Any idea where the Olympic Stadium thread went? Oh... ;)

Hunt goes on for new Olympic Stadium filler with concerts touted

The new tender for the use of the Olympic Stadium after the 2012 Games, which starts today, has been devised to offer alternatives to West Ham, who are still favourites to be main tenants.

The Olympic Park Legacy Company, who will operate the public asset in a joint venture with Newham Council, want to attract a mixture of sports and concerts in a bid to raise £5million a year in rental fees plus revenue shares, as well as finding naming-rights sponsors for the stadium, the aquatics centre and multi-use venue in the park.

The main alternative to West Ham is seen as a combination of rugby — with Saracens, Wasps and London Irish showing interest — and music events plus the guarantee of 21 days of athletics use, with the running track a permanent fixture.

But the OPLC still "haven’t ruled out Tottenham making another bid, despite denials from White Hart Lane". There is even an ambitious hope Chelsea — with long-term doubts over their stadium’s future —– might want to experiment by playing some fixtures in Stratford.

However, Chelsea, whose Battersea Power Station relocation plans are fraught with difficulties, are more likely to re-examine Imperial Wharf, which is near Stamford Bridge and has good river and rail transport links.

OPLC chief executive Andrew Altman said: ‘We welcome football, but we’re not dependent on football. There are other combinations and other sports. We’re looking to populate the calendar with as many things as we can.’

^^ Great news. So we could well see the stadium being filled up with crazy Muse fans, and I'll be the first in line :D.
http://i788.photobucket.com/albums/yy165/scalatrava/Olympic_Stadium_in_West_Ham_concert_mode.jpg

^^Or U2.;)

Hunt goes on for new Olympic Stadium filler with concerts touted

The new tender for the use of the Olympic Stadium after the 2012 Games, which starts today, has been devised to offer alternatives to West Ham, who are still favourites to be main tenants.

The Olympic Park Legacy Company, who will operate the public asset in a joint venture with Newham Council, want to attract a mixture of sports and concerts in a bid to raise £5million a year in rental fees plus revenue shares, as well as finding naming-rights sponsors for the stadium, the aquatics centre and multi-use venue in the park.

The main alternative to West Ham is seen as a combination of rugby — with Saracens, Wasps and London Irish showing interest — and music events plus the guarantee of 21 days of athletics use, with the running track a permanent fixture.

But the OPLC still "haven’t ruled out Tottenham making another bid, despite denials from White Hart Lane". There is even an ambitious hope Chelsea — with long-term doubts over their stadium’s future —– might want to experiment by playing some fixtures in Stratford.

However, Chelsea, whose Battersea Power Station relocation plans are fraught with difficulties, are more likely to re-examine Imperial Wharf, which is near Stamford Bridge and has good river and rail transport links.

OPLC chief executive Andrew Altman said: ‘We welcome football, but we’re not dependent on football. There are other combinations and other sports. We’re looking to populate the calendar with as many things as we can.’

What a load of PR bullshit :lol: Spurs and Chelsea wont be going anywhere near it!!

Seeing how the public purse is paying for the post games conversion its not likely to be anywhere near good enough on the corporate and match day revenue front to appeal to a big PL club and now West Ham are thinking of building temporary stands over the track for the football season its now plan Z for the OPLC (or Coe and his UKAA cronies)!!

All this spin is for the benefit of a title sponsor for the Stadium I guess.

As for the Rugby clubs:
Saracens are moving to their own stadium in North London and already have a link with Wembley for some bigger games.
Wasps are losing money and currently for sale.
London Irish have a long term lease at Reading.
None of them average gates of above 8K at their current home grounds.

The joke of this stadiums legacy use is in danger of overshadowing the actual games.:bash:

^^Or U2.;)

Or U2 supporting Muse. :D

del

Or U2 supporting Muse. :D

U2 are an Irish band. Muse christened Wembley Stadium so Muse should christen the Olympic Stadium.

As Muse are British, U2 should support them :D.

U2 supporting Muse - that's the only way to go. ;)

Nah, it'll have to be Iron Maiden.

WEst Ham all the way..... :cheers:

Nah, it'll have to be Iron Maiden.

WEst Ham all the way..... :cheers:

Lets keep on topic now boys. :D

Girls Aloud reunion.

Protests See Olympic Stadium Sponsor Logo Axed

Dow Chemical has agreed to remove its branding from the £7m wrap around the Olympic Stadium in east London after protests in India.

The move has been welcomed by the Indian Olympic Association, which had threatened to pull out of the 2012 Games over the issue.

However, campaigners in India say Dow, which took over the firm behind the Bhopal disaster, has not gone far enough.

They say Dow should never have been allowed to sponsor the wrap as it will damage the London Olympics' green image.

Thousands of people were killed when toxic gases leaked from Union Carbide's chemical plan in Bhopal in 1984, in the world's worst industrial accident.

In 1989 the US firm paid the Indian government $470m (£310m) in full settlement of its liabilities.

But many families said the compensation deal was inadequate and are pressing Dow, which bought Union Carbide in 1994 - 10 years after the disaster - for additional payments.

Dow, which is one of 11 worldwide Olympic partners, says it has agreed to for its logo to be taken off the wrap in the run-up to next summer's Games following talks with the organisers.

"The agreement between Dow and London 2012 was limited to branding of five 'test panels' that were to be removed in the months before the Games and were not part of the final design," said a spokesman for Dow.

"In mid-summer, London 2012 and Dow discussed Dow deferring the rights to these five panels to allow free and full execution of the design as determined by London 2012.

"Dow agreed to this to support London 2012 and their vision for the stadium wrap."

But groups including the Bhopal Medical Appeal say Dow should go further and withdraw its sponsorship altogether.

