kind of sums up the reality of the situation.

This stadium is dire. And how they managed to come up with such crap with half a billion pounds is a wonder.

is there pics of it in legacy mode? thats more important i think

@Darjole

Do you know why Wembley was not chosen for the olympic stadium? what are the true reasons? or your interpretations?

It's a London Eye with the pods scattered around it. There you go, more London theming.

http://www.building.co.uk/Pictures/web/y/r/t/all_axo.jpg

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/u/h/e/grab2.jpg

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/y/j/d/grab4.jpg

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/x/o/v/grab5.jpg

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/t/s/h/grab7.jpg

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/k/h/p/grab6.jpg

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/s/e/r/grab1.jpg

The more I look at it, the more I like it. There's something incredibly British and quirky about it. Very industrial, gritty - almost like a gas holder - which, when you think about, perfectly harks back to the history of the area which it sits within. The more I think about that and how it works with the Lea Valley, the more I think it's a genius piece of design.

Forget the whole spectacle of the Olympics and the global fanfare, but think locally and think London and its industrial past and how the capital is a place where buildings and industry is being reinvented for the 21st century, and I think you start to realise how incredibly iconic the thing actually is.

reminds me of
http://www.sbp.de/en/fla/photo_hi/1562.jpg

If the canvas looks as good in reality, I think it will actually be a great stadium.

I personally like it. Yes, it does not have the wow-factor of the Bejing stadium, but China and the UK have different objective with the games. I believe it is innovative in its simplicity and I really like the sunken bowl as a legacy. I think where they succeed very well is on how it is integrated in the succounding landscape and that is something where Wembley fails in contrast.

At the same time they demonstrate they have their delivery schedule under control. Before VAT it will cost £420 mio when built, which is 50% over the original budget of £280 mio at 2004 prices. That difference corresponds to a construction cost inflation rate of 7% p.a. which seems about right. Although the press would not dare to write anything positive about the preparations fro 2012, so far their stadium is on budget after adjustment for VAT and inflation.

Fully agree with you...but I hopeless with the media as far as the cost are concerned. I've abandonned.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/WC2018/view-from-inside-during-games340x18.jpg

iconic.tasteful.symbolic and appropriate. we have a winner. there is no doubt that london hosting of the games will be the most successful games in 2012 and more importantly beyond 2012.

we could have built a retractable stadium capable of hosting future major athletics events (25k is too small) aswell has having a tenant in the shape of west ham,chelsea..or who ever.....for LESS that £500 million.


what a monumental fuck up...

Three words:

Stade de France


If its cheap enough for Paris's 2012 bid, its cheap enough for us!

Why oh why oh why??? It explains why it looks like it was designed in 1990 too.

a round circular stadium, fronted by grid-glass and metal struts.

They tried to copy it before too.
Okay, I get why the original design for the New Wembley back in the day was called off as a blatant copy of the Stade de France (that would be you Lord Foster), especially seeing that the Stade de France was then considered the worlds best stadium, with groundbreaking simplicity, sleekness and all those post pomo credentials that became so in vogue.

It was also memorable as one of the best value constructions of its era, coming in at a fraction of the price Wembley turned out to be.

Fast forward to 2007 and hey presto! we have the same redesign yet UTTERLY without any of the novelty, groundbreaking values of before. The post pomo functionale look is so dated and abused now, an excuse for Tesco, Asda, Costco, etc to build the cheapest quality giant sheds fronted by glass and call it a public building (as opposed to well, a giant shed).

To cut a long story short the 'references' to the Stade de france has nothing to dop with quality of design (especially as its so banal and prolific nowadays) but cheap build. Imagine how dated it will look in 2012.

In other words the same thinking that the brutalists and town centre post war builders got away with - selling what was cheap and nasty as 'functional' and 'sleek' and 'modern'. the way its been done here is the finger pointing and snobby references to Beijing or Athens' stadiums as showy and tacky and Vegasy, when in fact their only crimes are being daring and groundbreaking in design.


Why oh why are our temprorary, cheap buildings the ones that last and the interesting expensive ones the one that go the way of the wrecking ball, often even before they come of the architects plans?

Do you know why Wembley was not chosen for the olympic stadium? what are the true reasons? or your interpretations?

Wembley was considered in 2001 to host an Olympic Games, with the Olympic Village somewhere in Ealing and Aquatics somewhere out in the sticks. But the bid team wanted to make London's games different and saw from the experience of Barcelona and Sydney that an Olympic Games can regenerate areas of deprivation in cities. So they decided with the GLA to build a bid around an Olympic Park in Stratford, in the heart of one of the most polluted areas of London and around the proposed International station.

Within this park would be the village, and to provide a compact games the stadium would neighbour it and a selection of other venues that would act as a catalyst to push regeneration out of an area that hasn't seen investment for over hundred years.

Wembley was too far from the Park to host the athletics and opening ceremonies, the security nightmare of transporting athletes from the village to Wembley would be massive, and the Jubilee line would have to run over capacity to get the people and the Olympic family and logistical people from Central London. It simply wouldn't be feasible, and goes against the idea of holding the Games in Stratford to create a sporting legacy for East London that it can build on.

I dont see why they were so hell bent on keeping it as an athletics venue afterwards, just give it to West Ham or Spurs. I mean how often is even a 25k athletics stadium going to get used a year? No-one really bothers with athletics apart from every 4 years, or 2 years if you count the commonwealth games.

we could have built a retractable stadium capable of hosting future major athletics events (25k is too small) aswell has having a tenant in the shape of west ham,chelsea..or who ever.....for LESS that £500 million.


what a monumental fuck up...

which athletics events bring in 25,000+ crowds? The tenant was never going to be happy with an athletics track and Seb Coe was never going to budge and turn the venue into a football venue. That was not the plan any tenant that wanted to use the stadium needed to agree to that.

Retractable stadium by 2012 for under 500 million? maybe if it was being built in south africa

I quite like it actually - sure, it lacks the 'wow' factor - but thats not what the London games are all about. And even if we were going for the wow factor, i'm pretty sure the Chinese would have us beaten on that front.

This is a clean, simple, fairly elegant design...it serves its purpose without any fuss. And you can guarantee that if it was a more outlandish design you have people screaming about it being a total waste of money, so in effect they are damned either way.

But i think when the celebrations are in full swing, flag flying, fireworks blasting, lighting displays, jovial people etc etc it will look great. The success of the olympics will be based on the sum of all the parts, not on the individual structures.

Guys if enough people complain about it we can get a redesign, just as in the New Wembley back in 1999 - from which we got the massive arch put in I may add.

We really dont have to be stuck with this underwhelming, flavourless supa-safe design.

Like I said before, no x factor, not a shred.

I think the fact that certain posters have had to post endlessly on this thread to defend how wonderful stadium this is, kind of sums up the reality of the situation.

This stadium is dire. And how they managed to come up with such crap with half a billion pounds is a wonder.

ive seen enough stadia in my time and i think its fantastic, if you think its crap thats fine too, each to his/her own. now that 2012 logo..well thats another story.

i like it more now i just watched the video on 2012 site

It reminds me of Gas Holders.I like it.:okay: