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.

The football teams didn't want it because the pitch would be too far from the seating, as is the case with the Stade de France and other built-for-athletics stadiums.

The legacy is also part of the bid promise of winning the Games back in 2005 - that it would be used for athletics as a permanent base for an Olympic Institute of some kind. Athletics is woefully underfunded in this country with crumbling venues and a real lack of any want to better our athletes, and its hoped this bright new 25,000 stadium will change that and really help in the push for producing world class athletes for the next Olympic Games.

we could have built a retractable stadium capable of hosting future major athletics events

we got wembley for that

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.

Yes, and arch which is a PERMANENT structure. If this Olympic stadium was going to be there forever I'd be pretty pissed off and calling for a redesign. But it's a temporary piece of engineering that will be standing for a year at the most.

Instead you want to waste more money on building something iconic with bells and whistles that will be torn down after a year? Doesn't that sound like you want another Dome?

This reminds me of The British Library project. When it was first designed it was all about slightly tacky brick sheds and brick brutalism with references to the past - the start of postmodernism. By the time it was finished it was dubbed the Literary Tesco because by then the look was so prolific and every supermarket looked like it.

Fast forward to today and theyve actually designed something that already looks like the supermarkets / every cheap build giant supastore shed, and will only look even worse in 5 years time.

the first thing i thought was that it was actually meant to look like a gas holder..wont the olympic park have a few of those?

Yes, and arch which is a PERMANENT structure. If this Olympic stadium was going to be there forever I'd be pretty pissed off and calling for a redesign. But it's a temporary piece of engineering that will be standing for a year at the most.

Instead you want to waste more money on building something iconic with bells and whistles that will be torn down after a year? Doesn't that sound like you want another Dome?

Yep, guilty as charged.

sorry, but the current design is painful. Anyway I still think you can build cheaply but with a MUCH better design.

we got wembley for that


wembley will never host an athletics event because theres no time in the contracted schedule to fit a temporary athletic track......



i notice they are looking for a "lower league football club or rugby club" tenants..good luck with that,have you seen how far away the pitch is from the stands..

I think it is fine. Not groundbreaking but then it was never hyped upped to be. It is a perfect venue for athletics, which is what it has been designed for all along. For half the price of New Wembley we have a stadium that is infinitely more colourful and airy and should provide a perfect venue for competitions as well as being a home for the BOA.

Well, looking through the thread since the design was unveiled I counted 19 supportive members, 10 dissatisfied members and a few who think it is "okay" or "average".

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

I cant believe this is what 80,000 people will see when they turn up for the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games.

Its a bit of a reminder that we see buildings from ground level, and how shite they are.


yep, definitely a gas holder, or an out of town retail park.

From what I gather this is the first Olympic stadium built with only athletic events in mind. Football is obviously across the country and in Wembley. They've engineered the 'bowl' part so spectators are closer than ever before to the athletes. That's pretty amazing and will really give a kick to the atmosphere in there. This could possibly be the best designed Olympic stadium yet in terms of what it will actually achieve inside it.

So this, without the Chinese digging up the road, is better at ground level? Not in my opinion.

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/04/0423_efte/image/8-beijing-national-stadium.jpg

i really dont give a shit about beijing but LONDON (btw I love the birds nest). Even if Beijing designed a great big pile of steaming turd it shouldnt allow us to design a slightly smaller pile of steaming turd.


Cummon, 1980s or what?

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

WATCH the video!!! fantastic!
The stadium is breakthrough as its a first for the Olympic Games and will dictate the the future of olympic stadiums for any city..chicago 2016 temporary stadium ...an african host in 2020?

I cant believe this is what 80,000 people will see when they turn up for the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games.

Apart from an entirely new Stratford. An amazing new Aquatic Centre. An entirely new urban park larger than any in Europe in 150 years. newly regenerated and clean waterways. Hospitality and atmosphere on another scale. A stadium that everyone can take a piece of home to remember.

No, neither can I really. And it will all be ready in four and a half years.

Amazing.

Guys this our Olympics, we wont have this chance again, and prolly not in our lifetime.

yep, definitely a gas holder,

Nothing wrong with that - gas holders are beautiful structures :

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/Untitled.jpg

Darjole, the urban park plan was in short what won us the Games, its groundbreaking and beautiful. That I cant fault, am damn proud of too, but THAT is not whats the issue here.

I would still appreciate a (much, much) better (unembarrassing) centrepiece if I could have one.

er, yep I like gasholders too, but perhaps not for an Olympic stadium.

Very British.

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

http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/piclib/images/%5cmid%5c0330000902_5mb.jpg

http://www.terragalleria.com/images/uk/uken35632.jpeg

http://www.bized.co.uk/images/dome.jpg

http://www.stayinwembley.com/picture_gallery/large_images/2565.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/St_pancras_gas_holder_march_07.jpg/800px-St_pancras_gas_holder_march_07.jpg

i really dont give a shit about beijing but LONDON (btw I love the birds nest). Even if Beijing designed a great big pile of steaming turd it shouldnt allow us to design a slightly smaller pile of steaming turd.


Cummon, 1980s or what?

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

I really think this looks great. This is probably the first olympic stadium which is wholehearted allowing itself to be an ATHLETICS venue.

Look at every other stadium - has any of them screamed 'Here be Athletes!' more than this? They all keep themselves neutral because they're all looking for tenants after the olympics. No point in having giant javelin throwers on the outside of it if it's going to be full of footballers afterwards is there!

It's also NOT WHITE! It's colourful - probably the most colourful stadium I've seen for a while - certainly in this country anyway.

And as for the comments about it looking like a supermarket - I wish I had supermarkets near me looking like that! It looks nothing like them.

What's the opposite of 'rose-tinted glasses' - cos you're wearing them. You've made up your mind that you don't like it and that's it.

ive now lost all interest in the olympics after seeing that designwhat 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

I'm glad to see you've lost all interest in the Olympics on the basis of the stadium design. That means you can leave the rest of us fans of the Olympics to enjoy watching the events and feel the excitement of the occasion which is far more important. The understated look is actually what the games need, allowing the spectators and athletes to add the colour and atmposhere. It is a simple and pleasant stadium that should fit nicely into the green surroundings. The cost of the project may be an issue as it is fairly high but this is to be expected in London these days. Let's just be happy that we will be able to experience the Olympics in the UK and free ourselves of this fixation with extravagance. :cool:

Apart from an entirely new Stratford. An amazing new Aquatic Centre. An entirely new urban park larger than any in Europe in 150 years. newly regenerated and clean waterways. Hospitality and atmosphere on another scale. A stadium that everyone can take a piece of home to remember.

No, neither can I really. And it will all be ready in four and a half years.

Amazing.

Id be pretty happy turning up for the opening seeing this major major Olympic park...that floating timber velodrome roof..the hadid aquatic centre..the gas holder ipod stadium..the mangnificent bridges..the quirky and original temporary indoor arenas..the olympic village..amazing stratford station...an international terminal at an olympic park!(simply unheard of)..the most well connected, best organized, well thought out plan the IOC has ever seen.

if you have to find a negative..well then its the logo...the standard has been set very high..any future olympic host would need to step it up even more..

Yeah dont know why people are complaining oh wait its a very British thing to do...I actually thought we were getting something really dull but no the stadium looks nice and elegant.

Oh, and as for the comments about we should campaign to get it changed. Erm, hello? Tight deadline.

Wembley was redesigned - and then delivered 3 years late.

They've spent the last 9 months working on this and they're looking at starting to build it next April. And you want them now to rip the whole thing up and start again, meaning that it'll be another 9 months before a new design plus another 4 months while the contractors go over the details, get themselves ready, meaning they wont be starting until Jan 2009 at the very earliest and already 6 months behind schedule?

Just let them get on with it.

Darjole, the urban park plan was in short what won us the Games, its groundbreaking and beautiful. That I cant fault, am damn proud of too, but THAT is not whats the issue here.

I would still appreciate a (much, much) better (unembarrassing) centrepiece if I could have one.

er, yep I like gasholders too, but perhaps not for an Olympic stadium.

why embarrassed? the world looks on and says simple, elegant, a breakthrough and a new standard for future olympic venues..they see the largest regeneration of land in Europe for decades...yes its a safe design..but id certainly be very proud if i was a Londoner

for me the stadium is like the logo, the more people slagging it off is making me love it all the more, cant wait to see it with the logo all over it!!!!

I really think this looks great. This is probably the first olympic stadium which is wholehearted allowing itself to be an ATHLETICS venue.

Look at every other stadium - has any of them screamed 'Here be Athletes!' more than this? They all keep themselves neutral because they're all looking for tenants after the olympics. No point in having giant javelin throwers on the outside of it if it's going to be full of footballers afterwards is there!

It's also NOT WHITE! It's colourful - probably the most colourful stadium I've seen for a while - certainly in this country anyway.

And as for the comments about it looking like a supermarket - I wish I had supermarkets near me looking like that! It looks nothing like them.

What's the opposite of 'rose-tinted glasses' - cos you're wearing them. You've made up your mind that you don't like it and that's it.

there is a reason for that its because no-one gives a shit about athletics after the olympics, sad but thats just the way it is

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

http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/piclib/images/%5cmid%5c0330000902_5mb.jpg

I'm glad I showed you all this, because it shows exactly how this design came about - I'd imagine even Peter Cook will explain that the Dome of Discovery was the inspiration behind the facade and the steel rods.

Now, all we need to do is to campaign for a replica of the SKYLON to be the Olympic torch and I think we'll have the perfect London masterpiece.

thats what really sepperates london from rest of world, everything that is done brings up these issues and responces which is only good for 2012, its another masterstroke in my eyes and i cant wait for more lol

well the trusses and membranes can be constructed off-site..if they wanted to it could be ready in 2 years after the site preparation is complete.

because no-one gives a shit about athletics after the olympics, sad but thats just the way it is

Exactly the reason why London wants an athletics stadium after the Games are over. Because no one does give a shit, the Government gives them hardly any funding and that's why we don't do well in Olympics.

Thankfully, the legacy from this stadium will change all that.

So this, without the Chinese digging up the road, is better at ground level? Not in my opinion.

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/04/0423_efte/image/8-beijing-national-stadium.jpg

Yes it is!

I have mixed views about the Stadium design because I desperately want too see much more of our design and architectural talent shown off in new and exciting ways, but I also understand the huge need for practicality.

What I personally would do is, next to the stadium, place a landmark structure that contains the Olympic flame - something that is tall and elegant, and could be seen from right across London; something that has an integrated lighting scheme and could be lit up every night after the games as a symbol of the games and it's legacy - the torch, after the games, a feature beacon in the middle of the largest new park in Europe.

It would be a much cheaper way to make an architectural and iconic impact without making it a huge stadium that will be taken down afterwards. No?

Any pics of it in legacy mode?

i spent all yesterday looking at pics of St Pancras so anything i saw today was gonna be a let down

What I personally would do is, next to the stadium, place a landmark structure that contains the Olympic flame - something that is tall and elegant, and could be seen from right across London; something that has an integrated lighting

lol trust me we will do something for the torch that will spark another big debate

I have mixed views about the Stadium design because I desperately want too see much more of our design and architectural talent shown off in new and exciting ways, but I also understand the huge need for practicality.

What I personally would do is, next to the stadium, place a landmark structure that contains the Olympic flame - something that is tall and elegant, and could be seen from right across London; something that has an integrated lighting scheme and could be lit up every night after the games as a symbol of the games and it's legacy - the torch, after the games, a feature beacon in the middle of the largest new park in Europe.

It would be a much cheaper way to make an architectural and iconic impact without making it a huge stadium that will be taken down afterwards. No?

Well..connect a second ring or truss to the stadium roof truss...sort of concentric circles and use that as the flame..

legacy mode - see the video

What I personally would do is, next to the stadium, place a landmark structure that contains the Olympic flame - something that is tall and elegant, and could be seen from right across London; something that has an integrated lighting scheme and could be lit up every night after the games as a symbol of the games and it's legacy - the torch, after the games, a feature beacon in the middle of the largest new park in Europe.



From what they said in the press conference this is exactly what is being planned.

legacy mode - see the video

Link please.Yeah Im lazy.

I think for some of you lot, the phrase "clutching at straws" springs to mind.

If you want a true reflection of how negatively people feel about this stadium then take a look at these comments pages (some are nearly unanimously negative).

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/11/07/londons_olympic_stadium_is_it.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/F8640404?thread=4757247&skip=440&show=20

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml;jsessionid=I53BAAKFWCN4ZQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/sport/2007/11/07/uostadium107.xml

The Telegraph has even now got an article asking people how we should better spend £496m of our money.

I think for some of you lot, the phrase "clutching at straws" springs to mind.

If you want a true reflection of how negatively people feel about this stadium then take a look at these comments pages (some are nearly unanimously negative).



Yeah and most of the naysayers are northerners...what a surprise!

The Telegraph has even now got an article asking people how we should better spend £496m of our money.

I couldn't careless. Come September 2012 when the Games are over all those people will no doubt still be moaning even though London had hosted the best Games ever and put a bit of happiness into people's lives up and down the UK.

Link please.Yeah Im lazy.

http://www.london2012.com/blog/2007/11/07/video-olympic-stadium-design.php

The London 2012 Games will not be judged on the amount of negative people nor the amount of negative articles in the press but by the real difference it has made.

Thanks Mo Rush

I think it looks great :) For a stadium that's only going to be used for a few weeks it could have been far, far worse. The roof's great. :)

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.

thank you for that! :)
I copy/paste your answer in the french forum because some forumers were wondering why Wembley was not chosen.

thank you for that! :)
I copy/paste your answer in the french forum because some forumers were wondering why Wembley was not chosen.

Hi Manuel, just out of curiosity, what do the French members think of the design?

I'm trying to like it - maybe it will grow on me - but my first impression is that it looks cheap, dull and unimaginative - we have some of the very best architects in the world based in London and we get a stadium that looks like a gas container! What a let down!

This area was Britains Silicon Valley monorail was invented here.I really love the fact that the stadium looks like gas holder.It will be a reminder of what this area once was.

Its a clean, functional, well thought out design that does exactly what it needs to do. Its not architectually ground breaking but they could make it look pretty neat with some good lighting and interesting designs on the outside.

London's games will not be considered a success based on its stadium. The nay-sayers will evaporate by the time we get to the opening ceremony and indulge in a little celebration and even...dare I say it...patriotism? (Being proud of your country isn't illegal you know?).

I just hope the aforementioned ceremony is good - that will be what people remember in terms of spectacle. Cathy Freeman in all that waterfall in Sydney is my abiding memory of the 2000 games. I hope we don't let petty squabbles mess that up in London. (Please, don't let a token 'kid of the community' light the flame!)

i think its only problem is the flood lights, makes it look like no thought went into it and make it look cheap

Hi Manuel, just out of curiosity, what do the French members think of the design?

A general disappointment and a bit of bitterness.

The Telegraph has even now got an article asking people how we should better spend £496m of our money.

and if we built a stadium a billion people loved, all the papers would of said is a simple bowl would of done

i think its only problem is the flood lights, makes it look like no thought went into it and make it look cheap

yeah, its very US football college stadium..they need to intergrate it more into the roof membrane so that it doesnt stand out like a sore thumb but i think the IOC will put them in their place with the lighting issue.

A general disappointment and a bit of bitterness.

hasnt it been like that since july 2005?

and if we built a stadium a billion people loved, all the papers would of said is a simple bowl would of done

Exactly. The media in this country stink.

go london 2012 the stadium looks great totally british.You whingers sod the lot of you.

1992 Montjuic, 1996 Atlanta - these were not the greatest stadiums. Telsta 2000 was massive and therefore good, Beijing 2008 looks magnificent from the outside, but what about the inside. 2004 Athens was pleasing to the eye, and that was the Calatrava roof design. I must say the London 2012 looks better from the inside, and yes the side needs a bit of tweaking, but it is functional and will do the job.

Rather than come down to 25,000 however surely 45,000 - 50,000 option would be better and as it has been mentioned this country needs a large cricket ground esp. with the popularity of Twenty20 etc.

For those people saying it won't cost those outside London anything:

63% of the funding for the staging of the Games comes from central government (23% from the National Lottery and 13% from London).

You can even check that on wikipedia if you like - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_olympics#Financing

1992 Montjuic, 1996 Atlanta - these were not the greatest stadiums. Telsta 2000 was massive and therefore good, Beijing 2008 looks magnificent from the outside, but what about the inside. 2004 Athens was pleasing to the eye, and that was the Calatrava roof design. I must say the London 2012 looks better from the inside, and yes the side needs a bit of tweaking, but it is functional and will do the job.

Rather than come down to 25,000 however surely 45,000 - 50,000 option would be better and as it has been mentioned this country needs a large cricket ground esp. with the popularity of Twenty20 etc.

very good point i have to say

i like the stadium but the cost is crazy, and i hope it includes contingencies and all works around the stadium

500m pounds thats just ridiculous..

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

Compare it to Manchester's 2002 Commonwealth Games Stadium. It only cost the nation £120m and it's a permanent Structure/stadium. There's no competition. :wink2:

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/17/lg/36.jpg

well time will tell! There is a very strong ideolgy running through the 2012 games and i think we should all respect it, I mean it is quite loud and clear you dont need much of a brain to read the message! Rather than the rather boring endless ranting and raving at quite frankly very minor issues lets sit back and see the package unveil it will be a long road yet the momentum has carried it far away from the twisted editorials and comment sections of websites. Everyone has been positive about the overall direction of this olympic games and it is very interesting from an urban design/regeneration point of view, which in theory should have us all fascinated on here. I really can not see what there is to get so worked up about.

i like the stadium but the cost is crazy, and i hope it includes contingencies and all works around the stadium

500m pounds thats just ridiculous..

of course it does! The cost is the cost! Its not built out of white gold!!!

Just got home from work and WTF is that:ohno:
I so far dont like the look of this new olympic stadium i thought today we were going to see new and improved renders on this stadium below not something completely new.
http://tembellikruyasi.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/london_olympic_stadium.jpg

I dont think you quite understand the fact the the goverment refuse to help the bottleneck in the center of the country but are more then willing to pump £500m into a temporary 80,000 seater stadium which design wise is'nt worth it.

Maybe we should look long term and see that the UK has more benefits getting people across the country quicker then spending so much money on a sunken bowl in an area of London that would've been developed anyway!

Think you can share our frustrations when you see that out of £600m awarded to Reading and Birmingham stations - the latter being buiser then London Gatwick ... why do we only get £25% of the funding?

If they want the games to work they need to stop pissing around and give brum the money it needs to build a route where people from across the whole UK can get down to the games easily

The fact that the city is hosting the Americans and more then likely the Chinese emplies to me that £500m would be better spent on a nationwide station which is already 100% over its compacity and that has real options to beneift the growth of the UK and not some poxy stadium which will be in the worlds eyes for 4 weeks (and of course the 52 weeks before that when they are moaning about wether or not it'll be completed in time)

There is a simple answer to all your northerners moaning about London getting all the money. MOVE TO LONDON.

I dunno, maybe I'm just lucky, but it's as though the Olympics are being run for me. I like all the stadia designs, the park is superb, then we got that great bridge. The transport projects are going very very well (although I'm still hoping to get the Rotherhithe pedestrian bridge built on the back of this). Hell, I even think the logo is great. The ethos behind it all and the branding promoting it is just right. Even the amount being spent is about exactly what I think it should be. I keep questioning myself, "am I being sucked in?" etc. as against the sea of negative press and nonsensical parallels to gas holders I seem out of step. But no, I think I'm right, it's going damn well. <no apologies for smugness>

I dunno, maybe I'm just lucky, but it's as though the Olympics are being run for me. I like all the stadia designs, the park is superb, then we got that great bridge. The transport projects are going very very well (although I'm still hoping to get the Rotherhithe pedestrian bridge built on the back of this). Hell, I even think the logo is great. The ethos behind it all and the branding promoting it is just right. Even the amount being spent is about exactly what I think it should be. I keep questioning myself, "am I being sucked in?" etc. as against the sea of negative press and nonsensical parallels to gas holders I seem out of step. But no, I think I'm right, it's going damn well. <no apologies for smugness>

Yeah I agree with this. I think there's a distinct lack of appreciation amongst a lot of people about how much the Olympics are going to change the face of London, and the UK, for the next century. The 2010s are going to be the new swinging 60s in terms of arts, design and British identity. I wish everyone would see that the money being spent now is peanuts compared to what the return will be to the UK's economy.

There is a simple answer to all your northerners moaning about London getting all the money. MOVE TO LONDON.

:lol: Best joke I've heard all year!

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/11/07/londons_olympic_stadium_is_it.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/F8640404?thread=4757247&skip=440&show=20

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml;jsessionid=I53BAAKFWCN4ZQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/sport/2007/11/07/uostadium107.xml

The Telegraph has even now got an article asking people how we should better spend £496m of our money.

Without even looking at any of those comments, let me guess what everyone is saying....err...somthing along the lines of "We could build 10 hospitals with that money" :blahblah:

I wish those people would get a fucking life...moan, moan, bloody moan - as much as they would like to see the UK turned into a giant hospital, its never going to happen, so i wish to god they would get over it :gaah:

Compare it to Manchester's 2002 Commonwealth Games Stadium. It only cost the nation £120m and it's a permanent Structure/stadium. There's no competition. :wink2:

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/17/lg/36.jpg

Yeah, the Manchester stadium is nice. But it does look a bit like a multistory car park from ground level, don't you think? :dunno:

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/001ewm/lg/ManCityStadium3X16.jpg

I don't mean to turn this into a stadium bashing contest - but i think its difficult to find any stadium that is truly beautiful from groundlevel...they all look a but brutish and lumbering (IMO)

ok now i would have preferred for the stadium to be revealed using an orchestral version of "world in union" as the background music..those pods and flying seats freak me out

Yeah, the Manchester stadium is nice. But it does look a bit like a multistory car park from ground level, don't you think? :dunno:


Stop arguing with mancs.According to them even grass is greener in Manchester and if one day they get the Olympics then the Games will end up being called Manchester Manchesters Olympics of Manchester!
Ignore them.

Stop arguing with mancs.According to them even grass is greener in Manchester and if one day they get the Olympics then the Games will end up being called Manchester Manchesters Olympics of Manchester!
Ignore them.

Well, the grass probably is greener in Manchester - all that non-stop rain is excellent for a healthy crop of the greenest grass you've ever seen

:okay: ;)

I have to say I really don't like the pebbles and that promotional vidio is so cringe worthy. The stadium is ok but taking this long to come up with that design which is essentially pretty much a like any over stadium hok do. Very disappointed.

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.


HHmm...I hardly think London needs a cherry to place on the sites and views that the world will be looking at in 2012...forget the stadium, mouths will be open wide...history and modern skyscrapers all in one....and the olympics..who cares about a 'here today, gone tomorrow' stadium...in between the events, thne cameras and press will be admiring other things in London then a 'ten a penny' stadia.

Its not that important actually...in fact it is semi temporary!

I reckon the flame will be a pretty amazing affair. I reckon it will be very, very tall and a real marker for the Olympic Park.

Hell, maybe it will be part of the wind turbine.

I dont think you quite understand the fact the the goverment refuse to help the bottleneck in the center of the country but are more then willing to pump £500m into a temporary 80,000 seater stadium which design wise is'nt worth it....bla bla)

Here we go again...Britain is getting the Olympics and the country fractionalises into districts...The fourth richest country in the world where the average person sits in the top 1 or 2 % of the worlds wealth (GDP).WTF?

Here we go again...Britain is getting the Olympics and the country fractionalises into distircts...The fourth richest country in the world where the average person sits in the top 1 or 2 % of the worlds wealth .WTF?

That's easy for you to say - you live in London.

That's easy for you to say - you live in London.

commies were good.

I think the design of the stadium looks shit.

besides the delhi 2010 stadium..this one is also being built..similar!
http://archunion.com.ua/img/2007/11/s_11_003.jpg

ok this where we find that all you whingers are truley hypocitical.Ok take the Bejing design of there olympic stadium.Right lets say that design did not make it to the final design for Bejing.Instead it makes it's way to the London olympic stadium design ok.I've seen countless posts on the bejing olympics development forum and everyone is saying including you whinging english folk that this stadium is great an innovative design value for money and unique.Ok if this was the london design instead it would be slated to hell as the current design is now.And why is that ask yourselves that.Well i'm saying this through olympics history there has never been a stadium like this,looked like this,built like this and used like this(i.e post games)thats innovation and why is it because it will set future stadium building for future olympics.Name a previous olympic stadium that use athletics as it's primary sport.Answer zero.Do we want another Montreal no thats why the organisers are doing what they are doing a bloody good job.I rest my case and i am 110 percent behind london 2012.Damn it show your patriotism don't knock it.

For those people saying it won't cost those outside London anything:

63% of the funding for the staging of the Games comes from central government (23% from the National Lottery and 13% from London).

You can even check that on wikipedia if you like - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_olympics#Financing

Thats wrong.

23% National lottery - yes

13% London?

You mean 13% from the London Development Agency - not London taxpayers
http://www.lda.gov.uk/

63% comes from Central Government via London Taxpayers

Nice try, but no cigar :)

What a sad excuse for an Olympic stadium. This is almost as bad as Atlanta. I guess people were too concerned about what was gonna happen to the stadium after the games. If that's your main worry, you shouldn't be hosting the games in the first place.

You people can say what you like about this stadium being functional and groundbreaking and the legacy it will leave but this is an architecture forum and architecturally that design is crap

LONDON 2012 WILL BE THE BEST EVER GAMES and people can say what they like.I take pride in my country.Plus without London The UK would be nothing

True, we'd be like Belgium or the Netherlands if London was gone.

Another stadium with a similar design...AWD Arena in Hanover

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/53352148.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=780858ABC91EC2146DC58668CBFC1362A40A659CEC4C8CB6

http://www.fussballportal.de/bundesliga/stadien/imago01513999m.jpg

Or perhaps you prefer the Gottlieb Daimler Stadion in Stuttgart

http://www.stadionfuehrer.de/stadion_vfbstuttgart.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Gottlieb-daimler-stadion.jpg

It kinda reminds me of the Olympic Stadium in Berlin :shifty:

http://olympics.ballparks.com/1936Berlin/aerial.jpg

http://www.thequeensownhussars.co.uk/images/queens_birthday_parade_berlin_olympic_stadium.jpg

Anyone want to dare to setup a poll for this?

New Stadium Design : Good or Bad?

No 'ifs', 'buts' or 'maybes'. Just those 2 options.

Is there anything particularly innovative about the Olympic Stadium designs?

http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/3904/osix5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The design has been conceived with two roles in mind - a full blown 80,000-seater arena in Olympics mode, substantially reduced to 25,000 seats in its 'legacy' role.
It has been designed to allow that transition to happen, with temporary seating and roof, that can be re-used. The design therefore needs less steel than others of a similar size. It also benefits from the inherent stability of being built into a bowl.
The main innovation is the use of an 860m fabric wrap around the outside of the stadium, (the same as 72 London buses) which will be creatively lit with images projected onto it to give it vibrancy and a 'life of its own.'
Afterwards, the fabric will be cut up and turned into souvenir bags!


Will the designs go down well with the public?
Callers to BBC Radio 5 Live have predictably mixed views. It doesn't have the wow factor of Beijing's 'bird's nest' design but neither does it have the engineering headache that's gone with it either.
Iconic architectural statements like the Wembley arch and the roof on the Athens Olympic stadium are all well and good, but cost a lot, and aren't flexible.
There's no need for this stadium to remain an 80,000 seater - Wembley and Twickenham already exist in London - it has to be fit for purpose post games, and not a burden on the local community, so its 'shrink-ability' is both clever and pragmatic.
I think it's a well executed design given the constraints placed upon the architects.


How much will the stadium cost to build? We can take a guess that the £496m allocated for it won't be the final figure, and no-one's likely to suggest it will come down.
Equally, the organisers won't make themselves hostage to fortune by pledging not a penny more.
The bottom line is there's a huge contingency fund already included in the overall games budget and if some of that gets diverted to the stadium, no-one will be surprised.
The original price quoted in the bid book, about £280m, was at 2004 prices before inflation and VAT.
The International Olympic Committee asked for the costings to be presented within those parameters.
They've now changed the bidding conditions, and in the future cities will be asked to index costs to outcome prices in the year the games will be staged.


Does it represent value for money?
It's a hard question to answer because no two stadiums are the same or commissioned at the same time.
Athens adapted an existing stadium, spent £100m on a roof that almost wasn't finished on time and attracted a huge amount of criticism.
But it looked great on the TV pictures, and helped project an attractive, positive image of the city and the country.


How long will it take to build?
Hopefully less than five years. Joking aside, they're already clearing the site, and groundworks should begin next April three months ahead of the original schedule.
This may be stating the obvious, but the sooner it's done, the better, because they will have to carry out test events to make sure it works for track and field during the games, and to identify any problems.
In a perfect world, you want it done a year ahead of the opening ceremony. But it's the unforseen they really need to allow for. Major projects like this almost always hit delays, so they need to build in a buffer.


Are there any potential pitfalls? The soaring price of steel, workforce issues, colonies of crested newts?
The day after London won the vote, the London Underground was bombed and the security implications, (ie costs for the whole project,) probably went up by a factor of 10.
The pitfalls are many and unpredictable. The Olympic Delivery Authority will be hoping to prepare for and anticipate most of them, but some things you just can't plan for.
There will undoubtedly be an element of luck involved in getting it finished well before the deadlines and not over budget.


What happens to the stadium after the Olympics?
Big changes to the proportions, as already described.
It keeps the athletics track and provides a permanent home for major track and field events.
It will also be accessible to the local communities in the five surrounding boroughs and an anchor tenant is being sought to help pay the maintenance bills.
That might be a football club, Leyton Orient perhaps, or a rugby club such as Wasps or Saracens.
Those negotiations are continuing, but not complete, and it will become a source of major concern if they can't sort that out over the next five years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/7083874.stm

I think this whole debate today has raised a few bigger questions than just whether you like the stadium or not. I find it quite refreshing people are taking an interest in whether they like the look of the stadium or not, when most people (I'm talking the general public here) mostly don't care either way about what is built around them or the buildings they inhabit or use on a daily basis.

It's also quite interesting that nearly everyone says the stadium isn't 'iconic' enough, or doesn't have a 'wow' factor. Since when did people become so polarised about iconic design? The idea of starchitects and 'icons' has been said by some to be past their sell by date, with the same 'look' of buildings being replicated by the same architects across the globe, a Hadid in Madrid could be built in Beijing, a Libeskind in Prague could be built in Los Angeles. The idea of 'local' architects designing for their locale was something of the 19th century, when globalisation and the instant journey of ideas through the Internet didn't yet exist and meant people looked locally for inspiration.

And then comes along this, a design that is less about looks and more about function, and it affects people. It really does come down to something that is quite inherent in the 21st century - this idea that as long as something is good looking on the outside it doesn't matter what is inside, or whether it works, it just has to be easy on the eye. It's celebrity culture - a want to be something more glamorous, a step towards a better looking life, surrounding yourself with beautiful things in the vain hope that you feel more fulfilled.

Does anyone remember the Philippe Starck juicer? That's an example of what I'm getting it. He took an everyday appliance, one that was ugly and ungainly, dare I say it, a little bit boring, and redesigned it into this thing of beauty. It was a piece of art or sculpture and everyone wanted one. It became a design icon of the 90s. Except there was a flaw, bause in his quest for beauty he forgot one thing - the original juicers on the market worked perfectly - and his didn't. The juice ran down the legs and didn't go into the cup, the whole thing was unstable and often fell over and generally didn't work. Even worse, the nightmare of every designer occurred- within two years everyone had one and it simply wasn't an icon anymore seeing as every Tom, Dick and Harry around the globe had a similar one. It was pure form over function. As a piece of art, it was beautiful, but as a piece of working engineering it was a complete failure. Why pay £50 for a juicer, however beautiful it is, when it doesn't really work and two years down the line everyone had one, when a 50p one that isn't particularly beautiful but works efficiently and does the job better?

Now I look at the London stadium and the people complaining about it and it reminds me of the juicer. There seems to have been this immense change in humanity over the last twenty years or so whereby nowadays we build these fantastic buildings by starchitects that look amazing, but aren't very functional. They're not easy to adapt for the future, to extend, or to change their use at a whim. But people seem to like them and want them over more functional buildings that can easily and cheaply be changed into new structures and reused and taken down easily and moved about. They're the ones who'd buy the Starck juicer and put up with its failings, simply because they feel they've bought into a lifestyle that offers them a false sense of beauty and security.

The London Olympic stadium isn't beautiful. It isn't a piece of glamorous outstanding artistic steel and glass with jaunty angles and stunning make up. It's not the supermodel with beautiful legs, amazing breasts, incredible eyes. Why not? Because London needs more than that , it needs something with function much more importantly than it needs something with form. It needs the woman that can cook the food and raise the baby rather than the supermodel who simply sits in the corner looking pretty and not doing much else.

It needs the juicer that juices, not the one that six months down the line you regret spending so much money on because it's gathering dust and no longer has the wow factor because everyone's got one.

Thats wrong.

23% National lottery - yes

13% London?

You mean 13% from the London Development Agency - not London taxpayers
http://www.lda.gov.uk/

63% comes from Central Government via London Taxpayers

Nice try, but no cigar :)

Nope, you're wrong.

The central govt. money comes from the UK as a whole. Do you honestly think a little rise in London council tax is enough to pay for the whole government share of Olympic funding? That's very naive.

So please don't plague the BBC forum with that gibberish anymore.

My taxes pay for these Olympics just as much as anyone in this country.

I'll plague whatever forum I like mate :nuts:

Especially when people quote wikipedia as 'fact' :bash:

I think The Design looks fine for the game its not iconic in terms of fab architicture but it will do the job and will people plz stop moaning about everything and anything :ohno:

The London Olympic stadium isn't beautiful. It isn't a piece of glamorous outstanding artistic steel and glass with jaunty angles and stunning make up. It's not the supermodel with beautiful legs, amazing breasts, incredible eyes. Why not? Because London needs more than that , it needs something with function much more importantly than it needs something with form. It needs the woman that can cook the food and raise the baby rather than the supermodel who simply sits in the corner looking pretty and not doing much else.

Does London really need the Olympics then? IMO the Olympics are a special event which is supposed to set a new standard every four years. As someone else has mentioned, this stadium looks like it was designed in the early 90s. Check out the floodlights for crying out loud. I can understand that people don't want another white elephant but maybe London shouldn't have bid for the games then. Wembley looks 10 times better than this temporary stadium.

Do you even know why London bid for the Games in the first place? It certainly wasn't to build flashy architectural statements.

So that poor people would get nicer homes?

Whilst it is clear that it is not a piece of stunning architecture ala Beiging Olympic Stadium or the New Wembley, does any one have any doubt, thiat it has not been designed with the closing and openingn ceremonies in mind?

Look at the rigging around the stadium. it is gonna be one Mutha Fu%^er of a fireworks display that comes off of that!

I reserve judgment here - it does look quite bland (my heart sank a little when I saw it) but if resources are pumped into quality infrastructure and the park/ setting around it, I'll soon forget about that. what I don't get from the posts above is the assumption that good aesthetic design always costs more and (particularly in DarJoLe's post) means that it will be less functional - I can't see why that HAS to be the case.

I think what I hate about it the most is that there has been no competition of ideas on what is the most iconic parts of the games , the stadium. No matter how green they keep saying it is , it does'nt mean you have to sacrifice it for mediocre bland design. They should have a redesign or have a competition, go back on there original plan and come up with something truly spectacular. This will not happen but this is tax payers money here we are talking about and is this really what we want to show to the rest of world?

look if it was permanent and iconic..then people would complain..now its too temporary and people complain..the big problem with this stadium is its cost, which is ridiculous regardless of the part of the world you are building it in, even with inflation taken into account there is something not right about the cost.

£500m for a temporary structure is a a lot of money, but at the end of the day in economics, money is just being recycled, and will act as a boost for the London economy.

£500m for a temporary structure is a a lot of money, but at the end of the day in economics, money is just being recycled, and will act as a boost for the London economy.

its not ok when 3 stadia of the exact same nature could be built elsewhere for the same price. 2 permanent 80,000 seat stadia could be built for that price.
Allianz was around 3.2m euros this will cost 7.5m euros ..and that excludes the reconfiguration costs after the games...if steel prices will rise dramatically then why not just use concrete supports in the second temporary tier and knock it all down afterwards

Here we go again...Britain is getting the Olympics and the country fractionalises into districts...The fourth richest country in the world where the average person sits in the top 1 or 2 % of the worlds wealth (GDP).WTF?

No ... London is getting the Olympic and a ridiculoous amount of money to go with it!

Birmingham gets ... err!

No funding for a new park, theft of the millenium dome, rejected funding proposals for New Street, fibbs and more fibbs over the national stadium - name one thing which Birmingham should feel grateful for at this moment in time when its struggling to help clear up the UK's rail network!

The fact that Reading station gets its complete funding on its first attempt! that 16 billion is being spent on a cross rail on top of the 11 billion already being spent on stations around London. The fact that they are wasting half a billion on a temporary stadium which is effectively a concrete bowl?

Yeh keep it coming! Fucking fan bloody marvellous! Tell you what! Maybe this country would'nt have to fractionalise into districts if this greedy bastards down south had a bit of respect for the rest of the country! Maybe they might achieve more and have less hassle if they found ways of getting people outside the Watford line to appreciate the fact that bthey are not completely overlooked every other day in parliment (days when decisions are made)

Now ... think about it logically. A temporary olympic stadium costing 500m - or a permanent train station in the heartland of the country for less!

Ohh difficult :sleepy:

Dont mind the olympics - what I do mind is complete overvalue and rubbish design that these guys have produced and the fact that you dont have a bad word to say about the figures suggests your as ignorant as Americans when it comes to the UK outside London.

Really dumb post. If someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are ignorant.

So you think the fact that the GOV are ignoring inward investment into regional cities but can afford to spill an horrific amount of money on a temporary building is fine?

Thats dumb! :sleepy:

Wow, I just realized the stadium will cost 500million pounds (about €750million). Most German world cup stadiums only cost around €100 million. Are they gonna use platinum for the ring around the roof?

Wow, I just realized the stadium will cost 500million pounds (about €750million). Most German world cup stadiums only cost around €100 million. Are they gonna use platinum for the ring around the roof?

Apparently it will cost more than the Bird's Nest, and Beijing have a somewhat unlimited budget.

So you think the fact that the GOV are ignoring inward investment into regional cities but can afford to spill an horrific amount of money on a temporary building is fine?

Thats dumb! :sleepy:

its an over the top price,but even so any savings wont be heading to manchester or birmingham..remember you had your chances to bid....

Without even looking at any of those comments, let me guess what everyone is saying....err...somthing along the lines of "We could build 10 hospitals with that money" :blahblah:

I wish those people would get a fucking life...moan, moan, bloody moan - as much as they would like to see the UK turned into a giant hospital, its never going to happen, so i wish to god they would get over it :gaah:

Actually for that money you could get a very good stadium and a decent hospital. Unfortunately we are getting neither.

As for the nonsense of selling the 'temporary' seats on post-Olympics. Where is the market for second hand seats paticularly 55,000 of the damned things.
And before you say the next Olympics the transportation costs, both financial and environmental, would blow any sustainability kudos the stadium may attract. Sorry, it's all smoke and mirrors by the ODA.

And a very sorry design.

Its not about savings Mo. I dont think you quite cant understand the complex issue surrounding infastructure at the moment between Birmingham and London and the deep factions arising from it!

The question is! How can the goverment continue to ignore such a valid investment, yet at the click of a finger supply London with yet more ridiculous amounts of money to boost thier ego!

I have no problem with money going into the Olympics aslong as issues like this are sorted out at the same time! Sorry but a temorary 80,000 seater stadium is'nt more important then a 35million passenger rail hub at the countrys hearrt and the fact that they can throw money at it willy nilly frustrates me and many others, especially when the design and outcome is so basic and poor!

Wow, I just realized the stadium will cost 500million pounds (about €750million). Most German world cup stadiums only cost around €100 million. Are they gonna use platinum for the ring around the roof?


No you dont understand 'the cost is the cost!' to quote some idiots on this forum

So the original 280m price didnt include vat and didnt include inflation?! I cant see how anyone would price this stadium in 2005 without including escalation of around 7% per year.

Apparently it will cost more than the Bird's Nest, and Beijing have a somewhat unlimited budget.

dont worry, when the democratic elected council of Shanghai comes to host the 2052 Olympics forced to reclaim derelict industrial wasteland left over from decades of unsustainable industrial growth; raising the funds from many complex sources to come up with a development that falls under many strict building regulations and approval from many authorities while satisfying sustainable social criteria perhaps then we will get to see a truely comparable cost coming through.

No you dont understand 'the cost is the cost!' to quote some idiots on this forum

So the original 280m price didnt include vat and didnt include inflation?! I cant see how anyone would price this stadium in 2005 without including escalation of around 7% per year.

yeah I know its weird. It ALWAYS happens. Strange it doesnt appear to be just an olympic stadia phenomena. So in your infinite wisdom please explain this apparant made up cost of £500 million. Are you suggesting it is a giant scam?

Its a giant waste of money for a concrete bowl and some paper mache yeh!

Why does it cost so much though? As others have mentioned, even in Europe (ie where the building costs are just as high) you can build great non-temporary structures for a fraction of the price.

Anything that is slightly outside of the market norms always has a financial penalty applied its the economic world we live in. Every bespoke building has seemingly huge costs applied to it; this structure so happens to be even more bespoke than your typical stadium!

People are insinuating that somehow the money is being wasted, thrown away frivously but ever since the inception of the whole scheme there has been a very serious and pragmatic ideolgy at its heart and if it works (ie we see it through to its proper conclusion) then there will huge benefits and one that can be replicated throughout the world.

I see no evidence of 'theft', so people should come up with the evidence if that is their gripe. There are enough comitees overseeing this project to give a pretty good guarantee that when a cost is quoted it is going to based in some resemblensce of reality! Also ive seen the costs of enough developments reported out of context ie forgetting to mention decontamination of poinsoned land or the inclusion of vital infrastructure that will benefit those far and wide.

The question is! How can the goverment continue to ignore such a valid investment, yet at the click of a finger supply London with yet more ridiculous amounts of money to boost thier ego!


Sounds like the accountants believe there are greater benefits to be had in investing in one rather than the other. They are probably more clued up than you are! But unlike the rather 'take the oppurtunity while you can' olympics Im sure New Street will be upgraded sometime soon. Just like hospitals and schools, they all get upgraded eventually.

dont worry, when the democratic elected council of Shanghai comes to host the 2052 Olympics forced to reclaim derelict industrial wasteland left over from decades of unsustainable industrial growth; raising the funds from many complex sources to come up with a development that falls under many strict building regulations and approval from many authorities while satisfying sustainable social criteria perhaps then we will get to see a truely comparable cost coming through.

In your analogy you neglected to mention the vastly inlated salaries that members of the 2052 Shanghai ODA will receive (far higher than they would receive in the private sector).

Actually I don't recall the ODA being forced to reclaim derelict industrial wasteland. As others have pointed out there are already perfectly viable venues in London.

The site was chosen for it's alleged legacy potential. Unfortunately as with most things Olympic Ken and the ODA neglected to talk to people with real knowledge; there is a reason why people haven't built on flood plains historically which I am sure the contractors will discover in the next 5 years.

To dig a hole in a flood plain to bury a stadium. Genius.

It has just occured that maybe they're spending £300 million on waterproofing.

Wow, I just realized the stadium will cost 500million pounds (about €750million). Most German world cup stadiums only cost around €100 million. Are they gonna use platinum for the ring around the roof?

Ah that's because of the great British labourer. Any major infrastructure project uses the plumbers and electricians etc on £80,000 (120,000 euro) salaries.

I can just imagine them at the new stadium...
"You want a recyclable plastic bin bag facade? (Sucks air through teeth)... Sounds fancy mate, it's gonna cost yer annuva 500"

Its not about savings Mo. I dont think you quite cant understand the complex issue surrounding infastructure at the moment between Birmingham and London and the deep factions arising from it!

The question is! How can the goverment continue to ignore such a valid investment, yet at the click of a finger supply London with yet more ridiculous amounts of money to boost thier ego!

I have no problem with money going into the Olympics aslong as issues like this are sorted out at the same time! Sorry but a temorary 80,000 seater stadium is'nt more important then a 35million passenger rail hub at the countrys hearrt and the fact that they can throw money at it willy nilly frustrates me and many others, especially when the design and outcome is so basic and poor!

This is the price any city would have to pay when another local city hosting the Olympic Games and it happens in every country. The importance of various projects goes out the windows and funds are directed towards the olympic games because of a fear of failure and its national importance being placed above any other projects in a country.

Thats just how it is. If Manchester were to host important projects in London would have been put on hold, or perhaps not since its the capital.

Anything that is slightly outside of the market norms always has a financial penalty applied its the economic world we live in. Every bespoke building has seemingly huge costs applied to it; this structure so happens to be even more bespoke than your typical stadium!

People are insinuating that somehow the money is being wasted, thrown away frivously but ever since the inception of the whole scheme there has been a very serious and pragmatic ideolgy at its heart and if it works (ie we see it through to its proper conclusion) then there will huge benefits and one that can be replicated throughout the world.

I see no evidence of 'theft', so people should come up with the evidence if that is their gripe. There are enough comitees overseeing this project to give a pretty good guarantee that when a cost is quoted it is going to based in some resemblensce of reality! Also ive seen the costs of enough developments reported out of context ie forgetting to mention decontamination of poinsoned land or the inclusion of vital infrastructure that will benefit those far and wide.

The basic fact is that the price mentioned is significantly high and must include a whole bunch of things we are unaware of because a stadium of this nature including those various construction materials and taking its size into account, and even earthworks doesnt cost over a billion US dollars. So unless we see a detailed breakdown of costs its ridiculous. If it is PR so that the stadium eventually ends up under budget then that should be made clear.

The Aquatic Centre, a permanent venue seems to be priced just fine and on par with what would be expected.

This is the price any city would have to pay when another local city hosting the Olympic Games and it happens in every country. The importance of various projects goes out the windows and funds are directed towards the olympic games because of a fear of failure and its national importance being placed above any other projects in a country.

Thats just how it is. If Manchester were to host important projects in London would have been put on hold, or perhaps not since its the capital.

Thats complete rubbish mo! New Street is'nt a fucking project. Its a neccessity! If by your ideology they pause projects for the Olympics - which they dont, then your argument would backfire with the simple mention of Reading Station.

However.

What you fail to see is the ease they can throw money into a structure which is not only temporary but dissappointing and continue to neglect and delay one of the most imporatn projects Britain is facing today!

No you dont understand 'the cost is the cost!' to quote some idiots on this forum

So the original 280m price didnt include vat and didnt include inflation?! I cant see how anyone would price this stadium in 2005 without including escalation of around 7% per year.

The IOC asks for figures in 2005 estimates but have now changed that system, Its not London's fault for not providing the 2012 estimate but it should have included VAT and the IOC should speak out more when costs are somewhat unrealistic. The 2016 bid will require venue costs in 2016 est. which allows for greater transparency and accountability.

Thats complete rubbish mo! New Street is'nt a fucking project. Its a neccessity! If by your ideology they pause projects for the Olympics - which they dont, then your argument would backfire with the simple mention of Reading Station.

However.

What you fail to see is the ease they can throw money into a structure which is not only temporary but dissappointing and continue to neglect and delay one of the most imporatn projects Britain is facing today!


I do believe that cost is ridiculous but I do not believe the structure or stadium is ridiculous or disappointing as it is exactly what they planned to build, many were just naive to believe that it would resemble the initial renders. The ease of throwing money at Olympic projects has been around before London 2012 and a detailed cost breakdown will need to be made available.

Yes, even necessities in other cities get shoved aside for Olympic projects. Thats happened before and it will happen again in the future. The country goes crazy, funds are thrown at the Games and other cities do take a backseat.

Each country has its own dynamics, and in this case you def understand it better than I do, but in some cases Olympic projects will get priority over other projects or necessities across the UK. Where a decision needs to be made over an Olympic venue or another venture/project/necessity elsewhere the Olympic project will get preference. I did not say that all other projects get stopped/paused for the Olympic Games but priorities do change, and how that affects the rest of the country varies.

just wait until the stadium is built and the 'london grand prix' warm up event sells out....


then the questions will start "why are we cutting it to 25,000 after the olympics" "what if we want to bid for the euro/world championship?" " what about the commonwealth games"....thats a legacy,having the big events will keep the kids interested..

cutting the olympic stadium is the biggest mistake i've ever seen in my life....

the funny thing is seb coe & co are now looking for a "lower league or rugby tenant"

but they were'nt willing to build a retractable stadium and have a premier league tenant...why?

theres only 2 options to pick from..

1. spend £500million, build a retractable stadium,have a premier league tenant and athletic stadium big enough to hold any future athletics event. (a la' stade de france)

2.spend $500 million,build a temporary structure,get a lower league tenant (good luck) that will never make it profitable,and leave a 25k stadium too small too meet ticket demands for any future athletics event they wish to hold there...


yeah lets pick option 2.....god i love this country sometimes...:nuts:

Does London really need the Olympics then? IMO the Olympics are a special event which is supposed to set a new standard every four years. As someone else has mentioned, this stadium looks like it was designed in the early 90s. Check out the floodlights for crying out loud. I can understand that people don't want another white elephant but maybe London shouldn't have bid for the games then. Wembley looks 10 times better than this temporary stadium.

the standard you say.it's the athletes you idiot that set the standard of the games not the venues i don't know about you or anyone else but to me i watch the olympics for the sport and watching the competitors excel themselves.

Is there any need for namecalling? The venues certainly do play a key role, especially in the run up to the Olympics.

Is there any need for namecalling? The venues certainly do play a key role, especially in the run up to the Olympics.

if your so concerned about the venues then you should like the stadium as its designed to make any world records made by the athletes legal as there will be no wind assist, you must be one of the many people here that are embarrassed by a stadium that will actually look like a stadium for a change.

why do most people see the olympic stadium as the main focal point of the games? only time it will be focused on is opening and closing ceremonies and it will put on a good show, when all the athletics is going on inside the stadium were we supposed to be looking at the stadium instead? is that whats going to happen next year with the nest, camera going to cut to outside of stadium every five minutes so we can see how great it is?

if its wow factor you want, you will certainly get that with london 2012, all anyone mentions of china is that nest stadium, i have seen nothing of their other venues and dont see anything written in here about it.

Actually some people have said the Beijing stadium may have problems during the Games because of irregular shadows that appear across the bowl on sunny days. This could impair the performance of athletes.

Also I remember an interview with an athlete saying the Athens stadium had terrible crosswinds which were funneled around the track because of its open ends which were quite a problem.

This is another case where the athletes concerns weren't really paramount in the design process of the stadiums, and instead it was all about the architects wish for something that looks good from a helicopter.

Whilst it may look impressive from an aerial shot, Olympic stadiums need to be built with the athlete first, the spectator second, and the TV crews filming from above, well, very much down the list.

Thankfully, London's stadium has been designed with the athlete's input first. That for me is the most important thing to consider and is what will make or break these Games, not whether or not it has bells and whistles.

There's no point comparing our Games in 2012 with what China is doing next year. China is spending obscene amounts to make a grand gesture that it has arrived on the world stage, for everyone to sit up and look and finally acknowledge China's importance.

We have neither the will or want to compete with them, as we are already at the top table. What has London and the UK really got to prove to the rest of the world, that we are a developed, wealth country? I think not.
Our Games are about making a difference to Stratford and using it as a catalyst for re-development of one of Europe's most deprived areas, not some ego trip for our unelected wax work leaders in their matching ties and suits revelling in the reflected glory that their system of capitalist Communism has finally brought to a select few.

London 2012 must have the handover ceremony planned for next year, I wonder what it will be like? Anyone got any insider info??

Yes, the designs a tad conservative. However, as mentioned numerous times the ambitions for the 2012 games differ to almost any previous, primarily the regeneration of Stratford.

I favoured a more daring design, and feel slightly short-changed by the design, but in the grand scheme of things come the opening ceremony arguments about the validity of the design will be irrelevant.

We're not Bejing. We're London.

There's no point comparing our Games in 2012 with what China is doing next year. China is spending obscene amounts to make a grand gesture that it has arrived on the world stage, for everyone to sit up and look and finally acknowledge China's importance.

We have neither the will or want to compete with them, as we are already at the top table. What has London and the UK really got to prove to the rest of the world, that we are a developed, wealth country? I think not.
Our Games are about making a difference to Stratford and using it as a catalyst for re-development of one of Europe's most deprived areas, not some ego trip for our unelected wax work leaders in their matching ties and suits revelling in the reflected glory that their system of capitalist Communism has finally brought to a select few.

London 2012 must have the handover ceremony planned for next year, I wonder what it will be like? Anyone got any insider info??

I don't think they have yet as they've only just appointed the man who'll be overseeing it.

sir trevor nunn i think, the man who is bringing us gone with the wind the musical lol

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/1570_1_100020201220Olympic201.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/1570_2_100020201220stadium202.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/1570_3_100020201220stadium203.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/1570_4_100020201220stadium204.jpg

My £2000 question :

What is the true role of Peter Cook in this design drama?

:)

i get it..watch the video and the lights of the stadium represent the little pods on the london eye. watch as its spinning past that building.

My £2000 question :

What is the true role of Peter Cook in this design drama?

the colourful pods

which look like tents at an outside festival. Another thing I have noticed is how the structure is virtually non existent in the renders from inside the stadium. So the horrible lighting will be held up by skyhooks then?

the stadiums exterior from the distance looks awesome, but closeup it is just another one of these lollipops thats trying to avoid looking like a stadium; lose the colours and have a plain grey exterior
interior pretty cool

Article in today's Observer - journo has clearly been reading this forum, and picks up DarJoLe's gasometer comparison. Also agrees with many of us that the stadium lacks flair.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,2209038,00.html

Other venues have made a focal point of the Olympic Flame - where does that go here?

To the north of the stadium, it will be visible from anywhere within the park - so I'm guessing tall and having the wow factor everyone seems to demand.

a flame! :eek: won't that go against their low emissions obsession

It will be a carbon neutral flame.

The stadium site, 11 November 2007

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2384/1970979869_35e8f7157b_b.jpg

speaking of flames, there's a big fire at or near the site today. doesn't seem to be suspicious, but we'll have to wait and see if any of the 2012 works are affected at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7090725.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7090763.stm

It's at one of two bus depots on Waterden Rd in Hackney Wick. Not sure if it is still operational, well it ain't now. It is also close to the tunnel entrance of the ctrl from stratford to st pancras but eurostar services on thier first day at thier new home have not been affected.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2049/1984032831_153d49f1c9_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2166/1984043303_f22a5e927d_b.jpg

just read about that on Bbc, seems like somebody was to eager to light the olympic flame

So that's the flame you'll be able to see from anywhere in London?

From my garden, 15 miles south of the Olympic site

http://www.roberthenson.net/nonwebsite/fire.jpg

probably caused by a bendy bus

M.E.N. Website:

An Olympic-sized drain on the north?

13/11/2007

THE preparations for London's 2012 Olympics will reach a new milestone next April, when building work gets underway on the event's £500m showpiece stadium.

It marks the beginning of a critical phase of Olympic works, with 7,000 employed on the stadium and other venues on the east London site at the peak of activity in 2010.

But the acceleration of work throws a new spotlight on the demand for labour in a buoyant construction market, with fears that the growing need of the south will drain resources away from Manchester, which has enjoyed its own building boom.

According to the Construction Skills Network (CSN), £24bn of work is already underway in the Greater London area, with a mammoth £95bn due to begin between now and 2016.

While the situation will be eased by the completion of Heathrow's Terminal 5 next year, the Olympics will be competing with the £16bn Crossrail project, with work on the east-west London rail link due to begin in 2009.

The slew of infrastructure schemes - which also include the East London Line and Docklands Light Railway extensions - are accompanied by plans for additions to the London skyline such as the architect Renzo Piano's `Shard of Glass' skyscraper.

CSN, which is run by the CITBConstructionSkills industry training organisation, predicts that the sector needs to recruit up to 13,000 workers a year between now and 2011 to sustain the growth in the region.

Overseas workers

To deliver the goods, the construction industry has become increasingly reliant on an overseas army of workers from Eastern Europe.

But a spokesman for the Construction Confederation, which represents around 5,000 of the UK's biggest firms, played down potential labour shortages for the sector in the near future.

He said: "We are not overly concerned over capacity. If you look at the Olympics as a proportion of the wider market, it is not even the biggest project in London, let alone nationally."

David Fison, chief executive of Swedish construction giant Skanska's UK operation, said migrant labour now represents between seven and 10 per cent of the construction workforce, according to the latest estimates, as the industry takes advantage of the ready-made supply source since European enlargement in 2004.

Out of a total workforce of 2m people in the UK, this could represent as many as 200,000.

Mr Fison said firms had turned to a ready-made workforce to counteract the industry's lack of popularity at home.

He added: "The construction industry is not perceived as an attractive industry for young people to go into, and, as such, we do not draw enough people into it.

"So, when there is a large pool of high-quality migrant labour, it is fairly natural that we will go and draw up on it."

Contractors of all sizes are rubbing their hands over the buoyant prospects for the construction market over the coming years.

But unions have expressed concerns over the impact of the overseas workforce on the UK's long-term training abilities as the sector embraces the labour source.

Bob Blackman, construction sector national secretary for the TGWU section of trade union Unite, said: "If you don't take a balanced approach to migrant labour, the industry becomes used to buying skills `off the peg'".

UK firms are taking the easy, cheaper, route with just 7,000 apprentice placements given by employers last year, despite applications from 50,000 people, according to Mr Blackman.

But with two-thirds of the UK's new wave of construction workers coming from Poland, a resulting skills shortage at home could also tempt workers back to their own countries as wages go up in response - leaving the UK with a skills headache further down the line, he adds.

Another example of a non-story that bashes the Olympics.

Good to see work is continuing on the smaller venues, even better news they are working with smaller architect firms through competitions - although I have no doubt this won't make the press.

Architects shortlisted for 2012 sports 'hub'
13 November, 2007

By Dan Stewart

David Adjaye, Bennetts Associates and David Morley among those to vie to design Eton Manor sporting hub

David Adjaye, Bennetts Associates and David Morley are among the architects shortlisted to design the Eton Manor sporting hub for the 2012 Olympics.

The Eton Manor site will see several buildings and venues constructed for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, including temporary facilities for Gymnastic and Aquatic training, the Paralympic Archery field of play and nine competition wheelchair tennis courts.

After the Games, the tennis facilities will be adapted for community use, and other buildings will be converted into a hockey centre.

David Higgins, chief executive of the Olympic Delivery Authority, said: “Design excellence will play a key role in the regeneration of Eton Manor so the announcement of such a high quality shortlist of design teams is an important step forwards.”

The shortlisted practices are:

* Adjaye Associates
* Bennetts Associates
* David Morley Architects
* Opus International Consultants
* S&P
* Sports Concepts
* Stanton Williams

This is Adjaye’s first appearance on an Olympics shortlist, though he is on the Culture and Creativity Advisory Forum for the Cultural Olympiad.

Bennetts Associates director Rab Bennetts is also on the Strategic Forum Olympic Task Group chaired by Peter Rogers.

David Morley came down to the last eight in the competition for the Velodrome and is bidding for the Handball venue. Also shortlisted is Sports Concepts, which is currently bidding to design the Handball Arena and the temporary Fencing and Basketball venues.

Well this doesn't surprise me after the ridiculous comments that have been posted in the media over the past week.

Poll says less than 50% are happy with progress on Olympic venues

13 November, 2007

By Dan Stewart

A government survey reveals only 42% of UK adults are confident in the progress made on building the 2012 Games

Less than 50% of Britons are confident of the progress so far made on the construction of the Olympics, according to a new government survey.

The Olympic Legacy Research report said that just 42% of UK adults consider a “great deal” or a “fair” amount of progress has been made on building sports venues and parks in London.

Less than a third of those polled (32%) thought sufficient progress had been made on building homes in East London, and only 37% thought enough progress was being made on environmentally-friendly building developments.

However, the poll found UK respondents generally confident that the aims of the 2012 Olympics would be achieved.

More than four out of five people agreed it was “extremely/very/quite likely” that the Olympic sports venues and parks would be built by 2012.

Almost three-quarters of respondents (74%) agreed with the likelihood that the Olympic authorities would deliver environmentally-friendly building developments, although only 37% said they were aware that this was a key aim of Olympic organisers.

There was less confidence that the East London house-building targets would be achieved by 2012, but the survey still showed a healthy 69% of respondents agreeing it was likely that they would.

Knowledge of the Games’ plans was generally very low, with six in 10 people saying they knew very little or nothing at all about them. 6% of those polled said they knew a lot about the plans for 2012.

The survey, commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, was taken from interviews with 2,115 adults aged 15 and over.

Surveys that speak for a whole population are notoriously shite so I couldn't care less :) What the hell do the media say after the 2012 Olympics are the best games ever?

I think that out of all the Games ever hosted, London 2012 has communicated the most with the public, tried to be as transparent as possible with its progress, and has made the biggest effort to prepare itself, so that it doesn't end up like athens.

its goals are clear and publically available and they can be held accountable if those goals are not met. sometimes ignorance is a choice, and those polled are prob just stupid or choose to be ignorant.

and yes, stupid people do exist in this world.

Eton Manor design teams shortlisted

13 November 2007

The shortlisted teams competing to design a key cluster of venues and facilities in the north of the Olympic Park have been announced by the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) today.
Eton Manor is the former site of a community sports centre, but has remained dilapidated and disused since 2001. The site will be transformed to provide a range of sporting facilities in the north of the Olympic Park adapted to accommodate different uses across Olympic, Paralympic and Legacy modes:

Olympic Mode: the site will provide temporary facilities for Gymnastic and Aquatic athlete training

Paralympic Mode: the site will host the Paralympic Archery and Wheelchair Tennis events programme. The site will include a Paralympic Archery field of play with temporary seating for 3,000 spectators, and 9 competition tennis courts with temporary seating for spectators

Legacy Mode: the site will provide a flexible sporting legacy including a Hockey centre, tennis facilities and other multi-purpose sports facilities

The design contract for the Eton Manor venues and facilities was put out to tender in August and a seven-strong shortlist of teams has now been selected:

* Adjaye Associates Ltd;
* Bennetts Associates Architects;
* David Morley Architects;
* Opus International Consultants;
* S&P Ltd;
* Sport Concepts;
* Stanton Williams.

David Higgins, Chief Executive of the ODA said:

'The Eton Manor site will be transformed to deliver world-class venues and facilities fit for the Olympic and Paralympic stage, while leaving a significant sporting legacy in the north of the Olympic Park for generations to come. Design excellence will play a key role in the regeneration of Eton Manor so the announcement of such a high quality shortlist of design teams is an important step forwards.'

Sebastian Coe, Chairman of the London Organising Committee, said:

'Eton Manor will provide key facilities and venues for the best athletes in the world in 2012 while also leaving the legacy of state-of-the-art sports facilities for Londoners to use and enjoy. These shortlisted design teams have a great chance to play their part in transforming this key part of the Olympic Park with world-class facilities for elite athletes and the local communities alike.'

The Eton Manor site will include a mixture of both temporary and permanent buildings to meet the ODA’s commitments to sustainable design. In legacy, the venues and facilities at Eton Manor will join the world-class cycling facilities in the VeloPark and the renovated Hackney marshes to create a sporting hub in the north of the Olympic Park for the local community and elite athletes. As well as the new sporting facilities, the ODA will also be building two new land bridges to better connect Eton Manor with the surrounding area.

The Eton Manor design contract is expected to be awarded early next year.

– Ends –

Poll says less than 50% are happy with progress on Olympic venues

13 November, 2007

By Dan Stewart

A government survey reveals only 42% of UK adults are confident in the progress made on building the 2012 Games

Less than 50% of Britons are confident of the progress so far made on the construction of the Olympics, according to a new government survey.

The Olympic Legacy Research report said that just 42% of UK adults consider a “great deal” or a “fair” amount of progress has been made on building sports venues and parks in London.

Less than a third of those polled (32%) thought sufficient progress had been made on building homes in East London, and only 37% thought enough progress was being made on environmentally-friendly building developments.

However, the poll found UK respondents generally confident that the aims of the 2012 Olympics would be achieved.

More than four out of five people agreed it was “extremely/very/quite likely” that the Olympic sports venues and parks would be built by 2012.

Almost three-quarters of respondents (74%) agreed with the likelihood that the Olympic authorities would deliver environmentally-friendly building developments, although only 37% said they were aware that this was a key aim of Olympic organisers.

There was less confidence that the East London house-building targets would be achieved by 2012, but the survey still showed a healthy 69% of respondents agreeing it was likely that they would.

Knowledge of the Games’ plans was generally very low, with six in 10 people saying they knew very little or nothing at all about them. 6% of those polled said they knew a lot about the plans for 2012.

The survey, commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, was taken from interviews with 2,115 adults aged 15 and over.

makes me laugh they give out all the percentages of this poll and at the end of it shows none of them knew fuck all about any of it anyway, expect a high percentage didn't even know london was the host of 2012.

The Olympic Legacy Research report said that just 42% of UK adults consider a “great deal” or a “fair” amount of progress has been made on building sports venues and parks in London.

And yet London is further ahead in its preparations than any other Olympic city. I guess people tune out when they hear something good about the Olympic preparations.

Poll says less than 50% are happy with progress on Olympic venues


how does it matter what they think when London is ahead of any previous host city in terms of preparations? its not gonna change anything on site.

Poll says less than 50% are happy with progress on Olympic venues

13 November, 2007

By Dan Stewart

A government survey reveals only 42% of UK adults are confident in the progress made on building the 2012 Games

Less than 50% of Britons are confident of the progress so far made on the construction of the Olympics, according to a new government survey.

The Olympic Legacy Research report said that just 42% of UK adults consider a “great deal” or a “fair” amount of progress has been made on building sports venues and parks in London.

Less than a third of those polled (32%) thought sufficient progress had been made on building homes in East London, and only 37% thought enough progress was being made on environmentally-friendly building developments.

However, the poll found UK respondents generally confident that the aims of the 2012 Olympics would be achieved.

More than four out of five people agreed it was “extremely/very/quite likely” that the Olympic sports venues and parks would be built by 2012.

Almost three-quarters of respondents (74%) agreed with the likelihood that the Olympic authorities would deliver environmentally-friendly building developments, although only 37% said they were aware that this was a key aim of Olympic organisers.

There was less confidence that the East London house-building targets would be achieved by 2012, but the survey still showed a healthy 69% of respondents agreeing it was likely that they would.

Knowledge of the Games’ plans was generally very low, with six in 10 people saying they knew very little or nothing at all about them. 6% of those polled said they knew a lot about the plans for 2012.

The survey, commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, was taken from interviews with 2,115 adults aged 15 and over.

:ohno: i reat my case were dealing with muppets who know nothing of 2012 and how far ahead they are athis moment in time

I'm glad to see you've lost all interest in the Olympics on the basis of the stadium design. That means you can leave the rest of us fans of the Olympics to enjoy watching the events and feel the excitement of the occasion which is far more important.

I do apologise, young er.. yes, well...fair do, went a lil OTT with my view but, would you really enjoy the games more knowing a number of enthusiasts, not just the general P.. cos you'll never please everyone.. but UK enthusiasts, who spent everyday on here some years back checkin how the bids were goin.. I remember tryin to keep abreast of the bids on sky news whilst at work n rushin home before they announced who'd got the bid.

Most of the time, it is just a few weeks of track n field n such, this time.. its our games. So not gonna apologise for gettin narked up for having a half-arsed stadium compared to the concept..n just calling it 'understated' doesn't suddenly justify it.

'George Bush aint a shit President... he's just Understated'

When we will be spending billions of pounds, at a time when that money is needed in many places in today's society.. the last thing we should be aiming for is 'Understated'... I'm all for 'Understated'.. but that should reflect in the budget too, not just the aesthetic.

I may grow to like this stadium, but it has been a kick in the teeth, especially as it was one of, if not the crown jewels of the masterplan.. so now all hope rests on the aquatic centre, but that too has already been changed n restricted n we'll probably end up with some shit design for that too..

Frankly, hosting one of the most expensive yet economical looking games is not a good representation of our Country, not a good ethos for the Olympics and not promising in terms of heralding a legacy, for the fans n non-fans alike!

Sweet jesus what the hell has happened!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2081/2033447437_56e0849e37_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2378/2033443759_bab1a1c0f9_b.jpg

I take it that massive extension is temporary?

How on earth is anyone sitting at the top of that extension going to see anything???...they'll have a nice view of the surrounding buildings i guess :|

wheres that pic from i aint seen it on 2012 site

In the image library.

That's bad! Really bad! At least that box will go after the games.

Is that Woody Harrelson front right with the sunglasses on?

oh god...they are using more of that magic fabric thats surrounding the stadium! by the way how do people see inside the aquatics centre so high up?

Was this a proposal for the Coventry Olympics, 1968?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2081/2033447437_56e0849e37_b.jpg

i like the actual centre, looks like my bike saddle but minus the arse ache!

Oh so NOW we've seen the new stadium and new aquatic centre can we NOW say how disappointed we are

Should London’s Olympic stadium be an iconic design?

16 November 2007

Yes, says Will Alsop, the stadium is the image of the Olympics that millions will see, but Graham Morrison and Bob Allies believe this design fulfills a wider and more complex legacy role

'Yes'



Will Alsop

Architect

I’m fed up with the anti-icon argument used to justify designs like this. Graham Morrison started this argument that there is something wrong with the iconic, but the rule book says nothing about iconic design being unsustainable. I want this stadium to be as iconic as you can get — but also sustainable.

To win the Olympic bid, Foreign Office Architects created an image of a stadium which I thought was rather beautiful. Perhaps naively, I thought we would get a version of that scheme — something with great petals stretching up.

Unfortunately, there is no comparison between the FOA and HOK Sport designs. We were sold an image in the bid, and this new design is a disappointment. We were let down with Wembley Stadium, which is just a basket with an interesting handle, and now we are being let down again.

The stadium represents the image of the Olympics, and millions will see this structure.

If anything needs to be iconic, then it is the major sports stadium — look at Herzog & de Meuron’s Beijing stadium or Renzo Piano’s beautiful San Nicola stadium in Bari, Italy, built for the 1990 World Cup.

Part of the problem is that there was no competition for architects. If you are going to have a great Olympics, then you need great architects.

HOK Sport has done an extraordinary number of stadiums, but why, why is it that we must always go to the same architect to design our major sports buildings?

'No'


Graham Morrison

Architect

Content over style is the issue here. The significance of this Olympic stadium is its very difference from its forerunners. It is not intended to be a lasting icon carrying the memory of the London games.

In the short term, its task is to accommodate a major sporting event. Long term, its role is to facilitate the transformation both of itself and its surroundings.

The design resolves these issues with disarming and elegant simplicity. The size has been reduced to an absolute minimum: a scale comparison of its cross-section with its foreign counterparts is extraordinary. It is demountable and reusable, so offers real possibilities perhaps for Glasgow in 2014 or whichever city gets the Olympics in 2016.

Bob Allies

Architect

Its legacy will be the pattern of the city that follows: think Piazza Navona, the stadium at Lucca, or even our own project for Arsenal at Highbury.

Hadid’s Aquatics Centre and Hopkins’ Velodrome will be part of the permanent memory of this games. HOK’s stadium, by contrast, has to meet a more complex brief. It is more a Tubbs Dome of Discovery than a Martin Royal Festival Hall. It is more like Paxton’s Crystal Palace than Herzog & de Meuron’s stadium at Beijing. And, perhaps surprisingly to its critics, it is a building we believe Cedric Price would have endorsed for achieving so much more than its obvious brief — and without pomposity. We should applaud it.

no no no what have they done to the aquatic centre, its been downsized even further because previously temporary seating would fit beneath the main roof and now has a Sydney 200 temporary expansion no no no no!

Absolutely horrible. The logo, the stadium, the aquatic center...it's like a car crash.

The aqautics centre was the best thing going for the games! Now I suppose we have to cross our fingers for the wooden roof of the velodrome...

Just as you thought it couldn't get much worse.

Someone phone Paris quick and tell them they can have it!

(That brown curvy bit looks like an old man's wig)

Lets thank all the moaners.Well done :applause:

it just getting more and more embarrassing. why bother atall with architecture, lets just build scaffolding and dig a hole for a pool...the way everything is cut back and back is becoming so obvious now, I think the Olympic authority should intervine and stop this.

Is anyone suprised? I am certainly not :ohno:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1438/694957530_0921b0cef4_o.jpg

When I think of that wonderful wave in the original designs.

We was getting something that was going to make a bit of a splash architecturally, now we're not even gonna get a ripple.

That looks so much better Mo.

I wish it could look like that during the games, but alas, it can't.

I think the Olympic authority should intervine and stop this

the ioc will be quite happy with it, last thing they want to see is something more pretty and expensive just to be taken away after the games, thats more likely when they would of intervened, after london 2012 you will see everyone go this way and thats what will please the ioc most of all.

I dont mind the logo (its grown on me). I actually love the stadium (i know its simple but i think its classy and understated, reminds me of the Berlin Olympic Stadium). But that aquatics centre design is absolutly horrible. Although it looks good in legacy mode, its embarrasing that the entire world are gonna see it look so different and crap.

its embarrasing that the entire world are gonna see it look so different and crap

rest of the world will be looking at their athletes, and anyone interested in the buildings will know its tempory

the yanks and aussies will love it as its where most of their gold medals come from

To be fair, the interior looks amazing, in my opinion. Im just so dissapointed that the design has changed.

the aquatic centre side extensions seem to be sponsored by IKEA clothes baskets. They have no resemblance to the sleek and minimalist main building what a balls up.

