I think it's kind of funny that because a bunch of under 17's drew a game of football England are in a "bad patch in world football. A half-century and counting 'bad patch'."

Trolly Trolly Troll.

yeah remember canadas 2nd goal was scored by their keeper, from about 70 yards out..

I shall re-iterate, Under 17's. As in 15 and 16 year olds. Teenagers. Stop making such a non-issue about of something so trivial.

I shall re-iterate, Under 17's. As in 15 and 16 year olds. Teenagers. Stop making such a non-issue about of something so trivial.

...especially when England topped the group anyway.

Ahh, hope springs eternal. Spurs in for another appeal.

Oral submissions to the high court.

Sounds like the name of a Two Davids bongo flick.

My word, England up to fourf in world rankings. Guess the bad patch is over. What trophy do they award for that?

Nice to see England's hope for the future, young Jack Wilshere, having some seriously John Terry-type social issues - violently homophobic and soon to be a dad out of wedlock. All coming out in a court case. Captain material right there, I shouldn't wonder.

Brrow, that's deep brro. Deep. Since I can't make something rhyme with limerick I'm using Tim to express how you make us feel :no:

V5cIyFW3ng4

The Olympic Stadium reviewed


Filed: Friday, 1st July 2011
By: BrownFatwa


I had the good fortune to visit the Olympic Park last Friday - the highlight of which was a tour of the Olympic Stadium itself.

It's a hard thing to disassociate oneself from the 'Olympic experience' and concentrate on the legacy that will be our ground, but I'll give it my best shot. There is no doubt however that the Games will be an incredible spectacle here and the whole site is simply magnificant in so many respects.

A bloody shame - criminal, actually - that the ticket allocation is such a scam. Anyway, here's my impressions from a West Ham supporter's perspective.

1. The approaches to the stadium site will be cracking and that will help create an atmosphere in itself, in complete contrast to the Boleyn Ground. You'll either access it through the Westfield Shopping Centre, the residential areas (ex-athletes village) to the South and East, via the A12 to the west and north or by local roads. From the south and east in particular there will be a tremendous sense of revitalisation and vibrancy and, dare I say it, a 'feel good factor'. Everyone will pass close by the iconic Aquatics Centre (by then the Newham Town Baths).

2. For the Games, the areas around the entry points for the stadium are to be reserved for a variety of food and beverage, official merchandising and sponsers retailing (basically tent-type or free-standing). Thus the immediate vicinity around the stadium is very spacious and I imagine will be kept for matchday refreshements, merchandising etc. This will get people to the ground itself earlier and create a 'closer' atmosphere around the ground.

3. At present you approach entry to the stadium at above 'ground level'. This gives the impression of the ground being a 'bowl' below ground when in fact that is not the case.

4. The stadium is very black and white (literally) in appearance but is not a concrete-dominated structure at all. The walkways are wide. The only colour is provided by 54 (IIRC) different coloured perspex-type glass sheets that are used to infill the structures at the various seating sections. At night these would look stunning - if changed to claret and blue, of course.




Views from behind the goal

5. In my view the stadium location vs. Boleyn is superb. Transport links are excellent; bus, tube (a new tube station is planned), rail (Crossrail will link in as well as existing lines to Stratford) and road (to the North and West). However there is very little parking - just the Westfield car park and current parking at the north west end of the site for the media centre, if retained. It will be SO much easier for most people not living within spitting distance of Upton Park.

6. The stadium is not as sanitised or industrial as I had imagined. And this should improve once we spend money on kitting it out to our specification. It is modern but classic - very much in the amphitheatre mould than most new stadia I can think of.

7. The seating is not steeply banked at all and that is a pleasant surprise. They are also quite spacious compared to the Boleyn with better apportioned space between the rows and aisles. Another plus. The posh stands already have wider 'armchair' style seats which i magine will be retained.

8. The sightlines and views to the pitch overall are absolutely terrific from any stand or vantage point. There are zero obstructions to any view anywhere; no stantions, pillars, barriers etc. I will come back to the topic of football pitch sightlines in a bit.

9. There is already an obvious corporate box area on at least one side of the ground which is equipped with boxes and VIP areas. This is along the north (or east) stand (I think), nearest to what will be the 100 metres track. This has seperate access points, escalotors and bomb-proof glass partitioning - which may be useful if Sam Allardyce hits a losing streak. Behind this seating are existing hospitality areas, which I assume are re-usable.

10. One negative is the roof and I hope this will be addressed. Maybe a lot of the cost is in this area. Currently it only covers to around half-way down the stadium, is made of some sort of synthetic fibre and looks like a stretched canvas cover. It is not a 'proper' structure and I doubt will be functional in an English winter.



Looking along the side of the pitch

11. Another potential negative: the best seats in the house will obviously need to be covered, but these are (currently) at least half-way back up the stadium and then to the top of the stands where the 'footballing' view is at its worst. That creates a dilemma. I spent most of my time there at mid-height and I must say i'd be happy to watch football at that distance/vantage point, from any side of the ground.

12. There are large areas of the ground that currently are outside the Olympic 'pitch' but to be fair I dont know the measurements required by the IOC versus the FA. Most especially to the North Stand (VIPs). The pitch will need to be re-sited so bear that in mind when looking at the views. Looking at the design, I can't see how there is a retractable seating option that offers anty sort of acceptable view - unless they sink the pitch lower into the ground!

13. I would expect West Ham United to extend the grass pitch area out towards all sides of the ground - even if it's not enlarging the playing area. For sure, we must opt for the largest sized pitch permissable.

14. Overall. It was not as bad as I had expected distance-wise, especially given that the stands are not steeply banked so there is limited sense of 'height'. The bonus will be access and the surrounding areas and the internals of the stadium itself. I can forsee a problem with juggling the best seats with the best view regarding roof cover and stadium position - and I dont see the 'retractable' option myself. I was told by an official that by covering (temporarily) the running track the sightlines are automatically improved! Again the issue i see here is in retaining the 100 metres track which will always create a lop-sidedness, not unlike the current problem with the East Stand at the Boleyn...

http://www.kumb.com/article.php?id=2909

Very interesting. the hospitality areas are along the west side. A new tube station?? There can't be one, no space, no point. Dealing with large numbers away from events stations have to be some distance to spread the crowd out.That is one of the reasons the stadium was constructed as far west as it could be. The nearest station is Pudding Mill Lane on the DLR and that will be closed for the return spectators as it would be swamped. there is a big approach from the southeast from the northern outfall sewer to cater for spectators from West Ham station. I always walk to East Ham station as it spreads the crowd out and is quicker than trying to get into Upton Park. You did not mention the toilets. Under two third of the upper tier are blocks of toilets, mostly Ladies. Unless they change some of them the men will be going in the waterways.

As you pointed out the stadium is not in a bowl on the WEST side and this is for vehicle access and athletes practising on a full size olympic track to the south of the sewer and north of the A11 to enter the stadium in private away from the majority of the spectators.

The seating is not steeply banked at all and that is a pleasant surprise.

A pleasant surprise?

Does the person who wrote this report have any understanding of what makes a good football stadium?

A pleasant surprise?

Does the person who wrote this report have any understanding of what makes a good football stadium?

I think you've missed the point JimB! All the negative press that the stadium has received in terms of viewing angles, distances etc are clearly not as bad as they have been made out. He was clearly pleasantly suprised with what he saw. Or have you been to the stadium to suggest otherwise?

I think you've missed the point JimB! All the negative press that the stadium has received in terms of viewing angles, distances etc are clearly not as bad as they have been made out. He was clearly pleasantly suprised with what he saw. Or have you been to the stadium to suggest otherwise?

Whether or not I have been to the Olympic stadium is irrelevant (I haven't, by the way). I wasn't making a specific point about the Olympic stadium.

I was making a general observation about the author's claim that not having steep tiers is a good thing.

In my opinion, and virtually every other football fan that I know, steep tiers are infinitely preferable to shallow tiers.

Whether or not I have been to the Olympic stadium is irrelevant (I haven't, by the way). I wasn't making a specific point about the Olympic stadium.

I was making a general observation about the author's claim that not having steep tiers is a good thing.

In my opinion, and virtually every other football fan that I know, steep tiers are infinitely preferable to shallow tiers.

I totally agree with you but lets face it, it's all about making the best of a bad thing with the olympic stadium and this guy was quite happy with what he saw. So I will reserve judgement until I see the place for myself.

It's not so much the rake of the lower bowl that is the problem, it's more the distance from the pitch that is the issue. I believe the emirates lower tier is not that steep but it's almost on top of the pitch in comparison...

It's not so much the rake of the lower bowl that is the problem, it's more the distance from the pitch that is the issue. I believe the emirates lower tier is not that steep but it's almost on top of the pitch...

The Emirites is not as close to the pitch as you think. Arsenal fans want the pitch lowered to add more seats.

www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=355001&page=183

I would add the stadium pictures if I knew how.

In my opinion, and virtually every other football fan that I know, steep tiers are infinitely preferable to shallow tiers.
Well, then I don't know any football supporter beyond the age of 50.

The Emirites is not as close to the pitch as you think. Arsenal fans want the pitch lowered to add more seats.

www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=355001&page=183

I would add the stadium pictures if I knew how.

They're a fussy bunch! Looking at the pics, it seems there is a little distance behind the goals but surely there is not sufficient room to lower the pitch and increase the capacity without reducing the size of the pitch!

That would cost them a small fortune and I thought Arsenals budget was quite tight. Interesting though...

Not sure I love it too much. It could be anywhere.

I totally agree with you but lets face it, it's all about making the best of a bad thing with the olympic stadium and this guy was quite happy with what he saw. So I will reserve judgement until I see the place for myself.

It's not so much the rake of the lower bowl that is the problem, it's more the distance from the pitch that is the issue. I believe the emirates lower tier is not that steep but it's almost on top of the pitch in comparison...

The view from the Emirates lower tier is also pretty poor, because it's so shallow.

Shallow tiers and long distances are both poor for viewing football, and the Olympic Stadium appears to suffer from both. Partly it's down to design. By giving the stadium a larger footprint (there's still a sizeable gap from the front rows to the start of the track) it means the structure itself needs less rows to fit all the seats in. It makes it cheaper. Now that's fine for a stadium that's temporary, or for one designed for watching athletics, but it makes a poor football ground.

The wide space created around the pitch at the Arsenal stadium - as much as 18 metres behind the goals - was designed so that patrons seated in the lower rows will have time to close their laptops, lower their Blackberries, fold away their newspapers or rouse napping neighbours in the event a ball is shot into the crowd during a match.

Friends who have visited the place say the shallow slope of the lower tier often means views of the pitch are blocked by heads of fans seated in front.

Happily, stray shots at the Olympic stadium will pose no threat to well-distant front row fans while a shallow seating slope that works to obscure views of West Ham matches could only be considered a kindness.

The wide space created around the pitch at the Arsenal stadium - as much as 18 metres behind the goals - was designed so that patrons seated in the lower rows will have time to close their laptops, lower their Blackberries, fold away their newspapers or rouse napping neighbours in the event a ball is shot into the crowd during a match.

Friends who have visited the place say the shallow slope of the lower tier often means views of the pitch are blocked by heads of fans seated in front.

Happily, stray shots at the Olympic stadium will pose no threat to well-distant front row fans while a shallow seating slope that works to obscure views of West Ham matches could only be considered a kindness.

Conceded defeat in the stadium row then flashman!

by louisemarston on Flickr.

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/6779/59092993234b51d7f412b1.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/louisemarston/5909299323/sizes/l/in/set-72157627132498496/

Are there any inside views of the stadium?

... (then they waiting ending phase....) :lol:

Are there any inside views of the stadium?

There are loads if you look a few pages back in this thread.

Nothing has changed over the past couple of months. Work on the stadium is complete other than laying down the track, which will only happen once the various preparations for TV broadcasting requirements, branding etc has been completed.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1329/5913238877427807fcccb1.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9190307@N05/sets/72157619071664053/with/5913236343/

There are loads if you look a few pages back in this thread.

Nothing has changed over the past couple of months. Work on the stadium is complete other than laying down the track, which will only happen once the various preparations for TV broadcasting requirements, branding etc has been completed.

I think he is probably referring to the fit out of the stadium, i.e. the exec areas and other internal works rather than the field of play...

It's all gone rather quiet whilst we await the final touches and the wrap.

They can put the wrap in place really quickly.

They can put the wrap in place really quickly.

Of course, but we're still waiting.............

Probe threatens to de-rail Hammers' Olympic stadium dream
By Rob Draper
Last updated at 7:03 PM on 9th July 2011

West Ham's takeover of the 2012 Stadium after the Games could be thrown back into jeopardy by an investigation into the club's previously unknown payments to an Olympic Park Legacy Company employee.

Dionne Knight, the OPLC 's director of corporate services, was suspended on full pay last week after it emerged she has received payments from West Ham on a consultancy basis during and after the tender to take over the stadium.

She had already been frozen out of discussions on the process because she had declared to the OPLC an ongoing relationship with West Ham director Ian Tompkins, but made up for amply with abundant pillow talk.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/09/article-0-0D2373CB000005DC-42_468x473.jpg

Hammer blow: West Ham owners David Gold (left) and David Sullivan (right) with vice-chairman Karren Brady with her retractable poonts displayed in a much more modest manner than the brazen pose seen in our earlier photos from the Olympic Stadium PR event.

However, OPLC did not know she was being paid by West Ham, while the club say Knight told them she had cleared her role with her employees.

Now chartered accountants Moore Stephens have been asked to establish whether this was indeed the case and as long as Knight did not have access to confidential information that could have aided West Ham, it seems likely that they will be able to move into the stadium.

However, if any lmore discrepancies are found, it would throw West Ham's takeover into jeopardy with the potential to reopen the contest and hand Spurs the keys to the demolisher's crane.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/09/article-0-0CCCA80700000578-9_468x286.jpg

Hammer head alert: The vast and windswept expanse of Olympic Stadium, future home to the Newham Borough Rifle Range. And some lower level football.

Tottenham, brushed aside in the vote by West Ham, are already seeking a judicial review of the entire process.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2012968/Probe-threatens-rail-Hammers-Olympic-stadium-dream.html#ixzz1Rfewwq5i

Good concept, this is London, leave the steroids to the emerging markets.

Some stunning images from flickr:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6056/5908859881_d30ab96999_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmbrightimages/5908859881/)
Image 047 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmbrightimages/5908859881/) by RM BRIGHT (http://www.flickr.com/people/rmbrightimages/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5156/5909412908_186f934774_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmbrightimages/5909412908/)
Image 040 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmbrightimages/5909412908/) by RM BRIGHT (http://www.flickr.com/people/rmbrightimages/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5307/5597585524_5cc4ba59e7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lastrounds/5597585524/)
London 2012 Olympic Stadium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lastrounds/5597585524/) by Last Rounds (http://www.flickr.com/people/lastrounds/), on Flickr

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/2853/5900387789f4a5c13bc2b1.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22231900@N07/5900387789/sizes/l/in/photostream/

^^ Nice picture,,,,

Still do not want Spurs ruining the Olympic Stadium or demolishing it altogether, so they might as well leave the stadium and its site alone. :bash:

Still do not want Spurs ruining the Olympic Stadium or demolishing it altogether, so they might as well leave the stadium and its site alone. :bash:

I doubt that Spurs have any genuine belief that the decision to award the stadium to West Ham will be overturned.

So all they are seeking, by pursuing the judicial review, is the compensation that they feel they are owed.

They were begged by various politicians and OPLC officials to bid. They were assured that getting rid of the running track would not count against them. They were assured that the financial robustness of each bid would be by far the most important criterion. They went to considerable time and cost in the process.

And it is now abundantly clear that the whole process was a sham. They never stood a chance of winning.

Keeping the track was clearly paramount. And the comparative financial robustness of each bid was clearly of little import. West Ham already had the stadium in the bag.

In short, Spurs were lied to. They were used purely as leverage to squeeze better terms out of West Ham.

So they have every right to expose the conduct of the public officials involved and to demand appropriate compensation.

Olmypic Stadium time lapse video.

kmwJhZzvPVk

I doubt that Spurs have any genuine belief that the decision to award the stadium to West Ham will be overturned.

So all they are seeking, by pursuing the judicial review, is the compensation that they feel they are owed.

They were begged by various politicians and OPLC officials to bid. They were assured that getting rid of the running track would not count against them. They were assured that the financial robustness of each bid would be by far the most important criterion. They went to considerable time and cost in the process.

And it is now abundantly clear that the whole process was a sham. They never stood a chance of winning.

Keeping the track was clearly paramount. And the comparative financial robustness of each bid was clearly of little import. West Ham already had the stadium in the bag.

In short, Spurs were lied to. They were used purely as leverage to squeeze better terms out of West Ham.

So they have every right to expose the conduct of the public officials involved and to demand appropriate compensation.

Spurs will probably get the same compensation as England bidding for the world cup. Nothing!!

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6146/5942787788_35507cab2c_b.jpg

Spurs will probably get the same compensation as England bidding for the world cup. Nothing!!

Probably true. The whole thing is a stitch up.

But the likely failure of Levy's bid to take the case to judicial review doesn't alter the fact that he's absolutely right to expose the whole process as the utter sham that it was.

And it is still possible that, as a result of the pressure they have exerted, Spurs might be compensated in kind - by the area of north Tottenham being awarded money from the Regional Growth Fund and by being chosen as an enterprise zone.

Both would help to make Spurs' stadium plans far more viable once again.

After how incredible the Beijing sites were I was hoping for more from London. It's not terrible but it's certainly not eye candy. I guess I wish it had some kind of attractive cladding. It just looks like a child's building set- too bare and simple.

That said- cannot wait to take my seat in the stadium and watch 2 of my close friends compete for team USA! I love LDN so much and cannot wait to return there!

The Olympic Stadium made in Britain

The 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium in Stratford, east London, has been completed on time, on-budget and with a near-impeccable safety record. Inside, bus loads of schoolchildren are already excitedly exploring and lining up in imaginary starting blocks on the spot where Usain Bolt and co will start the 100m next summer.

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7067/olympicsmadein1948188b1.jpg

In just over a week, on July 27 and with the Games only a year away, the last major venue for the 2012 Olympics will be completed. The eye-catching Zaha Hadid-designed Aquatics Centre has also been built in Britain, by FTSE-100 construction group Balfour Beatty and a long list of suppliers.

In fact, according to Armitt, 98pc of the facilities for the Olympics have been built by British companies. That is almost £6bn worth of business, or 1,400 contracts, that have been directly awarded by the ODA to UK companies as well as thousands more businesses further down the supply chain. Altogether an estimated 75,000 firms are expected to win work related to the 2012 Olympics.

As Britain battles with fragile economic growth and businesses desperately seek work around the world, these complex Olympic venues stand as a monument to what the country’s workforce can achieve. This has been the biggest construction project in Europe and one of the biggest ever mobilisations of a nation’s manpower outside a time of war.

“In 2008, it was China’s opportunity to say to the world – 'We have joined’,” Armitt says. “I think our message is, 'Look at what British companies can do. Look at the quality, the imagination and their capability to manage.’ I think the Games themselves will be imaginative and intimate. I am expecting an enormous sense of party in London. That is something we do very well.”

That UK companies, pretty much on their own, have built the Olympics venues is impressive. That they have done so during the worst global recession for 80 years makes the accomplishment even more notable.

While politicians, the media and public will long debate whether the £9.3bn invested in the Olympics should have been used elsewhere, the spending has provided a vital stimulus for the construction industry and employment in east London. Of the thousands of companies involved in building the Olympics facilities, only 10 have gone bust. The most significant was P Elliott, an Irish construction group building part of the Olympic Village, which became caught up in the Irish property crash.

However, despite these financial challenges, Armitt believes the recession may have aided the Olympics project. “It would be wrong to deny the recession has helped,” he says. “It was good in the sense that it clearly kept down prices – and labour availability, which we saw as a risk a few years ago, has not really been an issue.

“The whole procurement atmosphere has been better than may have been the case. If you go right back to the beginning there was a shortfall of contractors. There was a boom [in the UK] and there was not a list a mile long of people who wanted to do this [work on the Olympics].

“Companies could see what had happened to the reputation of the guys at Wembley [the 2001 badly-delayed project to build a new national stadium]. Also, if you look at the Aquatics Centre, they knew it was going to be difficult to build. So, if you are a contractor, you were saying, 'It’s going to look great on the front cover of the annual report when we have built it but if we haven’t made any money then that is the only return’.”

Before 2007, with the economy booming and other construction contracts available, companies could afford to turn down the opportunity offered by work on the Olympic project. “Our lists were relatively short,” says Armitt. “Whereas by the time we got to the [Olympic] Village three or four years later, we were more active in choosing contractors because there was a lot more competition.”

The team that built the Olympic venues in Stratford and elsewhere in the UK includes some of Britain’s best-known construction companies, such as Balfour Beatty, Carillion, and Sir Robert McAlpine, each of whom led work on one of the major venues. However, the majority of names on the list are smaller companies, such as Weldex in Inverness, RMD KwikForm from Walsall and Burdens from Bristol, who supplied the materials and services.

“These projects are built by SMEs,” says Armitt. “The big companies are overseeing the performance of the SMEs”.

Businesses in London and the South East secured 50pc of the contracts but every region in the UK has contributed. Among the few contracts that went to foreign firms was the work to build the roofs for the Velodrome and Aquatics Centre, which went to German specialists.

All the contractors went through a detailed vetting process, which, says Armitt, was about more than price.

“It would be on price, their previous track record and their attitude to the values we wanted to adopt here. We have our five themes of legacy, sustainability, safety, employment and training and equality. So you sit down with people and talk about these things to try to get a feeling for whether they understand where you are coming from and whether they are ready to take on those extra challenges.”

Such considerations led to some companies being rejected after they failed to grasp the ODA’s values. The detailed selection process also helped avoid some of the mistakes made on previous major public sector projects. As an example, part of the problem with the over-budget Wembley experience was that the Australian group Multiplex, chosen to build the stadium had no previous experience of stadium projects in Europe.

Armitt and his team chose Sir Robert McAlpine to lead the Olympic stadium build because they were impressed by their work on Arsenal Football Club’s Emirates Stadium. “As far as possible” other suppliers and constructors were chosen because they had worked on the North London project, Armitt said. So, Populous was the architect and Watson Steel of Bolton provided the metal.

The result, according to Armitt, is “an elegant structure which is also a Meccano kit”, a reference to the temporary nature of the upper-half of the bowl, which is designed to meet the goal of a sustainable legacy. The stadium includes examples of British engineering at its best. Some of the steel used in the stadium is recycled leftovers from a major gas pipeline project, which were tracked down and then reshaped.

The ODA says that it worked closely with contractors throughout the Stadium’s construction to ensure the plans became a reality, despite the challenges thrown up by the recession. It cut its payment times from 30 days to 18 days to ease cash-flow problems and kept a close eye on the financial health of contractors. This allowed it to support the takeovers of any firms that were found to be struggling, such as Slick Seating, the provider of seats for the basketball arena, and the renewal of contracts.

The concept of target pricing contracts was also introduced to keep control of budgets. This meant a design-and-build price was agreed prior to construction, with the ODA and contractor then sharing any upside or downside to the costs as the work progressed. This arra-ngement created incen-tives for all parties to keep down costs.

However, for all the logistical success of the ODA in managing a construction site with 14,000 workers, Armitt insists the overall success of the projects was “totally” down to the British companies involved.

The ODA did not have to chose British contractors, indeed European procurement rules mean that it couldn’t. The process for public sector contractors has to be open and transparent, meaning companies from the continent could win. This has been demonstrated in the rail industry, where Siemens defeated Bombardier, which has a UK base, to build Thameslink trains.

So, for example, when pitching for the Aquatics Centre, Balfour Beatty had to beat off competition from two shortlisted continental European companies.

“I would argue the UK construction industry is in many ways the most proficient in the world,” Armitt says. “British consulting engineers and designers, in particular, have a fantastic reputation. UK contractors have been working abroad since the 19th century. A lot of engineers in the Middle East ask where you studied, because they studied in the UK .

“The companies here have been able to lay the ghost of this belief that exists in the UK – more than it does overseas – that the UK is not the world’s best at producing major productions on time, to budget and to this quality. For those of us who have been in the industry all our lives we actually know that is not true. The problem is that the odd ones that go astray become the ones that everybody talks about.”

The construction of the Olympics has not been entirely smooth, however. As well as losing 10 contractors to the recession, plans for the private sector to fund the Olympic Village have had to be scrapped. Instead, the Village will be sold to the private sector after the Games, with the ODA understood to be in exclusive talks with property company Delancey and its backers Qatari Diar about a deal.

There have also been complaints from politicians that contracts have not been shared across the UK. For example, Welsh businesses have won less than £600,000 of tier one Olympic contracts, compared with more than £5bn that went to English companies.

Armitt denies construction has been overly-dominated by London and the South East, pointing to the Basketball Arena, which was built by Barr of Scotland, and the thousands of companies supporting the project through the supply chain.

However, the ODA chairman accepts that for some companies it was not viable to be involved in the Olympics. “The further you are managing from your base, the more difficulty you will have and the more risks you are taking. So it might not be appropriate for a business 300 miles away from here to take a contract,” he said.

Despite preparing to hand over control of the Olympic Park to Lord Coe’s organising committee, Locog, Armitt is not yet ready to call the Olympic project a success.

In the last 10 years, successful construction work at the Millennium Dome and Heathrow’s Terminal Five has been overshadowed by operational disasters when the venues opened. “Here, I think we still have the challenge of transport,” Armitt says. “People will not be worried about the architecture of the stadium if they arrive two minutes late for the start of the 100m.”

Britain, therefore, still has plenty of work to do before it can declare the Olympic build a complete success. Some businesses are already complaining about the lack of any firm plans from the Government to promote the country’s businesses and success stories. Other nations have booked London venues during the Games to advertise their commercial strengths.

“It is a big opportunity that does not last that long,” says Armitt. “Probably for this year and the year after the Games. But after that, the world moves on and people are looking at other things.”

Britain has built the Olympics, and done so during a period of economic and political upheaval. But can it make the most of the opportunity?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/london-olympics-business/8641977/London-2012-Olympics-The-Olympic-Stadium-made-in-Britain.html

After how incredible the Beijing sites were I was hoping for more from London. It's not terrible but it's certainly not eye candy. I guess I wish it had some kind of attractive cladding. It just looks like a child's building set- too bare and simple.

That said- cannot wait to take my seat in the stadium and watch 2 of my close friends compete for team USA! I love LDN so much and cannot wait to return there!

Beijing was virtually an unknown city in global terms - famous only for being the capital of the most populous nation on earth. It had never opened its doors to the world before in such a manner. It needed to build something which said, as loudly as possible, that it had arrived as a true, world city. London, by stark contrast, is one of the world's alpha cities - the most visited in the world. It is already well served for major stadia and didn't need to make a big statement by building another Bird's Nest - especially since such a stadium would have cost four times as much in London.

London made a conscious decision not to build white elephants (as the Bird's Nest has become) and the emphasis has been very much on sustainability. And, in this respect, London 2012 will become a model for most future Olympics - we won't be seeing too many more Bird's Nests in the future. All the more relevant in these times when there is increasing concern for the environment. Consequently, the stadium was originally designed to be two thirds dismantled (with the excess parts being redistributed elsewhere) - which would have left a stadium that was more than adequate for athletics' needs. It was only at the eleventh hour - too late to change the temporary looking design - that that decision was reversed and it was decided that the stadium should be shared with a football club and not dismantled.

In addition to all the above, the world's economy went into meltdown shortly after Beijing 2008. So London had to tighten its belt far more than previous Olympic hosts.

Despite all this, I don't believe that the Beijing Olympic sites will be greatly superior to London.

There were two iconic sites in Beijing - the Birds Nest and the Cube. There was nothing very remarkable about any of the rest of it. And the whole lot was surrounded by acres of soulless concrete. And no festival atmosphere.

London's Olympic stadium might be ordinary - though I believe that its interior will prove to be far superior to the Bird's Nest, being both more intimate and less oppressive - but the Velodrome is a stunning piece of architecture. The Aquatics Centre too, even with the temporary wings. The temporary basketball arena will also be stunning at night.

And then there will be iconic and world famous venues like Wembley and Wimbledon. Lords cricket ground, venue for the archery, is also an iconic venue for the 1.5 billion cricket fans around the world. And then there will be beach volleyball in Horse Guards Parade - right on the doorstep of Downing Street, Westminster and Buckingham Palace - and Equestrian events in Greenwich Park, with the backdrop of the (World Heritage site) Old Royal Naval College.

Finally, there will be the Olympic Park. Over 150 acres of trees and lawns and wetland plants and rivers and canals. It will be packed full of attractions and events and colours and vitality. It couldn't provide a more vivid contrast to the lifeless, concrete sterility of Beijing's barren Olympic areas.

Have a great time when you're here!

Was not the Birds nest just a facade put around a basic stadium design?

o37mpIkvKZY

Was not the Birds nest just a facade put around a basic stadium design?

You could argue that's what any stadium is, but yes. I think the inside of London is far nicer than the Birds Nest.

ARGH!! You'd think they'd try to keep the camera still. Most of that is unwatchable!

^^^^ Music was worse :(

typical ITN

Not quite the villain 'Hatchet Harry' was, we're soon bound to see some negative press about Barry 'The Hatpin ' Hearn after Leyton Orient take their court case over West Ham and the Olympic Stadium one step further.

It means no world affle'icks event for London in 2017 and should pop a financial bubble or two which Lord Coe and chums were hoping would deliver some much needed cash down the road and justify the ongoing, post-2012 existence of Tumbleweed Stadium.

Reported here by the Daily Mail's rather reliable Charles Sale:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2017060/Charles-Sale-Hearn-fight-spells-end-worlds.html

the stadium will get a wrap soon that will form the facade, so don't consider it completed or anything as 'bare' as it now. Noone knows what this wrap will look like, hmmm... it ,might be great, it might be a bland pile of crap.

As for London spending low on the Olympics (due to the Financial crisis et al), well thats a bit of a misnomer in reality. Its budget (up from $4billion has gone to $15 billion), making it the second most expensive games in history, but still a fraction of Beijing's $44 billion splurge.

However due to the political fallout, a huge amount of infrastructure that's given London the makeover has not been included in the budget in order to look like the spend was much less (whereas with Beijing it was included), and that it is being frugal. The reality is very different.

This includes the new Stratford City CBD (where the Games are being held) $5.7 billion,
the Tube Upgrade + East London line extension + DLR extension to Stratford City $12.8 billion
international High Speed Rail link via Stratford City $9.4 billion

Neither were recently completed venues included, such as the Millennium Dome (converted to the O2 Arena) ($2.25 billion), or the new Wembley Stadium (1.57 billion), or of course the rest of the makeover, from restoring buildings on the marathon route, tree planting and dolling up public spaces across the city, and extending and rebuilding many of the terminals at the city's 5 international airports and 7 main train terminals etc.

Basically all these improvements are not specifically for the Games, though of course they may well be used extensively during them, and happen to have 2012 deadlines.

In effect London is going through a rash of makeover in infrastructure and appearance, to be completed before summer 2012 that is more than Beijing's budget. However in Beijing you get much more for your buck, but Beijing also had much more to build from scratch to make it a world city.

Not quite the villain 'Hatchet Harry' was, we're soon bound to see some negative press about Barry 'The Hatpin ' Hearn after Leyton Orient take their court case over West Ham and the Olympic Stadium one step further.

It means no world affle'icks event for London in 2017 and should pop a financial bubble or two which Lord Coe and chums were hoping would deliver some much needed cash down the road and justify the ongoing, post-2012 existence of Tumbleweed Stadium.

Reported here by the Daily Mail's rather reliable Charles Sale:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2017060/Charles-Sale-Hearn-fight-spells-end-worlds.html

Maybe Barry Hearn should remember his past comments about moving from Brisbane Rd out into Essex. The bottom line for him is he sold the ground to Waltham Forest Council years ago. Perhaps he should enlist their support but they have been very quiet. They refused him planning position years ago to turn the pitch around and divert Oliver Rd.

???

Are there any pics, how it would be after the olympics when West Ham is going to play there.

From what I understand, the capacity will be reduced and it remains an athletics stadium.
If it remains an athletics stadium I hope they wil rebuild the lowest tier, like they do in the stade de france.

Are there any pics, how it would be after the olympics when West Ham is going to play there.

From what I understand, the capacity will be reduced and it remains an athletics stadium.
If it remains an athletics stadium I hope they wil rebuild the lowest tier, like they do in the stade de france.

they're not going to be putting in retractable seating: too expensive. I hope they will straighten the lower tier be the side of the pitch to get fans closer to the action.
they will be doing something with the roof, either extending it or building a new one as they want all/most seats covered and i think they will be removing some of the floodlights.
there are renders on the internet of what west ham wanna do but i don't know how accurate they are.

LOCOG has chosen US-based silicone textile producer Dow Corning to sponsor the 2012 Olympic Stadium wrap

Controversially axed as part of the government’s spending review last autumn, the £7 million stadium wrap has been resurrected thanks to a corporate sponsorship deal, the AJ can confirm.

Designed to stretch 900 metres around the entire stadium and protect the steel-frame building from cross winds, the iconic wrapping was originally planned to feature moving images of athletes when it was first revealed in 2008. As with all fabrics used on the Olympic site, the wrap will be made from non-phthalate silicon, according to AJ sustainability editor and author of London 2012 Sustainable Design: Delivering an Olympic Legacy Hattie Hartman.

In October, the government sparked criticism from stadium architects Populous when it killed off the colourful banner by axing £20 million from the 2012 Olympic Games budget as part of its comprehensive spending review. Months later however, games organisers LOCOG asked for expressions of interest from businesses wishing to supply the wrap, announcing it would ‘explore possible sponsorship opportunities’ in a bid to revive the project.

The selection of Dow Corning – which operates a chemical plant in Wales and is a joint venture of Dow Chemical and ceramics producer Corning – is one of the final corporate sponsorship deals to be signed before the 2012 summer games.

Under Olympics rules all stadiums are branding-free and since Dow Corning is outside the list of official sponsors it is unlikely the company’s name will feature prominently in the design or within the Olympic Park during the games. The stadium wrap has been plagued by controversy since its announcement. The 2008 planning application suggested the textile could be hemp – erived from the cannabis family of plants - however the ODA later denied this material would be used.

High-profile architects including Richard Rogers have also criticised the idea of the wrap, claiming the £486 million showpiece Olympic Stadium would be better off left bare.

A spokesperson for LOCOG denied a sponsorship deal had been made but said: ‘We are in negotiations and working towards having a deal done.’

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/

A recent shot from Flickr:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6131/5965724237_bc781f20a4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidswilson/5965724237/)
The Olympic Park, Stratford, London (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidswilson/5965724237/) by David S Wilson (http://www.flickr.com/people/davidswilson/), on Flickr

Really amazing... This will entertain all sports lovers in the globe soon. :banana:

Great upgrade for Stratford. I'll be moving back to London next month so can't wait to see the work that has been undertaken around the area. I spent a year living in Leyton and lets just say this part of East London isn't the most desirable!

It appears, from the webcam internal pic of the stadium, that they have started to put down the track.

Perhaps only an under layer at the moment because it looks to be of the standard red / terracotta colour:

http://www.london2012.com/transform/1965137/m700x/stadium-close.jpg

However due to the political fallout, a huge amount of infrastructure that's given London the makeover has not been included in the budget in order to look like the spend was much less (whereas with Beijing it was included), and that it is being frugal. The reality is very different.

This includes the new Stratford City CBD (where the Games are being held) $5.7 billion,
the Tube Upgrade + East London line extension + DLR extension to Stratford City $12.8 billion
international High Speed Rail link via Stratford City $9.4 billion

Neither were recently completed venues included, such as the Millennium Dome (converted to the O2 Arena) ($2.25 billion), or the new Wembley Stadium (1.57 billion), or of course the rest of the makeover, from restoring buildings on the marathon route, tree planting and dolling up public spaces across the city, and extending and rebuilding many of the terminals at the city's 5 international airports and 7 main train terminals etc.

You can't include those things as being part of Olympic infrastructure, not even if you stretch the concept!

First, most of those projects were private ideas to make money (e.g. Stratford, wembley, O2) so cannot as part of the budget. Second, many had started constructed before there was even an Olympic bid and finished years before (e.g. Wembley, HS rail, terminal 5 at Heathrow). Third, the tube upgrade started as far back as 2003 and was always a 15+ year plan.

Basically, that the Olympic coincides with many large scale projects is purely a coincidence and cannot be said to have spurred them on. The one exception is Westfield, but it's a wholly private project anyway.

^yep, but that's exactly the same with Beijing and it's budget (new airport, rail termini and metro - still u/c).

Here They Come...!!! the Final Phases!!!

Does anyone know about the color of the track? I know blue is good for TV cameras but I hope they choose red-brown color like most of the tracks.

It appears, from the webcam internal pic of the stadium, that they have started to put down the track.

Perhaps only an under layer at the moment because it looks to be of the standard red / terracotta colour:

http://www.london2012.com/transform/1965137/m700x/stadium-close.jpg

I'm happy it's not blue.

I'm happy it's not blue.

We have to allow for the possibility that this is just an underlay or a temporary and partial section of track laid down in preparation for a one-year-to-go-before-the-Olympics publicity stunt on Wednesday (akin to what was done a year ago with Michael Johnson and a bunch of kids).

The colour of the track come 27th July 2012 may be different.

I thought it was going to be black?

I thought it was going to be black?

The areas surrounding the track will be black. But, according to two different renders, the track itself is supposed to be either orange or blue.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6150/5973121599_8e8715bddb_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianwylie/5973121599/)
[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/ianwylie/]ianwylietwitter (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianwylie/5973121599/)

One year to go!

http://i52.tinypic.com/r7irv8.jpg

http://www.london2012.com/homepage-feature/

:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:

http://www.espn.co.uk/PICTURES/CMS/27200/27222.jpg

^yep, but that's exactly the same with Beijing and it's budget (new airport, rail termini and metro - still u/c).

I'd say that depends greatly on whether those projects were actually needed for Beijings longterm growth or just for the games themselves.

A massive factor of course is the higher cost of almost any kind of infrastracture spending in the UK compaired to China(and indeed much of the rest of the world). Thats surely how a project should be judged, how many schools, hospitals, roads etc could have been funded with that money.

We have to allow for the possibility that this is just an underlay or a temporary and partial section of track laid down in preparation for a one-year-to-go-before-the-Olympics publicity stunt on Wednesday (akin to what was done a year ago with Michael Johnson and a bunch of kids).

The colour of the track come 27th July 2012 may be different.

I think they will paint it blue.....

^^ Same thinking, sir. Sorry for eavesdropping you.

It's red, you can see the track marking on part of the curve, maybe there is an Olympic games rule that states it MUST be red.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6150/5973121599_8e8715bddb_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianwylie/5973121599/)
[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/ianwylie/]ianwylietwitter (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianwylie/5973121599/)

Could anybody tell me what is it in the right part of the photo, the red structure being built? Is it a TV Broadcast tower?

Could anybody tell me what is it in the right part of the photo, the red structure being built? Is it a TV Broadcast tower?

It's the Mittal tower 115metres high financed by Indian steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal. When you get to the top they give you a mat and you have to slide down a huge helter skelter, that's what I think anyway.

Hubble-bubble helter-skelter - I'd have a go that, is there a lottery for tickets?

What they are putting down in the stadium looks like an underlay, it doesn't look like a track

It's red, you can see the track marking on part of the curve, maybe there is an Olympic games rule that states it MUST be red.

I doubt it, that just wouldn't make sense based on everything we've heard and seen.

If there was such a rule, nobody would have even bothered releasing renders with an orange or blue track; both of which we've seen. Obviously there were disucssions and considerations about going in a different direction with it.

Brazil's Stadium for 2016 has a light blue track, and of course the Berlin Olympic Stadium had a darker blue for the hugely successful 2009 World Athletics Champs:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Stitched_003.jpg/480px-Stitched_003.jpg

http://berlin.iaaf.org/mm/photo/competitions/competition/05/30/51/53051_full-lnd.jpg

From london2012.com.

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/5738/110722odamdaac004x1600.jpg

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7544/110722odamdaac003x1600.jpg

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/5772/110722odamdaac005x1600.jpg

Is it just me, or is the field a bit short at this stadium? If you look at the field in other stadiums, it follows the curvature of the track for a few metres before it squares off, but here it squares off perpendicular to the straights.

Could you post a picture? I can sort out a mental image of what you're saying.

nEMRQaErZ7g

Sorry for the question, maybe it's already been done. West Ham will play in this stadium as is now?

Could you post a picture? I can sort out a mental image of what you're saying.

Compare the difference between the picture of the London Olympic Stadium (above my original post) and the picture of the Incheon Stadium below.

http://itour.visitincheon.org/upload/thema/1225341515806_21.jpg

Looking at the London stadium, it seems as though the field is squared off pretty much in line with the six-yard line of the football pitch. That would suggest the field is 12 yards shorter in the London stadium, and that's before you take into account the space behind the goal-line.

Compare the difference between the picture of the London Olympic Stadium (above my original post) and the picture of the Incheon Stadium below.

http://itour.visitincheon.org/upload/thema/1225341515806_21.jpg



Most current stadia with a running track have been converted for football, hence the longer pitch. There is currently no need to have an extended field at the Olympic Stadium so they can keep it shorter. That's what I reckon anyway.

Most current stadia with a running track have been converted for football, hence the longer pitch. There is currently no need to have an extended field at the Olympic Stadium so they can keep it shorter. That's what I reckon anyway.

OK let me put it this way:

If you mark out a regulation size football pitch from the centre of the field at the London Olympic stadium, the goalposts would not be on the grass, but some way behind it.

The touchlines wouldn't go all the way to the edge of the field so you would be able to extend the pitch back towards the bends of the track. All they would have to do is extend the grass.

It's like the Olympiastadion in Berlin.

If you mark out a regulation size football pitch from the centre of the field at the London Olympic stadium, the goalposts would not be on the grass, but some way behind it.

Well obviously because during the Games it's not hosting football and when designed and built was going to be turned into a dedicated athletics facility after the Games.

Too late for West Ham to make any changes.

http://www.espn.co.uk/PICTURES/CMS/27200/27222.jpg

I see they have started laying a brown surface outside the stadium too - is it wooden decking or some other material.

I can see what you mean Rossoliver.

Looking at the overhead view that piece of grass in the stadium is currently too short to host a full size football pitch. If you were to expand it after the games it would enroach onto the running track (you can see exactly where at the bends in the track). Unless of course my sense of perspective is way out and in fact the sidelines will be within the green area (god I hope not as the view looks crap from the nearest seat as it is!) At least if that is the case then the goal lines could conceivably fit into the curve.

West Ham certainly do have plans to make changes (they have earmarked circa 100 million) but many think most of this will be spent on expanding the roof and adding corporate and hospitality facilities. They certainly wont have much money left to alter the interior but something will have to be done about the pitch. They have not released any detailed plans yet so its all specualtion as to what they can do/afford best rest assured WHU will not play a match in this stadium as it currently looks.

Hi , i'm sorry for my english. I've a question for you . There're some picture project for the PostOlympic time ?

It's true that this stadium will begin the new Hammers arena ?

Hi , i'm sorry for my english. I've a question for you . There're some picture project for the PostOlympic time ?

It's true that this stadium will begin the new Hammers arena ?

West Ham have released a few renders of how it might look. The interior render is ridiculously deceptive, though. Nothing more than visual propaganda designed to persuade West Ham fans that the view won't be nearly as bad as they expect it to be:

http://www.insidethegames.biz/images/stories/Olympic_Stadium_West_Ham_interior.jpg

http://www.insidethegames.biz/images/stories/Olympic_Stadium_in_West_Ham_mode.jpg

http://www.insidethegames.biz/images/stories/Olympic_Stadium_in_West_Ham_concert_mode.jpg

are there any views of the pitch from the side stands, like around half-way line ish?
all I ever see is pictures from the goal ends, and don't know what the other views are like.

Oops! Sorry about the size of the above. All the other images that I could find were too small!

If you look at that rendering, the stands are much closer to the pitch than at present. Am I to assume that this would only be possible if they dig down further? Also, I'm not sure why they would show Champions League and La Liga advertising around the perimeter!

If you look at that rendering, the stands are much closer to the pitch than at present. Am I to assume that this would only be possible if they dig down further? Also, I'm not sure why they would show Champions League and La Liga advertising around the perimeter!

Nope......you are to assume that West Ham deliberately produced renders which grossly misrepresented the view of the pitch from the stands in order to convince the majority of West Ham fans who hated the idea of moving to a stadium with an athletics track that the view would, in fact, be fantastic!

If West Ham Utd releases misleading illustrations of the inside of their future home they will only provoke disappointment. On the first game at the Olympic Stadium West Ham supporters will find out how it really is. An it won't be as intimate as it looks on this image.

Sorry guys, but after Beijing this stadium is quite a disappointment. I expected something much better for London. This is nothing beside an ordinary stadium, almost anonymous. I know today Olympics must be cheap, leave legacy to the city, but you can do all these stuffs also being creative. This design is too predictable.

can u give a example of your best olympic stadium?

is the fault of the designers who have not thought about the post-olimpic.
Realizing a stadium not adaptable for football.

one thing I don't quite get about this stadium is why they built the stands on the straightaways of the track so far from the track. otherwise it looks like a really nice stadium.

Sorry guys, but after Beijing this stadium is quite a disappointment. I expected something much better for London. This is nothing beside an ordinary stadium, almost anonymous. I know today Olympics must be cheap, leave legacy to the city, but you can do all these stuffs also being creative. This design is too predictable.

Perhaps you'd like to donate the extra £1bn it would take to make a stadium like Beijing's in London.

And don't, whatever you do, look at Rio's athletics stadium, because that ain't no Birds Nest either. You need to lower your expectations in terms of monumental, over-the-top Olympic architecture. We're not going to see another Beijing for a long time.

Oh, and don't judge the stadium just yet. We're still waiting for the external fabric wrap to be installed. Hopefully, by next year it should look a bit more like this:

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/pictures/800x400fitpad%5B238%5D/6/4/9/1678649_Stadium_9_ready.jpg

is the fault of the designers who have not thought about the post-olimpic.
Realizing a stadium not adaptable for football.

No. No fault at all from the designers. And this stadium had more legacy thought put into it than any other Olympic Stadium, with the exception of Atlanta.

The designers build a stadium which was to be downsized to a 25k athletics venue after 2012, as they were asked to. Football was never in the equation. Just as the designers of the aquatics centre didn't factor in canoing. ;)

It's politics which has lead to the change in use to football, nothing more. West Ham will get a stadium very much on the cheap; they'll have to make do with the sightlines they get which will not be ideal.

Sorry guys, but after Beijing this stadium is quite a disappointment. I expected something much better for London. This is nothing beside an ordinary stadium, almost anonymous. I know today Olympics must be cheap, leave legacy to the city, but you can do all these stuffs also being creative. This design is too predictable.

No need to be sorry. You're just expressing your opinion.

But, as has been pointed out on countless occasions on this thread, this stadium was originally designed to be demountable. In legacy mode, it was supposed to be a 25,000 athletics stadium. That's why it looks like it does.

It was only at the 11th hour that that decision was reversed and it was decided that the stadium should remain intact after the Games.

As to the Bird's Nest, it was an impressive venue for an Olympic Games. But it was built during an economic boom and in a city and country that desperately needed to make a massive statement in order to establish itself in the eyes of the world.

By contrast, London is already one of the world's great cities. It doesn't need to make any such statement. And, unlike Beijing, London already has a plethora of world famous, world class stadiums. To have built another Bird's Nest would have doubled the cost. And that would have been criminally wasteful - especially in the light of the fact that the entire Olympic construction programme has been executed in the midst of the deepest global economic recession in 80 years.

Lastly, even though the Olympic stadium might be underwhelming, I believe that it will be superior to the Bird's Nest in many respects. It will be lighter and airier. Yet also more intimate. It will be surrounded by rivers and canals and lawns and trees - all part of the new Olympic Park. Far better than the sterile and barren acres of concrete that surrounded the Bird's Nest.

And then there are the other venues: the wonderful new velodrome; the stunning new aquatics centre; Wimbledon centre court; Wembley stadium; Lords cricket ground; Horse Guards Parade (between the Houses of Parliament and Buckingham Palace); Greenwich Park (a World Heritage site)...........so I'm quite confident that London's Olympic venues will have the wow factor.

In addition, pretty much every event will be sold out. That will be a huge contrast to Beijing, where many events were sparsely attended.

And finally, there will be a party atmosphere in London that will contrast sharply with the rather soulless Beijing Games. There will be all sorts of events arranged throughout the city and around the various venues.

So I think we can forgive London for a slightly bland stadium!

P.S. For all that the Bird's Nest was an impressive architectural statement, it is now a white elephant - virtually unused since 2008. That is precisely the kind of legacy that the organisers of London 2012 are so determined to avoid.

No. No fault at all from the designers. And this stadium had more legacy thought put into it than any other Olympic Stadium, with the exception of Atlanta.

The designers build a stadium which was to be downsized to a 25k athletics venue after 2012, as they were asked to. Football was never in the equation. Just as the designers of the aquatics centre didn't factor in canoing. ;)

It's politics which has lead to the change in use to football, nothing more. West Ham will get a stadium very much on the cheap; they'll have to make do with the sightlines they get which will not be ideal.

They certainly got what they ordered, but does that really make it all any better?
In the end basically everything that could go wrong went wrong.
They intended to build a mostly temporary stadium with a permanent athletics legacy.
What they ended up with is a very poor permanent stadium with a legacy as soccer stadium.
They certainly could have had that better, cheaper nicer and more impressive if only they had done better, more thorough and realistic concept planning in advance.

It may not be the architects fault or engineers fault but the ordering parties or politicians fault instead, but sadly that doesnt really make the stadium project any better, does it. Failed is failed and Flawed is flawed, no matter who is responsible or how good and nice the original intentions might have all been.
Who cares about all the why's and ifs and the could haves later on?
A legacy as soccer stadium is certainly not a bad legacy for an olmpic stadium, but they could have had it far easier and simpler and without all the wasted efforts of building a partially temporary stadium with an easily reduceable capacity. And all this fuzz of changing the plans and the concept and the legacy back and forth certainly didn't save anyone any money, did it?

As to the Bird's Nest, it was an impressive venue for an Olympic Games. But it was built during an economic boom and in a city and country that desperately needed to make a massive statement in order to establish itself in the eyes of the world.

By contrast, London is already one of the world's great cities. It doesn't need to make any such statement. And, unlike Beijing, London already has a plethora of world famous, world class stadiums.

So they figured London should best come up with a gigantic fools joke instead to impressively demonstrate british humour?

And don't, whatever you do, look at Rio's athletics stadium, because that ain't no Birds Nest either. You need to lower your expectations in terms of monumental, over-the-top Olympic architecture. We're not going to see another Beijing for a long time.


I've actually seen Beijing's Bird's Nest in real life and would just like to say that it is not that breathtaking (more breathtaking is the amount of work that went into its construction).

I've read that the nest has become a white elephant now with some desperate plan to resuscitate it by converting it into a massive shopping mall, although I don't know how accurate that report is.

Despite its lack of visual appeal, at least the London Olympic stadium has an assured future, it would seem, with West Ham.

I'm starting to fear this Bird's Nest ( very nice by the way ) but it looks to me some people are one step from embracing marxist ideas because of the love for it. :crazy:

one thing I don't quite get about this stadium is why they built the stands on the straightaways of the track so far from the track. otherwise it looks like a really nice stadium.
This additional space is for the long jump facility (and for cricket). Furthermore the elliptic shape of the stands turns the stadium into an arena and creates better sightlines to the running track than straight stands would do.

They certainly got what they ordered, but does that really make it all any better?
In the end basically everything that could go wrong went wrong.
They intended to build a mostly temporary stadium with a permanent athletics legacy.
What they ended up with is a very poor permanent stadium with a legacy as soccer stadium.
They certainly could have had that better, cheaper nicer and more impressive if only they had done better, more thorough and realistic concept planning in advance.

It may not be the architects fault or engineers fault but the ordering parties or politicians fault instead, but sadly that doesnt really make the stadium project any better, does it. Failed is failed and Flawed is flawed, no matter who is responsible or how good and nice the original intentions might have all been.

I don't quite get your point.

What was built and what we have is a world class athletics stadium with a 2/3rd temporary upper-tier. No failing there.

The stadium itself isn't flawed or a failure, nor was the planning for legacy. There was nothing wrong with the idea that London would be left with a small athletics facility after the Games. If you think it's unrealistic for a city the size of London to maintain such a facility for future generations then your ambitions are sadly as low as our current's Mayor's.

What has changed - with the change in Mayoralty and indeed with the financial crisis - is political willingness to leave London with such a facility, so the stadium was sold off to a sport it wasn't built for, and its temporary portions 'made' permanant. That's the truth of the matter. I'm not going to call the planning and the design of the stadium a failure because a politician has since decided to change its post-Games function and nor should you.

I don't care if it's not ideal for football; that's not what I'm judging it on. I'm judging it on what it was designed for and since its post-Games legacy has been changed, that means judging it on how it does as an Olympic Stadium - something I'm sure it will excel at.

The velodrome wouldn't by any worse a building if some politician suddenly decided it wasn't going to be used for cycling anymore would it? With a few more years of Boris in charge I look forward to reading posts here saying "this velodrome makes an appauling shopping mall! That project was a failure from the start!! Who decided to build a CYCLING venue for the CYCLING?!!"

I don't quite get your point.

What was built and what we have is a world class athletics stadium with a 2/3rd temporary upper-tier. No failing there.

The stadium itself isn't flawed or a failure, nor was the planning for legacy. There was nothing wrong with the idea that London would be left with a small athletics facility after the Games. If you think it's unrealistic for a city the size of London to maintain such a facility for future generations then your ambitions are sadly as low as our current's Mayor's.

What has changed - with the Mayoralty and indeed with the financial crisis - is political willingness to leave London with such a facility, so the stadium was sold off to a sport it wasn't built for, and its temporary portions made permanant. That's the truth of the matter.

I don't care if it's not ideal for football; that's not what I'm judging it on. The velodrome wouldn't by any worse a building if some politician suddenly decided it wasn't going to be used for cycling anymore. With a few more years of Boris in charge I look forward to reading posts here saying "this velodrome makes an appauling shopping mall! That project was a failure from the start!!" :lol:

You may judge it on whatever basis you find appropriate.
But I personally don't see all that much point in judgeing it on what it was once intended to be.
To me the result, the outcome is important.
And that is a ver poor stadium for a soccer specific legacy. One that needs large investments to sucessfully turn the temporary structure into a permanent one, especially to expand the far to small roof and other adjustments.

And even if one judges the stadium only by it's original intentions and plans, even then it still remains a poor olympic stadium with plenty of very cheap and poor solutions.
Far from "world class" or top quality levels.

The viewing distances are just plain awful, even for athletics.
And no, awfull viewdistances and gigantic distances between stands and running track or pitch do not make the sightlines any better, despite people here and there pretending they would.
The tiers are fairly shallow and could surely be steeper.

The roof covers only a fraction of the seats. In windy and rainy weather, which is not all that uncommon in the UK even in summer, just a very small fraction of the provided seats will be effectively protected from rainfall.

The exterior design is awfully cheap too, with this proposed wrap which rather reminds me of some kind of overdimensioned rolled out toillet paper, rather than a fancy faccade or textile cover.

The floodlights triangular supports cast distractive shadows onto the competition areas. They do look quite nice, but the shadows could have been avoided in some better way, even though that aspect is just a minor thing.

It was allways meant to be a cheap stadium and that's exactly what it looks like. But the entire stadiums concept especially the planned legacy has already proven obsolete even before the stadium has been finished. And that alone allready proves that something has been done wrong somewhere along the way and thats prety poor.
Not a complete failure of course, but certainly a failure in large parts of the project.

And even if one judges the stadium only by it's original intentions and plans, even then it still remains a poor olympic stadium with plenty of very cheap and poor solutions.
Far from "world class" or top quality levels.

Absolute rubbish.

Every shot I've seen of the inside of the Olympic Stadium shows superb viewing angles and distances for athletics. I've seen videos from the back of the stadium and it still looks very close to the action; much closer than a similar capacity Wembley to its playing area, for example, and I've sat at the back of that stadium and never had any problems. I don't think you'll hear a single person complaining about views in 2012.

I don't know how you know about the floodlights since they haven't been test in competition yet. Making stuff up as we go along it seems.

The wrap is your own opinion, but a lot of people including me think it'll look great as a solution to making the stadium more attractive. It's "cheap" as an exterior because, once again, this tier was intended to be removed after the Games. How well do you think a £50m exterior would have gone down with people when they were told it was temporary?

The roof I sort of agree with you on. But if the choice is between a few people getting caught in showers and and millions more being spent on a permanant structure for what was intended to be a temporary venue; then I think they made the right choice. It doesn't rain that much in the summer in the UK. A documentary on the stadium showed that a partial roof will protect everyone from windy weather, including most crucially the athletes. Wind will not be an issue.

The facilties which were intended to be permanant within the stadium are world class. Those that were intended to be temporary are obviously less solid and spectacular in their contruction, but they're still good enough for an Olympic Games. The stadium looks pretty good for a 2/3rd temporary stadium and will function brillianty during 2012. After that, it's a compromise for the main tenant, but not because of any design or planning failures.

But the entire stadiums concept especially the planned legacy has already proven obsolete even before the stadium has been finished. And that alone allready proves that something has been done wrong somewhere along the way and thats prety poor.

No it doesn't. You've been told more than once why things changed and I'm not going to type it again.

If someone gives up halfway through a marathon it doesn't mean the concept of running a marathon is wrong. You're laying the fault with the designers, the planners and the engineers when really the fault lies with those whose care the stadium has fallen into; namely the Tory mayor we currently have. That he doesn't have the will to see this project through into its intended legacy is not the fault of the stadium, its designers, or those who planned its legacy years ago.

Some people are not reading the thread and just going over the same things over and over again.

IMHO London's venues in general are better then Beijings, apart from the Birds Nest but even with that I prefer the interior of London's stadium and Is less likely to end up as a White elephant. London's venues are historic, well known, the new venues have a proper legacy plan and even the Olympic Park is nicer then the concrete that we saw in Beijing. I prefer a much more warm and fun games to that of Beijing militaristic take on the games.

And that is a ver poor stadium for a soccer specific legacy.

I am afraid you have gotten this bit wrong my friend, it is a ('ver' poor stadium) for a football specific legacy.

Also, when West Ham have made changes to the stadium 'opened' it, will it be used for the Diamond League? Or will Crystal Palace still host the London Grand Prix?

...
The facilties which were intended to be permanant within the stadium are world class. Those that were intended to be temporary are obviously less solid and spectacular in their contruction, but they're still good enough for an Olympic Games. The stadium looks pretty good for a 2/3rd temporary stadium and will function brillianty during 2012. After that, it's a compromise for the main tenant, but not because of any design or planning failures.
...

For a temporary stadium it indeed is pretty good, yes. I absolutely agree in that point, BUT it simply isn't going to be temporary anymore it's going to be permanent now. And by standards of a permanent stadium it just is poor and cheap.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with building a cheap and temporary stadium. Not at all, it can be ver clever and reasonable and even nice.
Such is not per se a bad thing even though its of course unlikely to be as impressive and fancy as a permanent facility, but that doesn't and shouldn't be expected from a temporary structure.

But in this case here, "sadly" (or luckily? - depending on the point of view) that concept has become obsolete allready.
The legacy will now be that of serving as soccer homestadium for Westham United.

And that's basically just where all the problems arise from.
The attempt to create a permanent athletics stadium with reduced capacity has become obsolete. It simply has failed and that even before the stadium was finished.
So instead it now needs to be modified into a halfwhat soccer appropriate permanent stadium.

That of course involves extra cost, extra investments, extra planning and construction work... And all that just thwarts the original concept.

The benefits of having built a temporary structure now mostly turn out to be problems and difficulties for the legacy, so the stadium allready needs major modifications and corretions.

That should and certainly could have been avoided by getting it right in the first place, by building a stadium that allows for a soccer legacy (with or without running track) instead of the attempted athletic legacy with a reduced capacity. Both, the Olympic tournament as well as the soccer club Westham United (or alternatively the Spurs who were also bidders) could certainly have benefited, if only the stadium was originally planned with the soccer legacy in mind that it is going to have now.

There simply is no benefit of having planned and built a temporary structure left anymore now with the legacy this stadium is going to have.

And that is a ver poor stadium for a soccer specific legacy. One that needs large investments to sucessfully turn the temporary structure into a permanent one, especially to expand the far to small roof and other adjustments.

The roof covers only a fraction of the seats. In windy and rainy weather, which is not all that uncommon in the UK even in summer, just a very small fraction of the provided seats will be effectively protected from rainfall.

You really need to read the thread or at least research things before you post. A new roof will be installed by West Ham to cover the seats and other adjustments made before West Ham move in. Of course it will never be as good as a football specific stadium but it isn't meant to be football specific. It will still be able to host Athletics, Cricket, concerts etc. It will still be a multi purpose stadium. Let's not forget it's bidding to host the 2017 World Athletics Championships.

However even with all that we shouldn't be judging it as a football stadium now anyway, it's an Olympic Athletics stadium and it is yet to host the Olympics. It should only be judged as an athletics venue, I will only be judging it as a football stadium once West Ham move in and not before the Venue has had a chance to even host the Olympics which is it's first aim. Atleast London has thought of Legacy, I didn't see the same people talking about what should happen to Beijing's stadium when it was being built, very few people focused on it if at all. The Bird nest stadium was only been judged as a venue for the Olympics and you rarely hear about what a White Elephant it is currently. I think its only fair we judge this stadium after the Olympics.

How can people defend the birds nest, The birds nest is an ugly stadium in an ugly environment.

Once the multi coloured lights & wrap are on the London stadium she will look stunning in her verdant island setting.:cheers:

The benefits of having built a temporary structure now mostly turn out to be problems and difficulties for the legacy, so the stadium allready needs major modifications and corretions.

That should and certainly could have been avoided by getting it right in the first place, by building a stadium that allows for a soccer legacy (with or without running track) instead of the attempted athletic legacy with a reduced capacity. Both, the Olympic tournament as well as the soccer club Westham United (or alternatively the Spurs who were also bidders) could certainly have benefited, if only the stadium was originally planned with the soccer legacy in mind that it is going to have now.

There simply is no benefit of having planned and built a temporary structure left anymore now with the legacy this stadium is going to have.

I appreciate what you are saying but you really don't seem to be fully clued up with this project. Most of what you are talking about has been done to death so I'm not going to go into details. The stadium was initially offered to football clubs but no one wanted it. It's only later in the process did the football clubs fully want to be involved. Hence why we have the situation we do now and I partly blame politics for that. But what's done is done and West Ham have to make the best of it. Let us at least host the Olympics first!

Looking at the latest render. This must be the west side where the upper tier does not have so many rows with the corporate boxes below and the lower tier seating with vomitaries that drop down. it will be a different matter on the east side where the upper tier has many more rows and the lower tier is in a bowl and the vomitaries are at the rear of the seats at ground level.

The stadium was initially offered to football clubs but no one wanted it. It's only later in the process did the football clubs fully want to be involved.

Not true, football clubs approached the Olympic board (long before construction) with the idea of doing a Man City.
The farce is a result of lack of foresight and plain stupidity of those in authority and could have been averted with intelligent planning.
So now we have a stadium which will become the equivalent of a four fingered glove after the games.

That should and certainly could have been avoided by getting it right in the first place, by building a stadium that allows for a soccer legacy (with or without running track) instead of the attempted athletic legacy with a reduced capacity.

This is my fundamental problem with your point of view. Why should football have been factored in? Why is that "right", and by implication building a dedicated athletics facility "wrong"?

The fact is, they did get it "right" first time. It's not their fault someone who had nothing to do with the project at the time decided to sell their vision up the river by awarding the stadium to a football club and sidelining the planned legacy. I know it's not ideal for football (frankly I couldn't care less given that I'll never be watching the sport there), but that's what we've ended up with.

If someone builds a lovely sailing boat and a new project manager comes in and says "I know, let's put some wheels on this so it can drive on the road", do you criticise the original plans for not factoring in that possibility? Of course you don't, there's no reason the plans should have.

Your point of view is backwards, your criticisms aimed at the wrong parties.

There simply is no benefit of having planned and built a temporary structure left anymore now with the legacy this stadium is going to have.

You're completely right, but rather than attacking those who planned the temporary structure, put the funding in place for its legacy and designed the stadium, why don't you instead criticise those who scrapped those plans and are now trying to fit square pegs into round holes?!

Looking at the latest render. This must be the west side where the upper tier does not have so many rows with the corporate boxes below and the lower tier seating with vomitaries that drop down. it will be a different matter on the east side where the upper tier has many more rows and the lower tier is in a bowl and the vomitaries are at the rear of the seats at ground level.

Have you got a link to the latest render, or are you referring to the latest photo's ?

Not true, football clubs approached the Olympic board (long before construction) with the idea of doing a Man City..

The seriousness of these approaches has been questioned. And besides, it was their perogative to refuse football clubs' involvement. The fact is, an athletics legacy was designed and funding was in place for it. Until the politics changed - with the change in mayoralty - there was never any need for a football club to be involved, regardless of whether they offered to be.

Given that there was no need for football in the stadium, why should anyone have been interested in "doing a Man City"? London was promised a small, modern, world-class athletics stadium, and that's what we were going to get. "Doing a Man City" was never part of the promise, nor was selling the vision down the river to football.

Just because a flash rich guy wants to buy your house, doesn't mean you have to sell to them. A city the size of London had - and almost certainly still has even with the recession - the money and the means to maintain a modest athletics facility for our Olympians, for the commnity and for sports and medical research (as was the plan). It's political cowardice that has caused the compromise we have now, not a lack of planning. I'm glad nobody kowtowed to football and its bags-a-money four years ago when the stadium was being designed and its legacy planned. It's a shame they're doing so now however.

Have you got a link to the latest render, or are you referring to the latest photo's ?

The renders here on page 180

Not true, football clubs approached the Olympic board (long before construction) with the idea of doing a Man City.
The farce is a result of lack of foresight and plain stupidity of those in authority and could have been averted with intelligent planning.
So now we have a stadium which will become the equivalent of a four fingered glove after the games.

West Ham approached the Olympic commitee under the Icelandics but they wanted the freehold and not leasehold. I wonder if Spurs want the freehold if they get their way to redevelop the olympic site.

Perhaps you'd like to donate the extra £1bn it would take to make a stadium like Beijing's in London.

And don't, whatever you do, look at Rio's athletics stadium, because that ain't no Birds Nest either. You need to lower your expectations in terms of monumental, over-the-top Olympic architecture. We're not going to see another Beijing for a long time.

Oh, and don't judge the stadium just yet. We're still waiting for the external fabric wrap to be installed. Hopefully, by next year it should look a bit more like this:

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/pictures/800x400fitpad%5B238%5D/6/4/9/1678649_Stadium_9_ready.jpg

Its not the facade its the big ugly spider like structure on top of the stadium that ruins everything. Even after its finished the spider structure on top still ruins it.

It is certainly cleaner design-wise on the inside than the outside in that respect.

It is certainly cleaner design-wise on the inside than the outside in that respect.

From the inside it is nice indeed, I really like the shape of the bowl, its quite space like looking. But was the roof really that low to make it necessary to add these huge light structures?

From the inside it is nice indeed, I really like the shape of the bowl, its quite space like looking. But was the roof really that low to make it necessary to add these huge light structures?

I quite like the floodlight structures.

Petals on a flower. Tips of a crown.

THE WRAP IS BACK

Olympics organisers have selected Dow Chemical to produce a fabric “wrap” around the Olympic stadium, ending the search for private funding for the scheme scrapped last year to make savings in the games’ budget.

The project is Dow’s first since signing a 10-year agreement last year to become a worldwide Olympic partner.

The wrap was axed from stadium plans after the comprehensive spending review last year to help shave £20m off the £9.3bn budget. In February the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games announced it was seeking private sector investment to revive the project.

The Olympics “chemistry partner” will create and install the lightweight polyester material that will surround the stadium to showcase the games’ “crown jewel” in an attempt to rival Beijing’s “bird’s nest”.

The wrap will stretch from the ground to the upper tier of the 80,000-seat stadium and will comprise 336 panels, each 25m high and 2.5m wide.

Keith Wiggins, managing director of Dow UK, said the deal with Locog was the “perfect opportunity for us to provide a sustainable solution in what will be a very high-profile centre of the games.”

He insisted it was a good partnership for Dow, despite not being able to have their branding on the wrap. International Olympic Committee rules do not allow advertising in Olympic venues.

Instead, he said, Dow’s name will be on the wrap during its installation early next year and throughout the test events, before being removed on June 26 2012.

Mr Wiggins described the bidding process as a “situation where the needs of [Olympics] organisers and our capabilities matched,” adding: “We’re providing a solution which is lightweight and has a lower carbon footprint than the alternatives.”

A London 2012 official said that meeting Locog’s high sustainability standards was “critical” to winning the tender: “Dow came to the table with a strong proposition which worked in terms of sustainability, [and] they have great ideas on how the material could be utilised post-games.”

Mr Wiggins said the material for the wrap would be “functional and sustainable,” in line with promises by organisers to make next year’s Olympics the “greenest ever”.

Dow is considering various ways to “repurpose” the material after the games, which could even include using it for refugee shelters.

The company, which is hoping to generate about $1bn in incremental sales through its worldwide Olympic sponsorship, would not confirm whether initial estimates that the wrap would cost £7m were accurate.

This deal to supply the wrap is separate from Locog’s £700m sponsorship programme, which is set to be completed in the coming weeks.

Rod Sheard, the design team leader for the Olympic stadium at Populous, said the wrap “will provide a clear and memorable identity to the stadium”. He added: “We are very pleased with the announcement, as the wrap completes the enclosure of the structure and gives form to the lightweight frame that supports the elegant white roof.”

Link (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9c96fbba-be02-11e0-ab9f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1U3AKSJ00)

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01963/Olympic-Stadium-Wr_1963750b.jpg
Artist's rendering provided by Dow Chemical Thursday, Aug. 4, 2011

Bigger version :D

http://i53.tinypic.com/ra9mkl.jpg

This additional space is for the long jump facility (and for cricket).

The additional space is not for cricket. The requirements of cricket were never considered when the stadium was designed, as it was never intended to be anything other than an athletics stadium (as reiterated countless times in this thread!).

Fantastic news! :applause:

The stadium looks pretty good for a 2/3rd temporary stadium and will function brillianty during 2012.
Don't worry. It also looks good for a permanent structure. I just wait for the day that the temporary tier in Stratford outlasts the permanent structures of Olympic Stadiums elsewhere.

Don't worry. It also looks good for a permanent structure. I just wait for the day that the temporary tier in Stratford outlasts the permanent structures of Olympic Stadiums elsewhere.

The temporary upper tier will also outlast the permanent lower tier, as the lower tier will no doubt be modified in some way. It's looking a pretty good stadium full stop...

Great news on the wrap!

The seriousness of these approaches has been questioned. And besides, it was their perogative to refuse football clubs' involvement. The fact is, an athletics legacy was designed and funding was in place for it. Until the politics changed - with the change in mayoralty - there was never any need for a football club to be involved, regardless of whether they offered to be.

Given that there was no need for football in the stadium, why should anyone have been interested in "doing a Man City"? London was promised a small, modern, world-class athletics stadium, and that's what we were going to get. "Doing a Man City" was never part of the promise, nor was selling the vision down the river to football.

Just because a flash rich guy wants to buy your house, doesn't mean you have to sell to them. A city the size of London had - and almost certainly still has even with the recession - the money and the means to maintain a modest athletics facility for our Olympians, for the commnity and for sports and medical research (as was the plan). It's political cowardice that has caused the compromise we have now, not a lack of planning. I'm glad nobody kowtowed to football and its bags-a-money four years ago when the stadium was being designed and its legacy planned. It's a shame they're doing so now however.

The main thing thats been fucked up for me is the bidding process that has allowed Orient to kill the chances of hosting the World Athletics in 2017.

Personally I think a 70K athletics stadium is needed in London more than a 26K venue if it can be sustained. Neither one is going to get much use but the higher capacity allows for future large events, the Diamond League shows to potentially grow in popularity and perhaps offers a large cricket venue.

Indeed I think Westham coming in late is probabley good for athletics since its ensured the stadium that was built isnt geared towards footballs needs. Look at the Stade De France for example which is clearly optimised for football with the upper teir close to the pitch resulting in a poor viewing angle for athletics. Even if Westham replace the lower teir with moveable stands like the Stade De France the upper teir will remain optimized for athletics rather than everyone having to look down.

The temporary upper tier will also outlast the permanent lower tier, as the lower tier will no doubt be modified in some way. It's looking a pretty good stadium full stop...
I don't think so. The athletic facilities will stay. Which means that the stands can be moved just a few metres closer to the pitch. And movable stands are expensive and therefore pretty much the opposite of what West Ham United is looking for. Furthermore the closer to the pitch the seats were, the greater the area the new roof would have to cover and the more expensive it would be.
There is very little benefit but a lot of costs for the club to move seats. And due to the behaviour of some West Ham supporters it isn't even such a bad idea to have some space between the stands and the playing field after all.

I don't think so. The athletic facilities will stay. Which means that the stands can be moved just a few metres closer to the pitch. And movable stands are expensive and therefore pretty much the opposite of what West Ham United is looking for. Furthermore the closer to the pitch the seats were, the greater the area the new roof would have to cover and the more expensive it would be.
There is very little benefit but a lot of costs for the club to move seats. And due to the behaviour of some West Ham supporters it isn't even such a bad idea to have some space between the stands and the playing field after all.

When are the athletics facilites going to be needed though? if the deal is only for them to be used in the football off season then theres no reason why Westham couldnt have moveble seating that goes over them.

By the same token if the athletics facilies are only going to be used in the closed season then the need for an advanced system of moveble stands is much less. If the stands have only got to move twice a year then Westham could probabley get away with a relatively simple/cheap system like the Stade De France.

I don't think so. The athletic facilities will stay. Which means that the stands can be moved just a few metres closer to the pitch. And movable stands are expensive and therefore pretty much the opposite of what West Ham United is looking for. Furthermore the closer to the pitch the seats were, the greater the area the new roof would have to cover and the more expensive it would be.
There is very little benefit but a lot of costs for the club to move seats. And due to the behaviour of some West Ham supporters it isn't even such a bad idea to have some space between the stands and the playing field after all.

In which case West Ham may just as well keep the 95 million and do nothing.

We will see what happens...

When are the athletics facilites going to be needed though? if the deal is only for them to be used in the football off season then theres no reason why Westham couldnt have moveble seating that goes over them.

By the same token if the athletics facilies are only going to be used in the closed season then the need for an advanced system of moveble stands is much less. If the stands have only got to move twice a year then Westham could probabley get away with a relatively simple/cheap system like the Stade De France.

This has been covered many times already on this thread!

Yawn...........................

When are the athletics facilites going to be needed though? if the deal is only for them to be used in the football off season then theres no reason why Westham couldnt have moveble seating that goes over them.

By the same token if the athletics facilies are only going to be used in the closed season then the need for an advanced system of moveble stands is much less. If the stands have only got to move twice a year then Westham could probabley get away with a relatively simple/cheap system like the Stade De France.

I don't think that athletic activities will be restricted to footballs off-season. Athletes start their outdoor season in spring when there is still football played.

I haven't heard any figures but I can't imagine that the moveable stand in St Denis were cheap. Neither cheap to install nor cheap to operate.

In which case West Ham may just as well keep the 95 million and do nothing.

In which case their corporate facilities wouldn't be good and big enough and 40'000 seat remained uncovered.

I don't think that athletic activities will be restricted to footballs off-season. Athletes start their outdoor season in spring when there is still football played.

I haven't heard any figures but I can't imagine that the moveable stand in St Denis were cheap. Neither cheap to install nor cheap to operate.

In which case their corporate facilities wouldn't be good and big enough and 40'000 seat remained uncovered.

The athletics season may start earlier but that doesnt of course mean the stadium is going to be used.

I remember someone involved quoting a figure of £10 million for a some kind of moving stands a few months ago which doesnt seem beyond Westhams means if they can afford the much more expensively roof and corperate conversions. The Stade De France system is afterall not that complex and Westham have the benefit that the lower teir is actually fairly small due to the temp design.

The athletics season may start earlier but that doesnt of course mean the stadium is going to be used.

I remember someone involved quoting a figure of £10 million for a some kind of moving stands a few months ago which doesnt seem beyond Westhams means if they can afford the much more expensively roof and corperate conversions. The Stade De France system is afterall not that complex and Westham have the benefit that the lower teir is actually fairly small due to the temp design.

A Stade de France type of system will not be possible at the Olympic stadium.

The Stade de France was purpose built as a flexible stadium, with retractable seats. The Olympic stadium was not. There will be no space for retractable seats to retract to!

So the best that West Ham could do, I guess, would be to erect temporary seating (similar to that at Cagliari) at each end before the beginning of each football season and dismantle it at the end each season.

A Stade de France type of system will not be possible at the Olympic stadium.

The Stade de France was purpose built as a flexible stadium, with retractable seats. The Olympic stadium was not. There will be no space for retractable seats to retract to!

So the best that West Ham could do, I guess, would be to erect temporary seating (similar to that at Cagliari) at each end before the beginning of each football season and dismantle it at the end each season.

In a system like that there would be no need for the seats to retract further back than they currently are, rather they would extend forward in football mode.

I don't think that athletic activities will be restricted to footballs off-season. Athletes start their outdoor season in spring when there is still football played.

I haven't heard any figures but I can't imagine that the moveable stand in St Denis were cheap. Neither cheap to install nor cheap to operate.



In which case their corporate facilities wouldn't be good and big enough and 40'000 seat remained uncovered.

The lower bowl is the only area uncoverred and I believe that seats 25,000, not 40,000 which you suggest.

I believe that retractable seating or entendable seating would cost 10% of the oveall refurb according to original discussions. So really we aren't talking much more than 10 million, and lets not forget the sponsorship cash from Westfield that will also be avalable.

But I think we will see west ham spend the full allocation of cash on this stadium.

A Stade de France type of system will not be possible at the Olympic stadium.

The Stade de France was purpose built as a flexible stadium, with retractable seats. The Olympic stadium was not. There will be no space for retractable seats to retract to!

So the best that West Ham could do, I guess, would be to erect temporary seating (similar to that at Cagliari) at each end before the beginning of each football season and dismantle it at the end each season.

Alternatively the lower bowl at either end could be taken away therefore allowing space for seats to retract to.

Another solution would be something similar to the etihad stadium in melbourne.

In a system like that there would be no need for the seats to retract further back than they currently are, rather they would extend forward in football mode.

But where would the extra seating be stored? The stade de France has room to accommodate extendable seating because it was designed to do so. The Olympic stadium doesn't because it wasn't.

Or are you suggesting that the whole lower tier be moved forward in football mode? In which case, there would be a huge gap between the upper tier and the lower tier.

Would also be quite expensive to demolish the existing lower tier and replace it with movable seating.

You could have retractable seating using the existing lower tier as the anchor point for the seats to retract onto. It could be a requirment if West ham install corporate boxes under the upper tier on the rear lower seats on the east side. But I don't think it will happen but it might explain part of the 20,000 seats that West Ham intend to drop. I beleive the reconfiguration has gone out to a competition.

The lower bowl is the only area uncoverred and I believe that seats 25,000, not 40,000 which you suggest.

It is said that the roof covers roughly 50% of the seats. 50% of 80'000 is 40'000.

It is said that the roof covers roughly 50% of the seats. 50% of 80'000 is 40'000.

Yes.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2658/3933989551_e9e535948a_b.jpg

This is what it looks like.
It doesn't quite cover the complete upper tier.
And one should also take into consideration that with the effects of wind it effectively probably just barely protects a little more than the rear half of the upper tier from rainfall.

But where would the extra seating be stored? The stade de France has room to accommodate extendable seating because it was designed to do so. The Olympic stadium doesn't because it wasn't.

Or are you suggesting that the whole lower tier be moved forward in football mode? In which case, there would be a huge gap between the upper tier and the lower tier.

Would also be quite expensive to demolish the existing lower tier and replace it with movable seating.

Not sure I understand what you mean there, are you talking about the extra seating ontop of the moveble stands the Stade De France uses in football mode to cover the gap? I'd guess such seating could be broken down into reasonabley small units and brought in as needed but really its not essential, a gap between the stands might not look ideal but it wouldnt affect the view.

As I said the cost that was quoted was £10 million and for me that doesnt seem unreasonabley, were not talking about demolishing and rebuilding tall stands with a roof afterall.

This is what it looks like.
It doesn't quite cover the complete upper tier.
And one should also take into consideration that with the effects of wind it effectively probably just barely protects a little more than the rear half of the upper tier from rainfall.

This model clearly states that the roof does not cover the complete upper tier. If you look at the official roof planning applications online then it clearly shows the roof covers the entire upper tier.

55,000 people in the upper tier will have a roof over their head whilst 25,000 will not. Simples....

http://planning.london2012.com/upload/publicaccessODAlive/(1540)%20MS-HS-3N1-SN-SE-AR-2-1540%20(5119).pdf

http://planning.london2012.com/upload/publicaccessODAlive/(1820)%20MS-HS-3AX-L5-PL-AR-2-1820(RF%20ceremonies)%20(6015).pdf

It is said that the roof covers roughly 50% of the seats. 50% of 80'000 is 40'000.

If you look at the official roof planning applications online then it clearly shows the roof covers the entire upper tier.

55,000 people in the upper tier will have a roof over their head whilst 25,000 in the lower tier will not. Simples....

Therefore, closer 70% will be coverred and not 50%.

If you look at the official roof planning applications online then it clearly shows the roof covers the entire upper tier.

55,000 people in the upper tier will have a roof over their head whilst 25,000 in the lower tier will not. Simples....

Therefore, closer 70% will be coverred and not 50%.
50% or 70%. It's still not 100% which West Ham United is aiming for.

Really quite silly given the weather in the UK that it doesn't have a fully covered roof.

Really quite silly given the weather in the UK that it doesn't have a fully covered roof.

I think it is due to silly idea to take it apart and sell it elsewhere that was present at the time stadium project started. Probably noone really cared!

i don't know how people will be treated when you see the summer we have this year :mad: I don't think it will better next year.

The match yesterday in Wembley has shown a very well sheltered public during the rain. Only players were wet.

With this stadium athlets could go back in rooms but the public will be flooded by rain :lol:

i don't know how people will be treated when you see the summer we have this year :mad: I don't think it will better next year.

The match yesterday in Wembley has shown a very well sheltered public during the rain. Only players were wet.

With this stadium athlets could go back in rooms but the public will be flooded by rain :lol:

I don't know about that. Where I live in Manchester its been quite wet, but in London and the south east i've heard they have had quite dry weather?

I don't know about that. Where I live in Manchester its been quite wet, but in London and the south east i've heard they have had quite dry weather?

On and off down here...goes a few days of grey but mild, tad drizzle, then a few days of heat. Definitely one of the worst summer's we've had for a while.

The Next Generation: The Olympic Stadium
10 August 2011 | Posted in SportsPro Blog | By Michael Long


The Olympic Stadium - London, United Kingdom

“The Olympic Stadium will set the bar for all future Olympics,” said John Barrow, a senior principal at lead Olympic architects Populous, in a recent interview with SportsPro. “The 2012 Olympics will be the most sustainable Olympics ever.” A bold statement and a noble ambition, one which now partly rests in the hands of soccer club West Ham United, its owners David Sullivan and David Gold and its vice-chairman Karren Brady.

London 2012 will be blessed with a generous array of cleverly conceived venues whose use will not yield a long-term burden. The future of the centrepiece, however, has been bitterly disputed since the original 25,000-seat downgrade was scrapped as financially unviable following the global economic crisis. In March, the Olympic Park Legacy Committee (OPLC) chose West Ham’s multi-purpose proposal over that of Premier League rivals Tottenham Hotspur, which would have resulted in the semidemolition and rebuilding of the stadium and expulsion of athletics.

Barring the success of court proceedings issued by Tottenham, the Hammers will take up residence in 2014, bringing UK Athletics, Essex County Cricket Club and events manager Live Nation with them in a project backed by local authority Newham Council and construction giant Westfield. An olive branch has also been offered to League One club Leyton Orient – the closest soccer team to the Olympic Stadium whose opposition has been strongly expressed – in the form of a promise to make the 60,000 capacity venue available for their biggest fixtures.

"The Olympic Stadium will set the bar for all future Olympics”
The fractious bidding process took on an almost ideological dimension. Backed by AEG, north London-based Spurs’ pitch was commercially impressive but derided by some of their own fans as a betrayal of their local community in Haringey, while their offer to fund a revamp of UK Athletics’ undesirable Crystal Palace home was dismissed as patronising. West Ham, on the other hand, have struggled to convince some observers that they can make the numbers on their offering add up, particularly in the light of their recent relegation to England’s second-tier Npower Championship.

The realities of accommodating soccer, athletics and cricket within the same facility have only been vaguely addressed, though the club has revealed it is in discussions with Populous over a potential UK£10m (US$16.2 million) conversion to retractable seating. The pressure on West Ham to deliver is substantial, but the potential benefits for all parties are just as significant. For some time, UK Athletics has been in dire need of a stadium capable of hosting elite competitions and operating as a genuine commercial centre. If their cohabitation with West Ham is a success, it will not only buttress the long-term future of what remains a popular sport in Britain, but also provide a workable model for similar groundshares elsewhere – just as the practice is becoming discredited.

West Ham’s pledge to buck a nationwide trend and make thousands of tickets for every home game available at highly affordable prices should also prove popular with young people and families, and give the stadium more of a community feel. The project remains something of a leap in the dark, but if it lands safely, the Olympic Stadium will fulfil London’s promise of a meaningful and sustainable legacy with something to spare.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.london2012.com/transform/1965137/m700x/stadium-close.jpg

Intriguing...

Adversity, and in this case limited budget, always brings out the best and the brightest. This stadium is an exception though. Sorry. I'll be happy to look forward for its downsizing to justify the aesthetic looks that was sacrificed. Anyway, I'm looking forward for a great hosting by London.

You will kill me, but i don´t like this stadium... it´s pretty but not amazing like i was expecting for olympic games.

Intriguing...

And there are the beginnings of our blue track!

dont like this stadium :(( i think that olympic stadium must be somethink special, this look only as big oval with little of covered seats...

^^ Sorry, but we didn't feel the need to build an Olympic Stadium here in England just so it could become a glorified theme park (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8442051.stm). ;)

I think it is nice..no need for white elephants

It's perfect, and we have to remember that although a beautifully designed stadium makes for a good postcard or picture, the real memories are made by the experience inside, and to me, this venue and its surroundings, will provide a good an olympic atmosphere as ever, and without the excessive showcasing and flaunting of dramatic, innovate designs.

With that said, I do believe that architecture is experience, so while one can argue that the Bird's Nest, possessing better architecture provided a better experience, the sole architectural wonder of that stadium was its exterior skeleton frame, and being that it didn't have a functional purpose besides enveloping the bowl, it added nothing to the actual experience.

http://www.london2012.com/transform/1965137/m700x/stadium-close.jpg

What are they doing there? ^^

^^ Sorry, but we didn't feel the need to build an Olympic Stadium here in England just so it could become a glorified theme park (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8442051.stm). ;)
Why? You do pretty much the same with Wembley already (hosting a lot of weird events like the racing tournament). Honestly, I think that using the 'theme park' thing against Beijing is pretty much a missed point. They found a way to use an open stadium when out of season and it's a bad thing? 90% of venues stand completely empty and unused in winter and that's good?

This stadium after the olympics will be a nightmare for fans with the pitch waaaay further than one would expect in the Prem. Let's be fair - it's not perfect by any means, not even close. It's been very expensive and still will give its future users a headache, even apart from the planned revamp.

Why? You do pretty much the same with Wembley already (hosting a lot of weird events like the racing tournament). Honestly, I think that using the 'theme park' thing against Beijing is pretty much a missed point. They found a way to use an open stadium when out of season and it's a bad thing? 90% of venues stand completely empty and unused in winter and that's good?

This stadium after the olympics will be a nightmare for fans with the pitch waaaay further than one would expect in the Prem. Let's be fair - it's not perfect by any means, not even close. It's been very expensive and still will give its future users a headache, even apart from the planned revamp.

The problem is that the Birds Nest is out of season for 365 days of the year! It is never (or virtually never) used for its intended purpose as a major event sports venue.

And no....the London Olympic stadium isn't perfect. No one ever said that it was (so stop trying to imply otherwise!). But imperfection is what happens when compromises have to be made and when politics is involved in stadium procurement.

The problem is that the Birds Nest is out of season for 365 days of the year! It is never (or virtually never) used for its intended purpose as a major event sports venue.

And no....the London Olympic stadium isn't perfect. No one ever said that it was (so stop trying to imply otherwise!). But imperfection is what happens when compromises have to be made and when politics is involved in stadium procurement.

Atleast the Olympic Stadium will be used after the games to generate revenue and fulfill it's legacy.

The Birds Nest looks impressive on the outside, but awful on the inside...

And what purpose does it serve now? apart from somewhere you may want to have a picnic on a one off occasion...

Why? You do pretty much the same with Wembley already (hosting a lot of weird events like the racing tournament). Honestly, I think that using the 'theme park' thing against Beijing is pretty much a missed point. They found a way to use an open stadium when out of season and it's a bad thing? 90% of venues stand completely empty and unused in winter and that's good?

This stadium after the olympics will be a nightmare for fans with the pitch waaaay further than one would expect in the Prem. Let's be fair - it's not perfect by any means, not even close. It's been very expensive and still will give its future users a headache, even apart from the planned revamp.

coming from a part of the world where,until recently,football teams playing in athletics stadium was the norm,i find you comments puzzling.
i would be more worried about how you in Poland are able to pay for all these new staduims,being built for the Euro champs.In these days of austerity,spending that amount of money might be considered unwise

As much as I know, Poland hardly felt any crisis and didn't need any austerity measures like other European countries.
Then you are talking like Poland and Polish people wanted to play on those stadiums, that's exactly the idea, just like in Romania, stadiums were built this way by the communists and we know how shitty it is to go to football games on these types oval+with athletics tracks stadiums, waiting for new ones for ages, so I think the guy is pretty much experienced enough to say West Ham fans will suffer a lot if their team will play on a stadium like this one, as it looks weird and foolish for someone to make such a choice when all out here in the east are pushing to eliminate these things.
If West Ham pleases, dismantle Boleyn Ground and send it on a boat to EE, we could use Second-Hand ones if the guys here aren't willing to build new ones :D.

As much as I know, Poland hardly felt any crisis and didn't need any austerity measures like other European countries.
Then you are talking like Poland and Polish people wanted to play on those stadiums, that's exactly the idea, just like in Romania, stadiums were built this way by the communists and we know how shitty it is to go to football games on these types oval+with athletics tracks stadiums, waiting for new ones for ages, so I think the guy is pretty much experienced enough to say West Ham fans will suffer a lot if their team will play on a stadium like this one, as it looks weird and foolish for someone to make such a choice when all out here in the east are pushing to eliminate these things.
If West Ham pleases, dismantle Boleyn Ground and send it on a boat to EE, we could use Second-Hand ones if the guys here aren't willing to build new ones :D.
if poles and Poland dont feel the need for austerity,why are so many of them over here in the UK..when i speak with them they say there is no work,no money back home

if poles and Poland dont feel the need for austerity,why are so many of them over here in the UK..when i speak with them they say there is no work,no money back home

And the football in Poland is Shite, pardon my French!

The problem is that the Birds Nest is out of season for 365 days of the year! It is never (or virtually never) used for its intended purpose as a major event sports venue.
that is not a problem of the stadium... why is that justify that this olympic stadium is just a regular big stadium? if it was more special like it should be it won´t be use for football matches like this one after the olympics?

If all goes according to plan, then this should be one of the busiest stadiums in the world after the Olympics. Something the Chinese can only dream of for their white elephant.

that is not a problem of the stadium... why is that justify that this olympic stadium is just a regular big stadium? if it was more special like it should be it won´t be use for football matches like this one after the olympics?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Are you saying that it's perfectly fine and reasonable to build a stadium for more than £1 billion (as the Birds Nest would have cost if built in London) and then for it only ever to be used as a tourist destination after a mere two weeks of use for its intended purpose???????

Get it into your head..........there is no need, anywhere in the world, for an 80K stadium exclusively for athletics. There simply isn't enough interest in the sport, other than during the Olympic Games.

So it is very good news indeed that this stadium will be used up to 35 times a year for football; 10 times a year for athletics; 2 or 3 times a year for cricket; and 10-15 times a year for major pop concerts; in addition to a variety of other events.

Has anyone looked at the Webcam today?

http://www.london2012.com/transform/1965137/m700x/stadium-close.jpg

There is a large ramp running to the centre of the pitch, wondering if it has something to do with a test event. Any ideas?

already preparing for the opening ceremony??

Or promotional filming for some sponsors perhaps?

^^ good point, I have a feeling the ramp will be something to do with the olympic torch- as a sort of end of the line thing..

What do you think Danny Boyle has in store for the opening ceremony?

Quick run through of the history of Britain?

If they don't play Rule Britannia at the end I will be disappointed.

If all goes according to plan, then this should be one of the busiest stadiums in the world after the Olympics. Something the Chinese can only dream of for their white elephant.
Though most people seem to hate Atlanta. What exactly is this seating pattern supposed to be, is it that triangles look badass or something else?

Haha, hi-vis jacket thrown over the webcam! Maybe they don't want us to see what's happening after all!

http://www.london2012.com/transform/1965137/m700x/stadium-close.jpg

Have they released a seating plan/chart/diagram/map/etc. yet?

Haha, hi-vis jacket thrown over the webcam! Maybe they don't want us to see what's happening after all!

http://www.london2012.com/transform/1965137/m700x/stadium-close.jpg

Yeah! It should be "NDA Cencorship". That's not once in this year but the second after my country's new stadium's (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1321665) tower.
It's natural if "they" want give us future surprise. :colgate:

What exactly is this seating pattern supposed to be, is it that triangles look badass or something else?

It's part of the 'look' of the Games, energy shards that radiate from the lines that create the 2012 emblem.

I don't like the color of the seats. It doesn't look good. :/

I don't like the color of the seats. It doesn't look good. :/

They're still covered in their protective bagging...

They're still covered in their protective bagging...
Yes I know, but I don't expect them to look better. I've seen lots of stadiums with white seats and in my opinion it doesn't look good anyway.

Also, what's with the black triangles in the seating bowl?

DarJoLe literally just answered that Jim.

Yes I know, but I don't expect them to look better. I've seen lots of stadiums with white seats and in my opinion it doesn't look good anyway.

Fair enough. Your opinion.

Me? I love white seats in stadiums. Looks fantastic, IMO.

UK Athletics today confirmed it will bid to host the 2017 IAAF World Athletics Championships at the Olympic Stadium in London with the full backing of the UK Government and Mayor of London.

The bid will be led by Lord Sebastian Coe and supported by a coalition from UKA, DCMS, UK Sport and London & Partners , the Mayor of London's official promotional agency. Coe will personally submit the bid at this year’s IAAF World Athletics Championships in Daegu and a decision is expected on 11 November 2011.

More on the news over at the UK Athletics webpage (http://www.uksport.gov.uk/news/2017-World-Athletics-Championships-bid-confirmed-180811)

If London do win, I'm guessing West Ham United would need to play away games for at least a week before and after the competition?

London set to table a bid for 2017 World Athletics Championships

London will bid for the 2017 World Athletics Championships after the government promised its full support, despite earlier concerns that Tottenham Hotspur's ongoing high court challenge could derail it.

The bid for the championships, seen as key to providing a legacy for athletics from the 2012 Olympic Games and justifying the decision to award the stadium to West Ham over Spurs and retain the track, was shrouded in uncertainty given the ongoing legal challenge.

But it is understood that, having sought legal advice, the sports minister, Hugh Robertson, and the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, vowed to provide the necessary guarantees regardless.

It is believed they were advised that even if a bid by Spurs to seek a judicial review of the contentious decision to award the stadium to West Ham was successful, they could retender on the basis that the track must be retained. Spurs argued that retaining the athletics track was unviable and proposed instead to rebuild a dedicated football stadium.

Robertson had earlier guaranteed the money to underwrite the bid as part of a ring-fenced fund housed within UK Sport.

Bringing a succession of major events to London and the UK in the wake of the Games is a major plank of the sporting legacy plan and a bid for the 2015 World Athletics Championships had already been dropped due to uncertainty over the stadium's future.

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/aug/19/london-world-athletics-championship

so is it a blue track oval? or orange?

i honestly prefer blue

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6197/6066532618_7aaef68ab5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fishies_go_pook/6066532618/)
Olympic Park (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fishies_go_pook/6066532618/) by akki14 (http://www.flickr.com/people/fishies_go_pook/)

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6192/6065987095_d666095db2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fishies_go_pook/6065987095/)
Olympic Park (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fishies_go_pook/6065987095/) by akki14 (http://www.flickr.com/people/fishies_go_pook/)

so is it a blue track oval? or orange?

i honestly prefer blue

As the webcam shows, it will be orange-red. :ohno:

Requirement of the IOC for the track to be the standard red/orange track?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/aug/19/london-world-athletics-championship

I have no doubt that the event would be a success but it is an incredibly expensive event to host, with the benefits not guaranteed.

-qsoLgNTXc0

My deepest apologies for asking a question that I'm sure has already been answered but why don't they carpet the stadium completely after the olympics so you can play both cricket and football? Surely cricket would be more popular and be more of an income generator than athletics. This has precedent, Sydney's olympic stadium is all grass and is mainly used for afl, rugby, football and if it wasn't for the scg's control, would be used for cricket as well.

I mean the stadium is already looking at it's shelf life. Surely a 50-60k football stadium for some premier league club, coupled with a t20 and an odi match here and there (or more) would make sense. You could easily have a cricket ground on the stadium's oval. I think the English cricket team deserves a decent cricket stadium a la the mcg or eden gardens.

^Even if they were to carpet the whole thing, no serious football team is going to allow cricket to be played over summer. West Ham won the bid over Tottenham largely because they promised to retain a track.

And West Ham will have regular use for 10 months of the year...extra events aren't necessary. Plus the England cricket team already have decent cricket stadiums in London: Lords and the Oval.

^Even if they were to carpet the whole thing, no serious football team is going to allow cricket to be played over summer. West Ham won the bid over Tottenham largely because they promised to retain a track.

And West Ham will have regular use for 10 months of the year...extra events aren't necessary. Plus the England cricket team already have decent cricket stadiums in London: Lords and the Oval.

Whilst both are fine grounds, neither could ever dream of boasting a capacity of over 70,000. Drop-in wickets would also be used whenever cricket is played at the stadium in the future. T20's will test the waters and, if they are successful, expect to see lucrative Test matches such as those against Australia, India and Pakistan at the Olympic stadium.

There is a detailed discussion on this very subject somewhere in this thread. Cricket will be a massive part of the future of this stadium:cheers:.

Whilst both are fine grounds, neither could ever dream of boasting a capacity of over 70,000. Drop-in wickets would also be used whenever cricket is played at the stadium in the future. T20's will test the waters and, if they are successful, expect to see lucrative Test matches such as those against Australia, India and Pakistan at the Olympic stadium.

There is a detailed discussion on this very subject somewhere in this thread. Cricket will be a massive part of the future of this stadium:cheers:.

It is not England who will play there but Essex and 20/20 matches at night. They would be coming home as they used to play at Leyton Green as well as Ilford, Southend, and the HQ at Chelmsford. They would play with the wickets facing east/west as opposed to the north/south football pitch.

It is not England who will play there but Essex and 20/20 matches at night. They would be coming home as they used to play at Leyton Green as well as Ilford, Southend, and the HQ at Chelmsford. They would play with the wickets facing east/west as opposed to the north/south football pitch.

I know. Go a few pages back and you'll see the discussion on the subject. Karen Brady has said that talks are underway for 'international cricket' to take place in the stadium as well as Essex playing T20 games there. Just one source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10782010

:cheers:

As a West Ham fan myself, ive mulled over the question of the distance of the fans from the pitch at length. The conclusion (to me) that appears best to fit with moving people closer to the action is perhaps to build an effectively new, demountable stadium of 15-20k around the pitch (which of course leaves the current lower tier unaffected). Think of the Melbourne stadium, but with a temporary lower tier solution rather than the extendable one there. Because it would stay like that for most of the year, they could just pull a tarpaulin between the temporary stands and the current lower tier, and then no doubt that would be adorned with Camera angle friendly advertising. The only problem would be how they would pack that away for the summer.... :bash:

As a West Ham fan myself, ive mulled over the question of the distance of the fans from the pitch at length. The conclusion (to me) that appears best to fit with moving people closer to the action is perhaps to build an effectively new, demountable stadium of 15-20k around the pitch (which of course leaves the current lower tier unaffected). Think of the Melbourne stadium, but with a temporary lower tier solution rather than the extendable one there. Because it would stay like that for most of the year, they could just pull a tarpaulin between the temporary stands and the current lower tier, and then no doubt that would be adorned with Camera angle friendly advertising. The only problem would be how they would pack that away for the summer.... :bash:

I believe this solution may well happen but only behind the goals.

It is not England who will play there but Essex and 20/20 matches at night. They would be coming home as they used to play at Leyton Green as well as Ilford, Southend, and the HQ at Chelmsford. They would play with the wickets facing east/west as opposed to the north/south football pitch.

Although, paradoxically, the Olympic Stadium is technically in Middlesex, being just on the "wrong" side of the River Fleet... :nuts:

It's not River Fleet but River Lea.

Oops, yes, the River Lea.

Although, paradoxically, the Olympic Stadium is technically in Middlesex, being just on the "wrong" side of the River Fleet... :nuts:

The stadium is to the east of the River Lea and in the old borough of West Ham which together with Leyton and Walthamstow came under Chelmsford in Essex until the creation of Greater London in 1964. All those boroughs were in the Metroplolitan Police area which extended to Dagenham. Middlesex included Poplar Hackney Tottenham all to the west of The Lea. Poplar and Hackney being in the old London County Council area. Newham much to its cost in grants is still regarded as an outer London Borough.

The stadium is to the east of the River Lea and in the old borough of West Ham which together with Leyton and Walthamstow came under Chelmsford in Essex until the creation of Greater London in 1964. All those boroughs were in the Metroplolitan Police area which extended to Dagenham. Middlesex included Poplar Hackney Tottenham all to the west of The Lea. Poplar and Hackney being in the old London County Council area. Newham much to its cost in grants is still regarded as an outer London Borough.

The stadiums still in England though right?

so is it a blue track oval? or orange?

i honestly prefer blue

would be cool if the track were pink, and outside the track were blue; like the logo.
:banana:

I'm tired of blue tracks. Why does every new track have to be blue now? This one should've been grey, period!

From the London forums:

I went on the Olympic park tour yesterday, so a few things the guide mentioned from what I can remember, so who knows...


The final track surface hasn't been laid, and will be laid once ceremonial rigging is installed
For ceremonies, everything will "fly-in" on cranes, via the triangular structures (that don't have lights) on the stadium crown

Can anyone help...? I walked along the Greenway and past the boundary of the Olympic village the other day. Just by the crossing at Pudding Mill Lane there is a round-like structure with black engraved surface - I don't even know what material it was. What is this building and who designed / manufactured this envelope material, does anyone know? thanks!

Can anyone help...? I walked along the Greenway and past the boundary of the Olympic village the other day. Just by the crossing at Pudding Mill Lane there is a round-like structure with black engraved surface - I don't even know what material it was. What is this building and who designed / manufactured this envelope material, does anyone know? thanks!

Do you mean the pumping station (http://www.london2012.com/making-it-happen/infrastructure/pumping-station.php)?

http://www.london2012.com/images/olympic-park/pumping-station-460x287.jpg

It is embossed with the plans of Bazalgettes Abbey Mills pumping station.

Shock! Horror! West Ham move on Tuesday to Stratford. Don't panic it is only the West Ham store opening in Westfield. Are Spurs and Orient represented. I am surprised Barry Hearn has not got an injunction yet.

Shock! Horror! West Ham move on Tuesday to Stratford. Don't panic it is only the West Ham store opening in Westfield. Are Spurs and Orient represented. I am surprised Barry Hearn has not got an injunction yet.

Maybe both Spurs and Orient will put in 11th hour applications for outlets at Westfield. It wouldn't surprise me!

Maybe both Spurs and Orient will put in 11th hour applications for outlets at Westfield. It wouldn't surprise me!

It very much depends whether Westfield have persistently nagged and begged Spurs to take up an outlet on the promise that the club will be able to design the store to their own specifications........only subsequently to go back on their word and insist that their own, original design for the store must remain. ;)

Do you mean the pumping station (http://www.london2012.com/making-it-happen/infrastructure/pumping-station.php)?


They're informally called Pinky & Perky by the ODA.

The Kiev Olympic Stadium nearing completion is superior to the London Olympic stadium in every way (see for yourselves on the “Under construction” thread).

To add insult to injury, the Ukrainians have spent only a fifth of what was spent on the London stadium – even considering differences in national GDP this still points to serious levels of economic mismanagement by the OPDA and other governing bodies, having spent such vasts amount of money on a stadium of questionable quality.

The Kiev Olympic Stadium nearing completion is superior to the London Olympic stadium in every way (see for yourselves on the “Under construction” thread).

To add insult to injury, the Ukrainians have spent only a fifth of what was spent on the London stadium – even considering differences in national GDP this still points to serious levels of economic mismanagement by the OPDA and other governing bodies, having spent such vasts amount of money on a stadium of questionable quality.

1. The Kiev Olympic stadium construction work is a redevelopment of a previously existing stadium. The London Olympic stadium was built from scratch.

2. A large proportion of the London Olympic stadium cost was accounted for by the massive decontamination of the site, necessitated by 200 years of industrial waste.

3. The Kiev Olympic stadium is designed to be a permanent, flagship, national stadium. The London Olympic stadium was designed to be two thirds temporary and easily reduced to a 25,000 capacity after the games. It was never intended as a flagship, national stadium because England already has one.

Do you ever get the feeling you're repeating yourself Jim? :)

Do you ever get the feeling you're repeating yourself Jim? :)

1. The Kiev Olympic stadium construction work is a redevelopment of a previously existing stadium. The London Olympic stadium was built from scratch.

2. A large proportion of the London Olympic stadium cost was accounted for by the massive decontamination of the site, necessitated by 200 years of industrial waste.

3. The Kiev Olympic stadium is designed to be a permanent, flagship, national stadium. The London Olympic stadium was designed to be two thirds temporary and easily reduced to a 25,000 capacity after the games. It was never intended as a flagship, national stadium because England already has one.......

Oh, wait........

;)

1. The Kiev Olympic stadium construction work is a redevelopment of a previously existing stadium. The London Olympic stadium was built from scratch.

2. A large proportion of the London Olympic stadium cost was accounted for by the massive decontamination of the site, necessitated by 200 years of industrial waste.

3. The Kiev Olympic stadium is designed to be a permanent, flagship, national stadium. The London Olympic stadium was designed to be two thirds temporary and easily reduced to a 25,000 capacity after the games. It was never intended as a flagship, national stadium because England already has one.......

Oh, wait........

;)

So just to clarify................:bash:

The obvious difference in the two stadiums are at Stratford the upper tier is larger than the lower tier so for the majority the sightlines should be better. At Kiev it looks like the upper tier is further away than London.

1. The Kiev Olympic stadium construction work is a redevelopment of a previously existing stadium. The London Olympic stadium was built from scratch.

2. A large proportion of the London Olympic stadium cost was accounted for by the massive decontamination of the site, necessitated by 200 years of industrial waste.

3. The Kiev Olympic stadium is designed to be a permanent, flagship, national stadium. The London Olympic stadium was designed to be two thirds temporary and easily reduced to a 25,000 capacity after the games. It was never intended as a flagship, national stadium because England already has one.

You have made 3 very valid points which nobody would argue against. Actually you could have made a 4th point about the cheaper labour available in the Ukraine bringing costs down considerably.

All the same, this is still a case where the end certainly did not justify the means - at the end of the day how come we get the "Primark" version of an Olympic stadium while they get the made to order designer one?

Looks as though global austerity measures don't seem to have affected the Ukraine that much, not needing to resort to building a "permanently temporary" Olympic stadium.


.

You have made 3 very valid points which nobody would argue against. Actually you could have made a 4th point about the cheaper labour available in the Ukraine bringing costs down considerably.

All the same, this is still a case where the end certainly did not justify the means - at the end of the day how come we get the "Primark" version of an Olympic stadium while they get the made to order designer one?

Looks as though global austerity measures don't seem to have affected the Ukraine that much, not needing to resort to building a "permanently temporary" Olympic stadium.


.

I wasn't aware that austerity measures had effected our own olympic stadium. It is what it is and it cost what was budgeted......

You have made 3 very valid points which nobody would argue against. Actually you could have made a 4th point about the cheaper labour available in the Ukraine bringing costs down considerably.

All the same, this is still a case where the end certainly did not justify the means - at the end of the day how come we get the "Primark" version of an Olympic stadium while they get the made to order designer one?

Looks as though global austerity measures don't seem to have affected the Ukraine that much, not needing to resort to building a "permanently temporary" Olympic stadium.


.

Indeed. But you had already made that point yourself, so I saw no need for repetition.

However, I could have made a further point.....the Kiev Olympic stadium will have a capacity of 70,000. The London Olympic stadium will have a capacity of 80,000.

That said, I doubt that many would disagree with you that the price for the London Olympic stadium seems excessive, even taking into account the enormously expensive groundworks.

And I doubt that many would disagree that the London Olympic stadium is a tad bland and underwhelming from an architectural perspective. It certainly doesn't have wow factor.

But, as has been said before, direct comparisons with other stadiums aren't particularly useful in this instance. The design brief for the London Olympic stadium (i.e. for a stadium that can easily be two thirds dismantled) is so different to any previous stadium of its size that it should have a category all of its own.

No doubt, future stadia that are designed to be dismantled will be more elegant, more daring or more dramatic. But it is often the way with pioneering ideas that the trailblazer is very much a victory for function over form.

awesome stadium

Is the design of this stadium going to negatively affect the success if the London Games? No.

2. A large proportion of the London Olympic stadium cost was accounted for by the massive decontamination of the site, necessitated by 200 years of industrial waste.

Have we ever had a firm statement about what exactly is included in the stadium construction costs? The ground work as you say is likely but perhaps the surrounding bridges and access aswell?

Personally I'v always suspected that a good deal of the excessive contruction cost in the UK was down to a greater openness were as more "creative" accounting elsewhere hides just how much public money has been spent.

Indeed. But you had already made that point yourself, so I saw no need for repetition.

However, I could have made a further point.....the Kiev Olympic stadium will have a capacity of 70,000. The London Olympic stadium will have a capacity of 80,000.

That said, I doubt that many would disagree with you that the price for the London Olympic stadium seems excessive, even taking into account the enormously expensive groundworks.

And I doubt that many would disagree that the London Olympic stadium is a tad bland and underwhelming from an architectural perspective. It certainly doesn't have wow factor.

Sure, I forgot that I made the point about GDP which has a direct impact on level of earnings/cheap or more expensive labour. I nod my head to all your other points above as well.

But, as has been said before, direct comparisons with other stadiums aren't particularly useful in this instance. The design brief for the London Olympic stadium (i.e. for a stadium that can easily be two thirds dismantled) is so different to any previous stadium of its size that it should have a category all of its own.

Essentially Olympic stadiums serve the same purpose (staging athletics, football and other sports) regardless of whether they are dismantlable or not.
Infact it would be difficult to argue that a stadium that can be dismantled stands no chance of looking as impressive or aesthetic as a stadium that can not be dismantled. Why would or should its dismantlability prevent it from being visually stunning?

No doubt, future stadia that are designed to be dismantled will be more elegant, more daring or more dramatic. But it is often the way with pioneering ideas that the trailblazer is very much a victory for function over form.

It looks as though the idea of a stadium that can be partially dismantled completely overwhelmed the design team and stifled their creativity. Surely, they could have done better than designing something that resembles a massive gas drum.

Give the same brief to designers such as Marks Barfield (London Eye) or Future Systems (Birmingham Selfridges) and I bet you they would have come up with something really exciting – more daring and dramatic, well within budget and certainly not a victory for function over form.

Was there ever an architectural competition held for the London Olympic stadium?

Is the design of this stadium going to negatively affect the success if the London Games? No.

You are right, it probably won't.
But by the same token you could ask if the horridness of the Westfield Stratford shopping development will have a negative impact on profit. The answer is probably not but that is hardly the point.

You are right, it probably won't.
But by the same token you could ask if the horridness of the Westfield Stratford shopping development will have a negative impact on profit. The answer is probably not but that is hardly the point.

Anything else you wanna get off your chest oxo!?

Have you been into Westfield yet?

Why all the negativity?

:ohno:

I went on the Open City tour of the stadium today. They confirmed that the webcam has been off-line for the last few days to conceal opening ceremony planning sessions. Also that the track will remain terracotta and won't be blue. Track laying has to be completed fairly soon whilst the weather remains relatively warm and dry. We got to enter the stadium and walk around. It really was quite awesome in there. I'll post some photographs in the next couple of days.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=83667182&postcount=3434

Its a shame if it is an olympic rule. Personally I would have liked a black track, to fit in with the seats. Just something a bit different, even from the blue tracks.

Anything else you wanna get off your chest oxo!? Have you been into Westfield yet?


I don’t happen to be one of the many apologists on this thread who console themselves with the thought that absolutely anything erected on the Olympic site is better than what was there before.

Neither do I buy the excuse that the stadium can be partiially dismantled to explain its awful gas drum look.

People (such as the above) are now desperate to find “saving graces” and so resort to discussing what colour the track should be – how sad to be considering track colour when the overall stadium is rubbish in every way.

Why all the negativity?

I'm very much positive about the velodrome and most of the landscaping around the Olympic Park.

People (such as the above) are now desperate to find “saving graces” and so resort to discussing what colour the track should be – how sad to be considering track colour when the overall stadium is rubbish in every way.

Excuse me, we know what the entire stadium will look like except for the wrap and the colour of the track - one takes up a massive area internally, the other will define the exterior when it's in place. What is wrong with speculating about these aspects in a thread about the stadium's construction? It seems perfectly natural. If you don't want to discuss them and have a problem with other people doing so, you can find somewhere else to post, it's quite simple.

I hope you don't ever post in the Shard thread where there's been discussions about the colour of the window blinds and their casings.

I wouldn't listen to Oxo, seems to be stirring a bit recently.

It's an intruiging point about "saving grace" though. The interior doesn't need a saving grace; I think it's stunning in its elegance, intimacy and simplicity. Speculation about the track colour for me is just that, interested speculation.

The exterior needs its wrap however. But you can't really label that a "saving grace" either because it's such a major design feature in terms of the stadium's aesthetic. It'd be like calling the cladding on the Shard its "saving grace".

So no, as I say, there's nothing wrong with speculating about these two aspects of the stadium, nor is it indicative of any sort of "desperation" to find something good. Some of us think there's plenty good already, and are simply interested in what's comingn next.

Excuse me, we know what the entire stadium will look like except for the wrap and the colour of the track - one takes up a massive area internally, the other will define the exterior when it's in place. What is wrong with speculating about these aspects in a thread about the stadium's construction? It seems perfectly natural. If you don't want to discuss them and have a problem with other people doing so, you can find somewhere else to post, it's quite simple.

I hope you don't ever post in the Shard thread where there's been discussions about the colour of the window blinds and their casings.

Indeed, that's even more sad and geekish. Whatever next - the size (in mm) of the lift buttons?

My point is that we screwed up with the stadium but at least we have a decent velodrome and inspiring landscaping.

I've seen "test sections" of the wrap on site. I'm afraid the wrap will make the stadium appear to be wearing a ra-ra skirt and will transform ts look from dull to absurd.

It's an intruiging point about "saving grace" though. The interior doesn't need a saving grace; I think it's stunning in its elegance, intimacy and simplicity. Speculation about the track colour for me is just that, interested speculation.

The exterior needs its wrap however. But you can't really label that a "saving grace" either because it's such a major design feature in terms of the stadium's aesthetic. It'd be like calling the cladding on the Shard its "saving grace".

So no, as I say, there's nothing wrong with speculating about these two aspects of the stadium, nor is it indicative of any sort of "desperation" to find something good. Some of us think there's plenty good already, and are simply interested in what's comingn next.

Yes, I guess this all boils down to personal taste to a certain extent but there's no harm in providing you with reasons to dislike the stadium should you ever change your mind about its supposed virtues.

I just get the impression that people are clutching at straws on this thread and full of reluctant admiration for the stadium (or at least providing excuses for it) but I could be wrong.

Perhaps most of those contributing to this thread genuinely believe the Olympic stadium has not been compromised by its unfortunate look.