"This is the first real chink we have seen in Dow Chemical's armour," said a Bhopal Medical Appeal spokesman.

"It's a clear admission that they have started to understand the harm that a company with their appalling track record, including the unresolved situation in Bhopal, will do to the image of the sustainable London Games."

That sentiment is shared by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) which has called on the country's government to act.

"It is unethical and unacceptable under the Olympic Charter that such a tainted company is associated with the Olympic Games," said the IOA acting president Vijay Kumar Malhotra.

A spokesman for London 2012 said Dow was appointed as a Games partner by the International Olympic Committee in July 2010 and was chosen to sponsor the wrap earlier this year "following a full procurement process".

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/protests_see_olympic_stadium_sponsor_logo_axed

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2011/Nov/Week1/16102957.jpg

Guys, I can't understand the idea of the color design for the chairs... It looks weird to me, like doesn't have a shape... :weird: Is there any render about how is it going to look at the end? I'm a little bit confused!

The grey seats are still covered by plastic seat covers, they will be black (in fact, they are now, that's an old photo). The design of the seating is consistent with the London brand and will be seen across all the temporary seating during next year's Games. For comparison, below are the Aquatics Centre, Eton Manor, the basketbal arena...

http://www.mimarizm.com/V_Images/2011/Kentin_Tozu/londra_olimpiyatlar%C4%B1/dezeen_London-2012-Aquatics-Centre-by-Zaha-Hadid-Architects_12.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7168/6548647573_011f5a2902_b.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01899/bbarena_1899785b.jpg

This "shard" pattern can, furthermore, be seen in the landscaping around the venues:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7161/6548647495_7f4fe17e63_b.jpg

Big deal if India pulls out of the Olympics, do they have a shot at winning ANYTHING!????

do they have a shot at winning ANYTHING!????

The clue's in the question. ;)

These aren't your country's Games so not having India there mightn't make a difference to you, but I'd rather a country of nearly 1bn people is represented in London, whether they win many medals or not.

And the boycott threat isn't there anymore anyway. The IOA have ruled it out.

Big deal if India pulls out of the Olympics, do they have a shot at winning ANYTHING!????

You do realize that India and the United Kingdom have a particularly intertwined history, and that it would have been a huge (if understandable) insult to the British for India to pull out of the Olympics, right?

excellent stadium !! greets from argentina buenos aires and good new year :cheers:

I was in Stratford yesterday and trust me this stadium & orbit are the crapiest things i saw for a long time in my life :mad:

Just awful and already dirty.

My girlfriend asked me: "what is this?"

i answered "the new olympic stadium"

she said "it's new??? it doesn't seem to be"
and she added "what is the 'red thing' ?"

I explained her and she didn't believe that they've allowed the construction of this ugly thing.

My conclusion is even for people like my girlfriend who don't care about sports & stadiums, the ugliness appear immediately in mind :lol:

My personal opinion is the olympic park is good except the "two things" stadiums+orbit.

for me the stadium is great..

ok.

You should see it for real to understand how bad it is trust me.

I don't give it 10 years before a renovation.

So poor in design

ok.

You should see it for real to understand how bad it is trust me.

I don't give it 10 years before a renovation.

So poor in design

Stadium not been dressed yet - been designed to be simple - wait for
July 2012:) then decide.....

Stadium not been dressed yet - been designed to be simple - wait for
July 2012:) then decide.....

Do you honestly think he'll change his mind?

ok.

You should see it for real to understand how bad it is trust me.

I don't give it 10 years before a renovation.

So poor in design

To judge it from the outside before we have the wrap is dumb, and you know it. I've seen it for real and it looks like an Olympic standard stadium which isn't finished externally, which is exactly what it is.

And I give it 1 year before a renovation, because that's what'll happen to it after the Games, as we've known since 2005.

Bloody Hell Axel, you spend long enough in this thread, I would have thought you might understand all this by now.

RobH-> happy new year to you too master troll :)

Ok it will be renovated next year then? When it has been decided? Because evrytime you don't stop to tell that west ham will play in like it is :ohno:

And i maintain that this stadium is crap! My girlfriend hardly believed that it is new. :rant: Will you dare to say my girlfriend is a troll whereas she doesn't care about stadiums & designs urban developments :down:

I was at wembley which is great and spectacular! Stratford olympic is bad point!

But the olympic park & buildings are superb :)

And i maintain that this stadium is crap!

Have you been inside it or seen the outside completed?

Ok it will be renovated next year then? When it has been decided? Because evrytime you don't stop to tell that west ham will play in like it is

I haven't said that ONCE.

because you are waiting something good for a stadium where the roof doesn't cover 50% of spectators?

This stadium is a joke!

Even at Wembley during the tour we entered the field and the heavy rain felt in the 8 rows of the first tiers whereas wembley has a large coverage roof.

i just cant' imagine how will be a match at stratford with those wheater conditions :eek:

RobH-> happy new year to you too master troll :)

Ok it will be renovated next year then? When it has been decided? Because evrytime you don't stop to tell that west ham will play in like it is :ohno:

And i maintain that this stadium is crap! My girlfriend hardly believed that it is new. :rant: Will you dare to say my girlfriend is a troll whereas she doesn't care about stadiums & designs urban developments :down:

I was at wembley which is great and spectacular! Stratford olympic is bad point!

But the olympic park & buildings are superb :)

Let's see here, your ignorant girlfriend called an unfinished stadium "ugly" and you are using this excuse to bash it? You are the troll, your girlfriend is just ignorant.

Seriously Axel, you know better than this. The roof discussion has been had more than once. That was ALWAYS going to be part of the post-Olympic renovation so I don't know why you're talking about football matches being played under the temporary Olympic roof. It's simply not relevent.

Why would you need 100% roofcover if you vary with pricing of the tickets?