I'm still trying to work out

a) why there has been no mention of this new image by the ODA in terms of a press release and

b) did they have to up the number of seats from the original proposal? Surely the seating in the original renderings was for Games time? Or was that the number of seating during legacy?

I still don't understand how people at the back are going to see the action in the pool. The ceiling with its downward curves will surely block the view, and secondly how humid is it going to get in that plastic box? Jesus I'd hate to have claustrophia and be sitting in there.

Wilkinson Eyre wins 2012 Olympic basketball arena

16 November, 2007

By Will Hurst

Wilkinson Eyre and KSS Design Group have beaten off competition from firms including Grimshaw and David Morley Architects to design the temporary basketball arena for the 2012 Olympics.

The two firms are in a team with professional services group Sinclair Knight Merz and project manager Nussli International, which had been pitted against nine others for the 12,000 capacity basketball arena and are still competing against the same teams for the 8,000 capacity fencing arena.

“Temporary structures of the scale and impact of the basketball arena need to be designed with elegance, simplicity and intelligence,” Ricky Burdett, chief adviser on architecture at the ODA said. “The design team were selected for their ability to integrate structural integrity with architectural expression, backed up with experience, capacity, creativity and a deep understanding of the complex brief.

“The design team is committed to delivering an attractive and flexible venue for spectators and competitors, on time and on budget.”

The basketball arena will host the preliminary basketball competition, the Paralympic wheelchair basketball and the wheelchair rugby competitions.

Construction is due for completion in 2011.

Advice to future host cities. Use fabric membranes to build your aquatic centre. Get the shape you want and as large as you like and for a good price and lighting effects would be pretty cool too. You could even add a giant arch to support the roof using cables. I hope they use timber to build the aquatic centre roof.

grrrr...


Before and after:

http://www.thecityreview.com/zaha43.jpg

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/s/s/t/Zaha_New_Aquatic01.jpg


Its like buying a Corvette and have them deliver a disposable plastic Trabant, (at double the cost and no chance of a refund). We are muppets to be taking this ride.

The original masterplan of the Olympics site (RIP) was actually considered the best ever by some judges, and that went a long way to winning us the bid. Its a crying shame we missed that once in a lifetime opportunity.

btw, the original design was meant to be permanent.

Cost: 150m pounds
http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/1595_2_1000%20Soccer%20City%20SA%202.jpg
http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/1595_2_1000%20Soccer%20City%20SA%202.jpg

Olympics to bring £21bn to UK economy; according to estimates made by Lloyds TSB Business, thousands of companies across the UK stand to benefit from a £21bn boost to the economy provided by the 2012 Games. However the bank, which is a major sponsor of the Games, warns that many small and medium-sized businesses could miss out by failing to plan early enough. It says that the estimated value of the Olympics to the economy has almost doubled, partly as a result of increased public spending on the event. The bank has used economic modelling to estimate the value of the Games to the UK regions. The south-east will be the biggest beneficiary with a potential £8.6bn share, but other areas are set to benefit including the north and north-west (£4.4bn), the Midlands (£3.2bn) and Scotland and the south-west (£1.7bn each). Further information - Click here Financial Times 31.10.07

http://www.mediacentre.lloydstsb.com/media/pdf_irmc/mc/press_releases/2007/Oct/12607pressrelease.pdf

LONDON (Reuters) - The London 2012 Olympic Games legacy is in danger of failing, sports bosses told MPs on Tuesday.

(Advertisement)
London won the Games on its promise to provide a lasting legacy, and on Tuesday Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell launched a 40 million pound Legacy Trust to help promote culture and sport among young people and communities.

But representatives from British Cycling, UK Athletics and British Swimming warned the Culture, Media and Sport Committee the legacy could fail unless more was done at grass roots level.

David Sparkes from British Swimming said he believed there was an opportunity to secure a national legacy, to inspire youngsters to re-engage in sport.

But he said he feared there was nobody who had "picked up the legacy ball for sport as a whole".

"I do not believe yet anybody is joining up the dots of all this work. Where is the driver that is knitting this together?" he asked. "The ball should firmly sit with Sport England".

Ed Warner of UK Athletics was worried about the main Olympic stadium, which is to be used as an international athletics venue after 2012.

He said: "We've had to lobby very hard to date to ensure there is, for example, a roof afterwards by using what I would consider to be some pretty powerful but simple arguments."

Warner said athletics would continue to work hard and lobby for a legacy because they had yet to be convinced about overall provisions.

Peter King of British Cycling said his organisation had raised objections about the Olympic Velopark during the planning application phase because they were unhappy with the legacy element.

The sports groups also responded to questions about the impact former rugby coach Clive Woodward had had since his appointment as director of elite performance for the British Olympic Association.

"At this time we do not see anything he has to offer cycling that we are not already getting," British Cycling said.

Warner said he had had "no impact on athletics", but might do in the future under certain conditions.

"There is no monopoly on good ideas," he said.

But he warned: "A confusion of ideas and a confusion of politics will only hold the sport back."

This can be stickified now, I think.

Darren, when are you going to start all those other threads you promised me? :)

Once the final permanent venue design, the basketball arena, is released. Then there can one big Olympic Park thread.

Another pic of the increasingly dumbed down aquatic centre from bd online

Hadid's Aquatic centre is redesigned

23 November 2007

The ODA’s quest to find a legacy use for Zaha Hadid’s Olympic Aquatic Centre has further compromised the architect’s original concept, a new image shows.

The picture, of two huge temporary seating “wedges” assembled on either side of the distinctive wave-form stadium, is understood to be the result of a third redesign of the venue since it was first envisaged in 2005.

Originally conceived as a 20,000- seat self-contained venue, the new Aquatic centre would boast just 2,500 seats, with the rest on temporary stands. The ODA insisted the image represents work-in-progress, with the final design still under review.

http://i8.************/85dj243.jpg

Also BD online

Young guns miss out on Athletes Village first phase

23 November 2007

By Will Hurst, Amanda Baillieu

Established names scoop lion’s share as Lend Lease boss promises ‘time to be playful later’

Plans to make the London 2012 Athletes Village a showcase for the next generation of British architects are in serious doubt after

the selection of six established practices for the first phase of the £2 billion project.

Glenn Howells, Ian Ritchie, Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands, Penoyre & Prasad, Patel Taylor and Munkenbeck & Marshall will shortly be appointed to design the core of the 4,200-home village, the Lend Lease consortium ann-ounced this week.

While the consortium insisted it still intends to use the “majority” of the 47 practices selected for the framework with the help of the Architecture Foundation, the news confirms that their contribution may be limited to kiosks and bridges.

The framework included small and foreign practices including 6a and Heneghan Peng and was hailed as a huge opportunity for younger practices to demonstrate their skills on a world stage (News August 10).

“This work seems to be going to people who have constructed big schemes on budget and on time,” Peter Barber Architects associate director Phil Hamilton said.

“It’s a shame because small firms have also constructed things to time and to budget and often with more aplomb.”

Some members of the Stratford City review panel, which met this week, also believe Lend Lease risks reneging on its promise to make the Olympic Village a model of sustainable development designed by both new and established talent.

After the meeting, also attended by ODA head of design Ricky Burdett and Lend Lease chairman Nigel Hugill, some members said that “clarity” was now needed.

But Hugill dismissed such concerns, insisting that he had always intended to use firms with a record in delivery for the early phase, with opportunities for younger, smaller firms coming afterwards.

“These six have been working with us for the last three or four weeks and will be instructed this week,” he said.

“They are not the smallest practices but they are not the largest either. It’s the most enormous package [of work] and has to be done in a very short time…we are looking to have piles in the ground next March.

“Having appointed the [framework] panel, I understand younger practices are anxious to get on with this but we can be playful at a later stage.”

Another pic of the increasingly dumbed down aquatic centre from bd online

Hadid's Aquatic centre is redesigned

23 November 2007

The ODA’s quest to find a legacy use for Zaha Hadid’s Olympic Aquatic Centre has further compromised the architect’s original concept, a new image shows.

The picture, of two huge temporary seating “wedges” assembled on either side of the distinctive wave-form stadium, is understood to be the result of a third redesign of the venue since it was first envisaged in 2005.

Originally conceived as a 20,000- seat self-contained venue, the new Aquatic centre would boast just 2,500 seats, with the rest on temporary stands. The ODA insisted the image represents work-in-progress, with the final design still under review.

http://i8.************/85dj243.jpg

I think we can now see just how much they reduced the size of the Zaha roof. Even after the aquatic centre roof was reduced the first time from 30000sqm to about 13sqm the additional temporary seating could still fit below the roof and within the bounds of the roof. This roof has been reduced drastically!

And they think the only thing in the park left thats ' iconic' is the aquatics centre??? looks crap and if anyone will honestly is going to approve this, they have to be mad. Poor Zaha I do feel for you.

Looks like very large womens cork lined birkenstock sandal has crashed landed on top of a large industrial unit :)

Such a shame

Whatever you think about all this, I cannot believe anyone can really love the new design....can they?

Much as though I can be critical, i have to say I feel deeply sorry for you guys in London if this is the quality of what you are now getting. Truly gutted for you, as they promised so much but have delivered so little. London 2012 might well be a bit of an anti-climax for you now, but I'm sure with that blitz spirit you Londoners are famous for you'll overcome the adversity.

Cheer up chaps! Have a free beer on me! :cheers:

I've supported these Olympics against the moaners through thick and thin for years. I've always believed, and still do, they can do something great for London and the UK. I argue the corner vehemently - but each time we get any new material from London 2012, the job becomes a little more difficult.

I excused the logo, because at least it was innovative and daring, and actually looks OK when not in those ridiculous colours they use.

I was content enough with the uninspiring stadium. "Its a compromise" I said. Fair enough considering the practicalities that architectural flair wasn't the main driving force.

But this?! That aquatics centre just looks plain hideous. Its cheap, its tacky. They're so wrapped up in legacy - the use of the venue for the Olympics seems to have become an afterthought. They're not going to inspire anyone if the overall approach to hosting the games (stadia, ceremonies, celebrations. etc.) is as half-hearted as these compromises suggest.

I agree that it doesn't look great, in fact I hope they rethink it. But it'll still be a fantastic games nonetheless; I wouldn't get too down at this stage.

Sydney had a similar arrangement and they did ok by most people's standards.

I'm bitterly dissapointed at this latest change. It's a good swimming pool, but is it a venue if 1/2 of the people are outside the building proper? I'm hoping they backtrack, the spectator loses out too much.

Much as though I can be critical, i have to say I feel deeply sorry for you guys in London if this is the quality of what you are now getting. Truly gutted for you, as they promised so much but have delivered so little. London 2012 might well be a bit of an anti-climax for you now, but I'm sure with that blitz spirit you Londoners are famous for you'll overcome the adversity.

Cheer up chaps! Have a free beer on me! :cheers:

Thats alright chap. Could be worse we could be Birmingham ;)

They're so wrapped up in legacy - the use of the venue for the Olympics seems to have become an afterthought.

I'm not sure why this is a bad thing or such a surprise. People moan if they are left with oversized structures never to be filled again after the Olympics, people still moan if they decide to build a venue designed for the local community first and then size it up to Olympic standard for the two weeks of the Games. It seems the ODA can't win.

Yeah, so there are two spectator boxes attached to the Aquatic Centre, but they'll only be there for two weeks and you can still perfectly see what is temporary and what is permanent. The biggest problem for me is the overhang over the river, which isn't exactly pretty, but then these aren't mean to be pretty games.

http://i8.************/85dj243.jpg

thats just disrepectful to zaha hadid. she should withdraw her design.

Does anyone have a picture of the original design? Its probably on this thread somewhere but could take me forever trying to find it. Cheers

The building is still fantastic. Take away these hideous scaffoldings.

that said, what the world will see during the games is something without shape, without grace, something temporary, they'll be seating on scaffolding and paying $$$....

...for me that is pushing to much for the after game. THERE ARE GAMES FOR FFS. If you dont do venues for the games, just don't bid to steal another city chance to host the games.

I'm starting to feel betrayed and sorry for all the other biders especially Paris and Madrid. Those 2 cities were not proposing grand regeneration plans, but the olympics are not a charity FCS.