Seriously Axel, you know better than this. The roof discussion has been had more than once. That was ALWAYS going to be part of the post-Olympic renovation so I don't know why you're talking about football matches being played under the temporary Olympic roof. It's simply not relevent.


if you have infos about renovation give us the sheet works schedule
If no don't say that it will be renovated like this or that...
For the moment this stadium it's like it is.
I don't see west ham spending millions in renovation for the moment.

Let's see here, your ignorant girlfriend called an unfinished stadium "ugly" and you are using this excuse to bash it? You are the troll, your girlfriend is just ignorant.

Listen me: respect my girlfriend! it was an opinion from someone which is not involved in our discussions here then respect her littlle boy!
Do you have a family? Would you find normal if i insulted your mother, brother or wife?

Then calm down because this stadium is not your creation and not your family :no:

because you are waiting something good for a stadium where the roof doesn't cover 50% of spectators?

This stadium is a joke!

Even at Wembley during the tour we entered the field and the heavy rain felt in the 8 rows of the first tiers whereas wembley has a large coverage roof.

i just cant' imagine how will be a match at stratford with those wheater conditions :eek:

one word-jealous...

-the design is very contemporary and light,its symbol of future architecture..

@ Axelferis That's beside the point. We all know the stadium would be downsized. Some of us know that the roof may be implemented in it's post Olympic state.

So logically, having "half" a roof seems more reasonable than having a "full" roof that would cover twice the area of the post Olympic stadium setup.

The idea of this Olympic Stadium was and is to serve London and British athletics post Olympics. If any team from any football sport were to move in, then it would probably have to accept the venue as is (or possibly enhance on the design, but the track remains). Otherwise it will be downsized to it's post Olympic legacy.

one word-jealous...

-the design is very contemporary and light,its symbol of future architecture..

Indeed, although somewhat hated at first, it's now praised as a core symbol of the games and a worthy design for a venue with a post games legacy.

if you have infos about renovation give us the sheet works schedule
If no don't say that it will be renovated like this or that...
For the moment this stadium it's like it is.
I don't see west ham spending millions in renovation for the moment.

Do some reading.

Every proposal that has seen West Ham's name mentioned alongside the stadium has also mentions a redesign of the roof. The original plan to take it down to 25k also envisaged a new roof. Every reconfiguration of this stadium post-Games has had a new roof proposed. I do not, therefore, have to provide a schedule of works to claim pretty confidently that the current roof will not stay.

people could you summary EXACTLY what will be done with this stadium after olympics games??

Because for the less i know , the track needs to be kept for atletism competitions in london in the future.

Then why to make a roof wider for the world championship athletism and not to do it for the olympics which is the mAJOR event for athlets?! :nuts:

I don't understand the strategy behind this stadium :(

-reduce the size
-maintain the track
-wider roof
-renovate for a football club
-when???
-final capacity after olympics??
- cost???

i don't understand anything. At the end i wonder how will be the final cost ££££ for this project

i don't understand anything.

:|

people could you summary EXACTLY what will be done with this stadium after olympics games??

Because for the less i know , the track needs to be kept for atletism competitions in london in the future.

Then why to make a roof wider for the world championship athletism and not to do it for the olympics which is the mAJOR event for athlets?! :nuts:

You have literally hundreds of posts in this thread yet you're asking very, very basic questions about why the stadium was designed the way it was. :ohno:

The stadium - as you should know by now - was designed to be an 80,000 seater stadium for the Olympics, resized to 25,000 post Games. The roof was therefore designed for one event, namely the Olympics, which are held in the Summer. It didn't need to be a full-roof for that. After the Games the new 25,000 seat athletics stadium would have a new, more permanant roof built over it.

ok thanks.

I understand then:

-West ham will play in a 25k stadium
-World athletic championship will be hosted in a 25k stadium wheras Paris & berlin has 70k seater...

It's more clear now.

ok thanks.

I understand then:

-West ham will play in a 25k stadium
-World athletic championship will be hosted in a 25k stadium wheras Paris & berlin has 70k seater...

Exactly right. West Ham will move into a smaller stadium and we're going to host a "cosy" World Athletics Championships.

You come into this thread this morning and talk about football matches being played under a roof YOU KNOW is temporary and the stadium looking ugly when YOU KNOW it's not finished on the outside. You've spent a HUGE amount of time in this thread, had things explained to you on several occassions, yet you're STILL making judgements based on the wrong things! It's like talking to a three year old child!

If you want to know the state of the current stadium legacy plans use Google.

Fuck of you moron.

no need to say that..:bash:

Hang on....... Axelferis has a girlfriend?!?

happy new year guys! haha

This scale was too shocked!

if you have infos about renovation give us the sheet works schedule
If no don't say that it will be renovated like this or that...
For the moment this stadium it's like it is.
I don't see west ham spending millions in renovation for the moment.



Listen me: respect my girlfriend! it was an opinion from someone which is not involved in our discussions here then respect her littlle boy!
Do you have a family? Would you find normal if i insulted your mother, brother or wife?

Then calm down because this stadium is not your creation and not your family :no:

At what point did I insult your girlfriend? I called her ignorant, that is a fact not an insult. You are just as ignorant as she is.

Let's see here, your ignorant girlfriend called an unfinished stadium "ugly" and you are using this excuse to bash it? You are the troll, your girlfriend is just ignorant.

At what point did I insult your girlfriend? I called her ignorant, that is a fact not an insult. You are just as ignorant as she is.

So, you change a simple statement by Axelferis who said "My girlfriend hardly believed that it is new" into "your ignorant girlfriend called an unfinished stadium ugly" and then you claim that that her ignorance is fact.

Why are YOU being so provocative? Seems like you are the troll to me...


Axelferis is being irritating and asking questions that he should know the answers to but that is no excuse for your rudeness!

Hang on....... Axelferis has a girlfriend?!?

She's almost finished construction on the outskirts of Lille.

When is the stadium wrap going to be installed?

ok thanks.

I understand then:

-West ham will play in a 25k stadium
-World athletic championship will be hosted in a 25k stadium wheras Paris & berlin has 70k seater...

It's more clear now.

Wrong. The needs of London Athletics are to be met first, which was outlined in the bid long before there came the possibility of this stadium being used for West Ham.

West Ham will either need to find an alternative venue, or use this stadium in it's current form (i.e no post Olympic downsizing).

As for Paris and Berlin, you cannot compare. Those stadiums have the multi purpose of Athletics, hosting major football and rugby games, as well as their respective national sides.

Then we have the World Athletics Championships. London is hosting the 2017 edition, which will use the Olympic Stadium in it's current form (which means any downsizing will occur post 2017). The bid has made it clear that London's Olympic Stadium will be used and it would seem illogical to start alteration works for the Olympic Stadium if it's being used for a major event a mere 5 years away.

As for future World Athletics Championships, if any is held in London, then Wembley Stadium could very well fill the void. After all, it is "designed" to fit a temporary Athletics platform if need be.

Thank you Lord david! :)

Your explanations are more relevant and convincing than all those fanatics!

Stadium aesthetics, despite what some on here believe, does not dictate the success or failure of a Games.

Wrong. The needs of London Athletics are to be met first, which was outlined in the bid long before there came the possibility of this stadium being used for West Ham.

West Ham will either need to find an alternative venue, or use this stadium in it's current form (i.e no post Olympic downsizing).

As for Paris and Berlin, you cannot compare. Those stadiums have the multi purpose of Athletics, hosting major football and rugby games, as well as their respective national sides.

Then we have the World Athletics Championships. London is hosting the 2017 edition, which will use the Olympic Stadium in it's current form (which means any downsizing will occur post 2017). The bid has made it clear that London's Olympic Stadium will be used and it would seem illogical to start alteration works for the Olympic Stadium if it's being used for a major event a mere 5 years away.

As for future World Athletics Championships, if any is held in London, then Wembley Stadium could very well fill the void. After all, it is "designed" to fit a temporary Athletics platform if need be.

Actually, it is likely (though not yet confirmed) that the stadium will be reconfigured before 2017. The new plan, rather than making it a 25,000 seater stadium, is to reconfigure it into a 60,000 seater stadium, build in more corporate facilties and permanant facilities into what was originally intended to be the temporary upper-tier, and move the warm-up track next to the stadium (in the areas the sponsors tents etc will be during the Games; the current warm up track land is being handed over to TFL post-Games).

http://www.insidethegames.biz/sports/summer/athletics/14824-olympic-stadium-will-be-even-better-by-2017-coe-claims

For a while it looked like West Ham would become an anchor tenant in this 60k seater stadium, with them paying for a fair chunk of the reconfiguration and owning the stadium lease. Now it looks certain the stadium will remain publically owned with the costs of reconfiguration coming from the taxpayer, and West Ham will merely be a rent-paying tenant rather than the leaseholder.

Whether this new model for the stadium's future will work is open to question. But the OPLC are apparently talking to Wasps, Essex County Cricket Club, England (who want to play T20 there), along with obviously West Ham who are still likely to be the main rentpayers. I wouldn't be surprised if Live Nation were also being talked to given that they were on board with West Ham in the first tender process.

As for the Wembley option, apparently a platform can be installed but it will never happen as it is a slow process and not ideal, and would keep the stadium out of more profitable uses in the meantime. The FA own Wembley and they'll never allow it to happen in my opinion. The platform solution was probably done for appearance's sake and to quietn down the athletics lobby who wanted the national stadium to be capable of athletics. Now athletics has its own world-class stadium, it makes Wembley hosting athletics even less likely.

Sorry, I'm bringing this way off topic. When is the stadium wrap going to be installed?

It can't be far off. I haven't seen any news items giving an exact date, though the test event for the stadium is in May, so it'll be ready before then. And before that there's the Olympic Park Run at the end of March, so I wouldn't be surprised if they want it ready for that too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14793945
http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/summer-olympics/2012/12061-olympic-stadium-to-open-with-british-university-championships

Stadium aesthetics, despite what some on here believe, does not dictate the success or failure of a Games.

Of course they don't, but it will be nice to see a stadium that looks finished and dressed as intended for the big party! ;)

Should West Ham progress and be the main anchor tenants of this stadium then it is highly likely that the stadium will be ready to open for football for the 2014/2015 season.

West Ham will want the full reconfiguration by that time, i.e. corporate facilities, extended roof and retractable seating.

The only point you haven't made Rob, is that West Ham have been told that if they want retractable / extended / temporary seating then they will have to foot the bill for it. So my understanding is they tax payer will foot the bill for everything other than the seating.

I don't think they will wait until after the world championships in 2017 before they refurb this stadium.

I am sure we will know much more at the end of March.

Does this answer any of your questions Axel??

ok let's see what will happen :)

But even for a refurbishment, money it's needed ££££

Should West Ham progress and be the main anchor tenants of this stadium then it is highly likely that the stadium will be ready to open for football for the 2014/2015 season.

West Ham will want the full reconfiguration by that time, i.e. corporate facilities, extended roof and retractable seating.

The only point you haven't made Rob, is that West Ham have been told that if they want retractable / extended / temporary seating then they will have to foot the bill for it. So my understanding is they tax payer will foot the bill for everything other than the seating.

I don't think they will wait until after the world championships in 2017 before they refurb this stadium.

I am sure we will know much more at the end of March.

Does this answer any of your questions Axel??



The OPLC is trying to stick to its guns over who pays for the retractable seating, but this amongst other things is something I imagine that they and West Ham are playing poker over (the OPLC publicly sounding out wasps etc looks like an attempt to gain leverage in the face of tough negotiations). Who pays for the seating, whether it is a proper retrofit or just a temporary seating solution, and the share of naming rights (The OPLC are suggesting that they pocket the rights, whereas West Ham will be adamant that they should at least have some say given their own commercial interests and Man City's rather plum deal over stadium sponsorship) are probbaly the major issues for discussion at this stage, I reckon, and why news about it is rather thin on the ground at the moment. It's still a bit of a behind the scenes stitch up.

The OPLC is trying to stick to its guns over who pays for the retractable seating, but this amongst other things is something I imagine that they and West Ham are playing poker over (the OPLC publicly sounding out wasps etc looks like an attempt to gain leverage in the face of tough negotiations). Who pays for the seating, whether it is a proper retrofit or just a temporary seating solution, and the share of naming rights (The OPLC are suggesting that they pocket the rights, whereas West Ham will be adamant that they should at least have some say given their own commercial interests and Man City's rather plum deal over stadium sponsorship) are probbaly the major issues for discussion at this stage, I reckon, and why news about it is rather thin on the ground at the moment. It's still a bit of a behind the scenes stitch up.

If the OPLC is playing Poker with WHFC and using WASPS as a bluff they will get their pants pulled down.

We are talking about a loss making Rugby Union team with no assets except their Aviva Premiership status (currently 2nd bottom) and squad (but there are no transfer fess in RU due to the short contracts) who currently play in someone else's League1 football ground to average gates of 6000 with an owner desperate to sell.

They are not a credible long term tenant!!

And before people start mentioning the yearly game at Twickenham, its once a year and tickets are very very cheap. It's not a sustainable plan either. They certainly couldn't afford retractable/temporary seating so you would have the sad sight of 10000 or so Rugby fans rattling around a 60000 seat stadium miles from the pitch:ohno:

Hang on....... Axelferis has a girlfriend?!?

Yeah ... No justice right!!! :lol:

If the OPLC is playing Poker with WHFC and using WASPS as a bluff they will get their pants pulled down.

We are talking about a loss making Rugby Union team with no assets except their Aviva Premiership status (currently 2nd bottom) and squad (but there are no transfer fess in RU due to the short contracts) who currently play in someone else's League1 football ground to average gates of 6000 with an owner desperate to sell.

They are not a credible long term tenant!!

And before people start mentioning the yearly game at Twickenham, its once a year and tickets are very very cheap. It's not a sustainable plan either. They certainly couldn't afford retractable/temporary seating so you would have the sad sight of 10000 or so Rugby fans rattling around a 60000 seat stadium miles from the pitch:ohno:

I agree, and I think that the OPLC know that too (and West Ham). The politics of the situation mean that Spurs were never going to get it without a commitment to the track, and they shouldnt have been made to believe that they could. Now theyre out of the picture, though, there really is not other credible tenant for a 60k stadium there (as required now we have the World Champs in 2017). West Ham therefore hold all the cards and some deft work should get them mostly what they want. Only thing is that the OPLC, again in a sop to public opinion given the age of austerity, need to make out that the public are getting a good deal.

It has, as usual, been a total farce, and one primarily you can lay at the feet of Livingstone, who ruled it out some years back (and also West Ham's old Icelandic owners who themselves wanted to build a brand new stadium - before Lehman of course).

London of course had to pull out of hosting the 2005 World Championships because of the cost of building a new stadium at Picketts Lock. Hopefully these problems with finding use after the games won't cause the same problem.

Spurs were also lined up to move in to that 43,000 seater "National Athletics Stadium" after the championships.

http://www.tth-architects.co.uk/uploads/mainimages/picketlock01.jpg

It has, as usual, been a total farce, and one primarily you can lay at the feet of Livingstone, who ruled it out some years back (and also West Ham's old Icelandic owners who themselves wanted to build a brand new stadium - before Lehman of course).

The tender process has been a complete farce but who to blame rather depends on your politics.

If you think that a 25k seat athletics stadium incorporating one-off events like concerts, cricket etc. and community acccess could've worked - albeit with some subsidy - then neither the original decision to have a 2/3rds temporary stadium nor the design are wrong. There's no reason why a football club had to be considered from the outset if that's your point of view.

If, however, you believe subsidising such a scheme is a waste of money and by definition a white-elephant you'll believe the intial decision and design were wrong. And since only a football club is capable of running a non-subsidied stadium full-time in the UK, you'll bemoan the fact none were involved from the start and the fact the design didn't work around football.

I still lean towards the former view. I think the change of government and mayor, as well as the recession if we're being generous, stimied any real political will to make the original stadium legacy plan work. As soon as Boris came into power all talk was of selling the thing off, getting it out of his responsibility rather than putting any effort into making the 25k stadium work as envisaged. Since then everyone's been trying to fit square pegs into round holes, and we've had a lot of half-truths and mudslinging.

The tender process has been a complete farce but who to blame rather depends on your politics.

If you think that a 25k seat athletics stadium incorporating one-off events like concerts, cricket etc. and community acccess could've worked - albeit with some subsidy - then neither the original decision to have a 2/3rds temporary stadium nor the design are wrong. There's no reason why a football club had to be considered from the outset if that's your point of view.

If, however, you believe subsidising such a scheme is a waste of money and by definition a white-elephant you'll believe the intial decision and design were wrong. And since only a football club is capable of running a non-subsidied stadium full-time in the UK, you'll bemoan the fact none were involved from the start and the fact the design didn't work around football.

I still lean towards the former view. I think the change of government and mayor, as well as the recession if we're being generous, stimied any real political will to make the original stadium legacy plan work. As soon as Boris came into power all talk was of selling the thing off, getting it out of his responsibility rather than putting any effort into making the 25k stadium work as envisaged. Since then everyone's been trying to fit square pegs into round holes, and we've had a lot of half-truths and mudslinging.

Some good points made there Rob, but a World Championship sized athletics facility is surely a better legacy for athletics itself (not to mention football) than a 25k, mainly roofless bowl, that sits in Stratford for 340-odd days of a year doing nothing? Certainly so for as crucial an area as Stratford is to the regeneration of East London.

Well, it would sit in Stratford for 340-days doing nothing if no effort was put into renting it out and making it work, certainly. I don't believe that fate was inevitable for the 25k seater stadium however. We'll never know now.

As for the World Championships, that's somewhat confused matters, though it's great we've won them. The plan was always for a World Championships one day, and for temporary seating to be installed on one or two sides of the stadium when that happened. But that was never envisaged as an immediate legacy for the stadium I don't think.

The bowl, as DarJoLe has pointed out in the London forums, was never going to remain roofless in the 25k model either. A new roof would have been designed for the 25k stadium, just as West Ham were looking to create a new roof for the 60k stadium. How that would have configured itself with the addition of temporary seating in future for a World Athletics Championships is open to question. I'm not quite sure, maybe DarJoLe could answer that.

I think Boris is to blame for a lot of the farce of the tendering process - it was certainly his administration that got Spurs involved under false pretences - and for not trying to make the original legacy work. I will, however, give him credit where it's due if he makes a success of the new plans. They are pretty reliant on West Ham wanting a stake in the stadium still, so I think you're almost certainly right in saying West Ham hold the cards so long as the OPLC are wedded to a 60k seat stadium.

is a 25k could be even sustainable in London? :ohno:
Where do you see today a non indoor arena of 25k in a 10 million city??

If i want to make a concert i surely not choose this one.
I'm very surprised of RobH which isn't able to get that point :mad:

Live Nation partnered West Ham's bid for the stadium, AEG partnered Tottenham Hotspur's.

is a 25k could be even sustainable in London? :ohno:
Where do you see today a non indoor arena of 25k in a 10 million city??

If i want to make a concert i surely not choose this one.
I'm very surprised of RobH which isn't able to get that point :mad:

Well considering that this is not the only stadium in the city... it's the what? 7th stadium in the city in terms of capacity.... So yeah 25000 is pretty good! If they have a tenant then they are set! If the Tenant is West Ham then let West Ham pay for the mods! They'll make it work!

So, you change a simple statement by Axelferis who said "My girlfriend hardly believed that it is new" into "your ignorant girlfriend called an unfinished stadium ugly" and then you claim that that her ignorance is fact.

Why are YOU being so provocative? Seems like you are the troll to me...


Axelferis is being irritating and asking questions that he should know the answers to but that is no excuse for your rudeness!

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Might I suggest opening a dictionary?

Stadiums/ arenas in London above 25k:

National Stadium (Football) London Wembley Stadium 90 000

National Team (Rugby) London Twickenham Stadium 82 000

Arsenal FC London Emirates Stadium 60 000

Chelsea FC London Stamford Bridge 41 841

Tottenham Hotspur London White Hart Lane 36 214

West Ham United London Boleyn Ground 35 056

Middlesex London Lord's Cricket Ground 28 000

Charlton Athletic London The Valley 27 111

Crystal Palace FC London Selhurst Park 26 309

Fulham FC London Craven Cottage 25 678

There another 10 above 10k.

Cities with most stadiums:

http://www.sporcle.com/games/jonesjeffum/stadiumcity

Have a go!

Cities with most stadiums:

http://www.sporcle.com/games/jonesjeffum/stadiumcity

Have a go!

I got 30/66 in time... hit a major brain freeze on that one

Stadiums/ arenas in London above 25k:

National Stadium (Football) London Wembley Stadium 90 000

National Team (Rugby) London Twickenham Stadium 82 000

Arsenal FC London Emirates Stadium 60 000

Chelsea FC London Stamford Bridge 41 841

Tottenham Hotspur London White Hart Lane 36 214

West Ham United London Boleyn Ground 35 056

Middlesex London Lord's Cricket Ground 28 000

Charlton Athletic London The Valley 27 111

Crystal Palace FC London Selhurst Park 26 309

Fulham FC London Craven Cottage 25 678

There another 10 above 10k.

Of those, only Wembley is regularly used as a concert venue. Twickenham and Emirates have hosted concerts occasionally, but none of them in the 25,000 to 40,000 do. A 25,000 seat outdoor venue would be in direct competition with the O2. I doubt LiveNation, AEG or anyone else would see it as a viable concert venue if it stayed at 25,000. It was only viable at 60,000.

exactly what i mean :|

Of those, only Wembley is regularly used as a concert venue. Twickenham and Emirates have hosted concerts occasionally, but none of them in the 25,000 to 40,000 do. A 25,000 seat outdoor venue would be in direct competition with the O2. I doubt LiveNation, AEG or anyone else would see it as a viable concert venue if it stayed at 25,000. It was only viable at 60,000.

Well it would have been 25k seating and another say 10k standing. But i take the point - it would have been too close to the O2 both size wise and geographically. Who wants to go to an outdoor concert, apart from in the height of summer, when you could be cozy inside? At 60k+ its a direct competitor to the Emirates, Twickenham and Wembley. Arguably, it has better transport links than all of those.

Cities with most stadiums:

http://www.sporcle.com/games/jonesjeffum/stadiumcity

Have a go!

I got 30/66 in time... hit a major brain freeze on that one

35/66. How I didn't get the third on the list I'll never know. :ohno:

Well it would have been 25k seating and another say 10k standing. But i take the point - it would have been too close to the O2 both size wise and geographically. Who wants to go to an outdoor concert, apart from in the height of summer, when you could be cozy inside? At 60k+ its a direct competitor to the Emirates, Twickenham and Wembley. Arguably, it has better transport links than all of those.

Noth that much to Wembley as it's bound to get the biggest events for the most part. But the other two - exactly, especially that they aren't - as Me Too said - used as non-football/rugby event venues too often.

The advantage of the olympic stadium over wembley is it's location. When you go to wembley there is nothing else. Stratford with it's park and shopping centre with cinemas, bowling alley and 24 hour casino will be a day out. It is West Ham's owners main reason for going there. They only need to create a red light district (mini Amerstdam with the canals). Plenty of flats on site probably already earmarked by the local mafia.

London is truly impressive in sports equipments.

It is organized like poles:

Wembley pole
O2 pole
stratford pole
emirates pole

all with shopping,restaurants etc...

never see that anywhere on earth.

I'm very impressed.

Stadiums/ arenas in London above 25k:

National Stadium (Football) London Wembley Stadium 90 000

National Team (Rugby) London Twickenham Stadium 82 000

Arsenal FC London Emirates Stadium 60 000

Chelsea FC London Stamford Bridge 41 841

Tottenham Hotspur London White Hart Lane 36 214

West Ham United London Boleyn Ground 35 056

Middlesex London Lord's Cricket Ground 28 000

Charlton Athletic London The Valley 27 111

Crystal Palace FC London Selhurst Park 26 309

Fulham FC London Craven Cottage 25 678

There another 10 above 10k.
London is truly the world capital of sport.
And imagine Tottenham or Chelsea build new stadiums. Imagine you are rich and living in London and going all the time on football machtes :-D

London is truly the world capital of sport.
And imagine Tottenham or Chelsea build new stadiums. Imagine you are rich and living in London and going all the time on football machtes :-D

1) you dont have to be (too) rich to go to watch football

2) watching football at more than one club is just wrong

I think you can happily support a non-league club as well as a Prem (or Championship) club.

I think you can happily support a non-league club as well as a Prem (or Championship) club.

Yeah, that's fair enough. I always look out for the daggers, and theyre not even non-league. Used to look out for Orient too, but strangely enough, not anymore!

Yeah, that's fair enough. I always look out for the daggers, and theyre not even non-league. Used to look out for Orient too, but strangely enough, not anymore!
If something happens 'strangely enough', that doesn't sound too much like fandom, does it? Not every interest is fandom.

1) you dont have to be (too) rich to go to watch football

2) watching football at more than one club is just wrong
ad. 1) Depends on the comparison to which you refer :) I think spending GBP50+ per ticket is quite an expense and the fact that English ticket prices went up by some 400% in a matter of decade has to ring a bell, come on...

ad. 2) Watching two clubs is nothing wrong, supporting each of them at the same time sounds horrid.

PS: I'm actually pretty sure I'm writing on topic here, despite how it looks :) Since West Ham - the most probable tenant - is the most popular ''2nd choice team' for the English people, as several surveys showed. But being the most popular 2nd choice team means only that they are still the 2nd choice team and so they still don't get much attendance from those who would have chosen them 2nd after some other team ;)

I

PS: I'm actually pretty sure I'm writing on topic here, despite how it looks :) Since West Ham - the most probable tenant - is the most popular ''2nd choice team' for the English people, as several surveys showed. But being the most popular 2nd choice team means only that they are still the 2nd choice team and so they still don't get much attendance from those who would have chosen them 2nd after some other team ;)

Where did you get that from?

If people have a 2nd team it's usually a team that rarely (or never) plays their first choice.

You may get people from Essex, perhaps growing up supporting West Ham off TV as kids, then going to watch their local team, Southend perhaps, when they get older. Other than that, I can't see anyone else who'd have West Ham as a 2nd team.

You may get people from Essex, perhaps growing up supporting West Ham off TV as kids, then going to watch their local team, Southend perhaps, when they get older. Other than that, I can't see anyone else who'd have West Ham as a 2nd team.

Perhaps its because they won the world cup for england in '66 and supply about half of the England team? :lol:

Where did you get that from?

If people have a 2nd team it's usually a team that rarely (or never) plays their first choice.

I think what he probably means is "West Ham's everyone's 2nd team"; as in they're a team a lot of people want to do well, which is probably true.

That's not the same as what we're talking about though michał_, which is genuinely supporting two clubs. In that case I think very few would have West Ham as their second team as they're a big club. Most people's second teams are local clubs in the lower leagues or non-league. I support Spurs and Bromley, for example.

I don't want to interrupt your discussion, but is west-ham moving to the olympic stadium after the olympics?

that's the question :dunno:

I don't want to interrupt your discussion, but is west-ham moving to the olympic stadium after the olympics?

Nobody knows yet!

I don't want to interrupt your discussion, but is west-ham moving to the olympic stadium after the olympics?

The fans are split, but if the seating is brought up to the level of the pitch - either through a demountable seating in front of the current lower tier or a retro-fitted retractable system - then the majority are in favour. That's what the West Ham board is negotiating over the OPLC with, along with stadium naming revenues, branding issues and some other things. The OPLC naturally want to get the best deal fo the taxpayer and dont want to pay for the new seating, but West Ham have a strong hand as the only viable contenders for a 60k stadium, now that Tottenham have ruled themselves out. It's still likely, in a nutshell.

So the discussion goes on :) Personally, i think someone should move in to the olympic stadium. Otherwise it would be a waste of that nice stadium. It shouldn't become a white elephant.