Does anyone have a picture of the original design? Its probably on this thread somewhere but could take me forever trying to find it. Cheers

This one?
http://www.eikongraphia.com/wordpress/wp-content/ZHA_LAC_Oly_Lowres.jpg
http://www.london.gov.uk/images/mayor/olympics/slides/aquatic_centre_internal.jpg

Does anyone have a picture of the original design? Its probably on this thread somewhere but could take me forever trying to find it. Cheers

1st design
The bid concept (Games mode)

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

http://www.thecityreview.com/zaha43.jpg

The bid concept (legacy mode)

http://www.thomas-uebelacker.de/upload/aquatics_centre01.jpg

http://www.thomas-uebelacker.de/upload/aquatics_centre03.jpg


2nd design
Post bid redesign (Games mode)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/127/419909551_9c8be03f1a_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1417/649128215_0a9de0aaca_o.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/magazine_olympic_architect_zaha_hadid/img/1.jpg

Post bid redesign (legacy mode)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/123/419909575_788b096f4a_b.jpg


3rd design
Games mode (with 17,500 seats)

http://i1.************/6p6efzn.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2081/2033447437_56e0849e37_b.jpg

Legacy mode (with 2,500 seats)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1438/694957530_0921b0cef4_o.jpg

Still very nice...once those dam scaffoldings are taken away.

I don't care what people say but the design is absolutely appalling. For one what are we trying to achieve here? From what I have seen we are quiet literally going to have an appalling selection of buildings cheapened and reduced in size that are making a mockery of Britain’s design skills. The aquatics centre is so small now that the original design should be abandoned as it’s obviously inadequate for the games. I wish the games would go to a country that actually wants to do something special.

It's not about the Games. It's what is left behind for the next century that counts.

Yeah it looks very small in legacy mode... The down to earth approach to this game is quite frankly a disgrace.

Ok, it is to avoid repeating mistakes made in the past, white elephants etc.... Ok.

So basically this pool is answering the needs of local people in the area then? the so called legacy for the so poor people living in this so rundown area of London.

But why not fulfilling more than that? it can be a world class venue for future regional and international swiming events no? If London is not known for swiming competitions right now, maybe it can be ambitious and try to be a major player in the future?

But seriously...with a capacity of 2,500 seats....you can only watch a water polo match between Canning town and Walthamstow teams! Even my so called "olympic pool" in my hometown of 250 000 inhabitants has more seats than this!

Or maybe they'll reuse the scaffoldings? well...that's sustainable...pfff :(

ArgghhhhhhhH!! Legacy mode....I am really getting completely pissed off with that stupid analogy for all things BORING. It’s as if we don't want to have fun with these buildings and that everything is for this dumbass legacy we are trying to create. The Legacy will be a selection of woefully inadequate buildings for the games made of scaffolding and plastic sheets. This is a disgrace.

It’s as if we don't want to have fun with these buildings and that everything is for this dumbass legacy we are trying to create.

Fine then. Build massive Olympic sized venues. Don't worry about the fact they will never be filled to capacity again. Leave these oversized massive buildings to be maintained by the three poorest boroughs in the UK, sapping away funds that need to be spent on powering air conditioning and lighting for a building so massive it's overscaled to what it's being used for. Forget the needs of the local community, who are living on the doorstep of these games and have to deal with their consequences for generations. Once the party is over and the athletes have gone back home and the litter is all cleared up, just leave them be and let them deal with the consequences. But hey, as long as all the architecture fans got their wankfest of iconic venues, who cares about what happens to them after the party is over?

Who's buying flats or renting in Icona? who's going to live on the adresses between 100 and 150 Stratford High Street?

You're posture is passive and static when things are changing fast.

Do you know the word ambition? can you imagine that demand can be created? past demand is not future demand. Something that you, brits have failed to understand on many occasions, the British library full at opening, the M25, full at opening, Heathrow?

Maybe the legacy is to have cramped infrastructure for the future generations to experiment what's their predecessors have endured? is that right?

Dont tell me that the mayor cannot promote London assets in the future and find tenants, teams etc to play in these venues...

Your ideas are understable to a certain point. After that you're seriously lacking ambition.

one can only imagine what the roof over the temporary waterpolo pool will look like.

one can only imagine what the roof over the temporary waterpolo pool will look like.

You kind of can in this image. The roof for that was redesigned long ago.

http://i1.************/6p6efzn.jpg

You kind of can in this image. The roof for that was redesigned long ago.

http://i1.************/6p6efzn.jpg

i see something to the left..when was the waterpolo roof designed?

Darjole those pictures hurt so much! The first design's "legacy mode" was beautiful.

Legacy, legacy, legacy! Why not just build a pool for the poor people and give the games to some other city?

:lol: it's funny coz it's true.

kampflamm funny. :D

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/London2012Legacy.jpg

This is before the scaled down version with the temporary scaffolding section,

I find everytime i see another abortion of a building churned out from the ODA legacy machine , it makes me shudder. We are squandering an opportunity here.

Can someone remind me.. what is the big benefit of the olympics to the rest of the country?

Can someone remind me.. what is the big benefit of the olympics to the rest of the country?

http://www.london2012.com/in-your-area/index.php

We in the East Midlands are going to get a few Olympic roadshows?? Wow...??

I support the olympics totally but I think a few porkies are being told. They make it seem like it will be extremely beneficial to the rest of the country? How? When?

I am clearly being mislead.

going off topic to the stadium now.ok looking at these pics of the Doha stadium for the asian games seems to me people like it.Well i have to say kinda looks like a temporary structure to me like londons 2012 stadium.Ok dohas roof looks temporary with the roof supports above holding the roof also the roof itself looks like a sheet and not hard matarial like london ,the outside with the large tapestry(if thats the right word)of athletes just like londons but not right round plus the second tier looks temporary.I think i have a bit of an argument here.Don't get me wrong i like the doha stadium but if that can have a temprary look and still look good i think londons design has been criticised a little too early.Sorry for the space these pics are taking up i have put on here from a post in the 2016 best olympic stadium thread but you'll see what i mean.

^^ thats 100% correct any city with CA$H can do it :D:D:D

any ways

here are some Doha Khalifa Stadium pics during the 2006 Asian Games !!! :cheers:

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7175/3117308423a6528801bbjx0.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/125/31223843762cfd93fc7opx5.jpg

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/9042/31145038490d0cb9c3cody3.jpg

http://img344.imageshack.us/img344/1204/erwetric9.jpg

http://img326.imageshack.us/img326/4711/img1366zw0.jpg

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/5425/l1000415edited1hf8.jpg

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/1381/l1000486edited1fa7.jpg

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5429/img1423xr4.jpg

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1503/img1220wr6.jpg

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1156/img1107pq9.jpg

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/8752/img1112jh5.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/1661/img1126sh6.jpg

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/2708/img1173ch8.jpg

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/9262/l1000434edited1qe0.jpg

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/1237/l1000362edited1yb2.jpg

doha's stadium has a lot to do with sydney

1. it was one of the shortlisted designs for sydney's olympic stadium but they eventually chose the design that exists today
2. the opening of the asian games was run/organized by a large part of the sydney 2000 opening ceremony team...cept they thought it wouldn't be safe if Cathy freeman went up to light the flame on the back of a kangaroo..so they just made her walk up.

I've supported these Olympics against the moaners through thick and thin for years. I've always believed, and still do, they can do something great for London and the UK. I argue the corner vehemently - but each time we get any new material from London 2012, the job becomes a little more difficult.

I excused the logo, because at least it was innovative and daring, and actually looks OK when not in those ridiculous colours they use.

I was content enough with the uninspiring stadium. "Its a compromise" I said. Fair enough considering the practicalities that architectural flair wasn't the main driving force.

But this?! That aquatics centre just looks plain hideous. Its cheap, its tacky. They're so wrapped up in legacy - the use of the venue for the Olympics seems to have become an afterthought. They're not going to inspire anyone if the overall approach to hosting the games (stadia, ceremonies, celebrations. etc.) is as half-hearted as these compromises suggest.

I 100% agree with you! There is a point where cutting costs seriously compromises design and quality, and today I think that point has passed.

Its funny because in the BD Allies and Morrison are harping on about the aquatics centre being iconic and now look what's happened?? Someone should really tell the ODA and the Goverment to stop messing around with the designs which were fine in the first place. Flambouant architecture,innovative in nature will cost more than a box, but alas they don't realise this, it has to be reduced and reduced until we are left with such a comprimised mess that they have to apply add on's to make it work.

the dohar stadium deff gives you idea about the London
stadium!

Who was the builder?


www.2012olympichost.com

London Update: Aquatics Seating, Sponsor Hopes, Deighton to Seoul

11/23/2007
The aquatics center will be one of the architectural landmarks of the 2012 Games.
Seating for Aquatics Center Under Cost Review

The Olympic Delivery Authority is examining various cost-effective temporary seating configurations for London 2012’s aquatic center to prevent costs spiraling.

An ODA spokesman tells Around the Rings that the final cost of the project would be established as part of the procurement process with the contractor Balfour Beatty, the sole bidder following the withdrawal of German builder Hochtief and French construction firm Eiffel last month.

Plans for architect Zaha Hadid’s aquatic center -- a 17,500 capacity facility with 15,000 temporary seats in Games-time mode -- are undergoing revisions at the detailed design stage. There are no major changes to the design of the permanent building.

But major uncertainties remain over the cost of construction for Games use and subsequent conversion to 2,500 seats to fulfill its legacy as an elite sport and community facility.

Hadid’s original concept has already been scaled back under previous cost-cutting measures. But the project is still expected to cost $300 million, more than double the bid book figure of three years ago.

“We want to make sure the investment is focused on legacy,” said the ODA official.

He confirms that the ODA is working with the venue designers to explore “all the options” for temporary seating configurations to boost the spectator experience and to ensure the design features of the permanent building are retained after the Games.

Detailed designs will be published in the next few months before a fresh planning application is submitted. Balfour Beatty is due to begin construction next summer.

With its 14,000sq m wave-shaped roof mimicking the flow of water, the facility will be the gateway venue to the Olympic Park in Stratford, east London.

New Sponsor by Christmas?

London 2012 officials hope to announce a new top-tier sponsor within the next month.

Paul Deighton, LOCOG chief executive, has previously said he wanted to unveil London 2012’s fourth major sponsor by the end of the year.

“Everything is progressing on schedule,” says a London 2012 spokeswoman. “We are working towards firming up a sponsorship before Christmas.”

London has already inked sponsorship deals with Lloyds TSB, EDF Energy and Adidas. London 2012 officials have denied reports that spirits-maker Diageo is next, while speculation also surrounds British Airways and BT for the telecommunications and airline slots.

Tesco, the supermarket chain, is said to be interested in becoming the clothing and homeware partner or filling a new grocery category.

Eight top-tier categories currently exist and another two could be created to generate revenues towards the $4 billion cost of the Games. LOCOG plans to have four new top tier sponsors in place before the Beijing Olympics.

ODA reveals green plan for 2012

26 November, 2007

By Dan Stewart

Olympics organisers release sustainability plan, which includes measuring carbon impact of the Games

The organisers behind the London Olympics have released their sustainability plan for the 2012 Games.

The plan outlines a host of measures including measuring the carbon impact of the Games, a low-emission Olympic flame, and a 120m wind turbine at the north end of the Olympic Park.

It also collates the various targets for the construction element of the Games, including:

* Zero waste to landfill for the entire Olympics including preparation, Games-time and in legacy mode.
* Ensuring goods and services to be sourced under a set of acceptable environmental and ethical guidelines.
* Reuse and recycling of demolition materials to meet a target of 90% - ODA design and regeneration director Alison Nimmo revealed the demolition contractors have thus far managed to recycle 97% of materials.
* The proportion of reused or recycled materials to account for at least 20% of the value of materials used in the permanent venues, and venues and infrastructure to be built using 25% recycled aggregate.
* 50% of Olympic Park construction materials to travel to site by rail or river
* Homes in the Olympic Village to be built to Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.
* Permanent venues across the Olympics will be expected to achieve 15% carbon dioxide reductions beyond 2006 Building Regulations, and achieve an ‘excellent’ BREEAM rating. Contractors will be expected to prove that embodied energy in construction materials has been minimised.
* In legacy mode, the organisers are aiming to reduce the Olympic Park’s built environment carbon emissions by 50% by 2013.

Olympic site

Alison Nimmo said: “Sustainability is at the heart of our programme and runs through all we are doing – from the recycling of waste materials from the demolition programme through to venue designs and energy source and supply. We have set ourselves challenging targets but have already made a strong start.”