I know the Stade de France has retractable seating, but even in football/rugby mode the front row of seats at the Stade de France is still some distance from the pitch. The only other system I've seen (the cheap option) is the one they use in Cagliari.

The fans are split, but if the seating is brought up to the level of the pitch - either through a demountable seating in front of the current lower tier or a retro-fitted retractable system - then the majority are in favour.
Really? Was that announced somehow? I missed this then.

And RobH - I think you got what I meant right and since that's not the case (wouldn't want to go into 'genuinely supporting two teams' as I see this as impossible :) so will cut my thought here...)

Been a couple of online polls, one which got 1000 responses and was 60/40 in favour, plus ive spent the past year trawling the fan websites where opinion appears to be that if the seating is sorted, then the majority will be in favour.

Were it that West Ham had the money - like Tottenham - to build their own stadium, then that would be vastly preferred. We even know the site of the place. However, the Icelandic takeover a few years back was disastrous and left the club on the brink of bankruptcy. Given that, people understand that the O/S offers the only option to upgrade. As long as theyre not watching it from the distance of two running tracks, as would currently be the case.

I know the Stade de France has retractable seating, but even in football/rugby mode the front row of seats at the Stade de France is still some distance from the pitch. The only other system I've seen (the cheap option) is the one they use in Cagliari.

Wouldn't installing retractable seating, mean digging up part of the lower bowl, which as we all know was the only intentional permanent part of the stadium.

Wouldn't this destabilize the structure or undermine the foundations?

I will be very surprised if they can retrofit the stadium with retractable seating, this may be a bit of a red herring, i mean who has sketched out a feasible solution, where are the possible solutions? West Hams original renders were inconclusive.

I cant see how it could be technically done without major demolition of part of the lower bowl!

Does anybody else not share this thought?

I don't think they mean retractable seating really. What they probably want is temporary seating.

Spurs looked into the retractable option at the OS, and concluded it'd cost close to £100m because you're right, the lower bowl is the permanant bit. Retractable seating at the OS is a non-starter.

Been a couple of online polls, one which got 1000 responses and was 60/40 in favour, plus ive spent the past year trawling the fan websites where opinion appears to be that if the seating is sorted, then the majority will be in favour.

Were it that West Ham had the money - like Tottenham - to build their own stadium, then that would be vastly preferred. We even know the site of the place. However, the Icelandic takeover a few years back was disastrous and left the club on the brink of bankruptcy. Given that, people understand that the O/S offers the only option to upgrade. As long as theyre not watching it from the distance of two running tracks, as would currently be the case.

How reliant is West Ham's future on getting into the OS? The sale of Upton Park would surely help the financial situation at the club. You're right that the OPLC, now they're going with 60k, are probably not in a strong position with regard to negotiating, but if West Ham really need to sell off Upton Park then does that rebalance things a bit more? Are both parties in fact reliant on each other to a very large extent?

West Ham did have the redesign out as a competition but that has gone all quiet. They could build on the lower tier east side using it as a foundation. The angles would be very similar to the old wembley. West Ham's finance are a lot healthier than last season when big wage earners left. The big earners left are Nolan and Green and Piquione (who might be gone shortly). As for Upton Park they will only get about £25m unless the economy drastically improves.

Gold and Brady have both publicly noted at £10 mil figure for what they call 'retractable', but youre right Rob, this is clearly the demountable option. It was also said by gold that it takes two weeks to erect and take down, which makes it very tight to have both football and a full athletics season in there. As a result, what I think's going on is that West Ham are pushing the OPLC to pay for the full retrofit retractable seating, but of course that aint cheap (though it is do-able). Both parties are reliant upon each other, yes, but at the mo i think this is a bit of a poker game to see who picks up the tab for what.

Gold and Brady have both publicly noted at £10 mil figure for what they call 'retractable', but youre right Rob, this is clearly the demountable option. It was also said by gold that it takes two weeks to erect and take down, which makes it very tight to have both football and a full athletics season in there. As a result, what I think's going on is that West Ham are pushing the OPLC to pay for the full retrofit retractable seating, but of course that aint cheap (though it is do-able). Both parties are reliant upon each other, yes, but at the mo i think this is a bit of a poker game to see who picks up the tab for what.

How exactly is it do-able?

Surely this would mean completely taking down the 2nd tier, then ripping up the lower bowl?

And then creating a new lower bowl which partly retracts. Then having to refit the upper tier.

This sounds like pie in the sky to me!

Out of interest, who has said it is do-able?

Gold and Brady have both publicly noted at £10 mil figure for what they call 'retractable', but youre right Rob, this is clearly the demountable option. It was also said by gold that it takes two weeks to erect and take down, which makes it very tight to have both football and a full athletics season in there. As a result, what I think's going on is that West Ham are pushing the OPLC to pay for the full retrofit retractable seating, but of course that aint cheap (though it is do-able). Both parties are reliant upon each other, yes, but at the mo i think this is a bit of a poker game to see who picks up the tab for what.

Hold on, assuming West Ham do get retractable or - more likely - demounatble seating, doesn't that mean the new roof is going to have to be that much bigger (and more expensive) as well? Don't the Premier League require stadiums to have all seats covered? (assuming West Ham regain PL status fairly quickly)

We've had this discussion already on KUMB and you are quite right that the roof extension is going to have to be larger than originally intended.

It may have to be extended by 30 meters or more.

Is the list of things that would need changing something like this:

1. New roof that covers all the seats.
2. Extra suites.
3. Some sort of retractable or demountable seating.
4. Permanent toilet facilities.
5. Permanent food outlets.
6. Club shop.
7. Replacing the temporary external wrap.
8. If the existing roof goes, then new floodlights would be needed.
9. Undersoil heating.
10. Changing rooms that meet Premier League requirements.
11. Facilities for the match officials.

Anything else? Isn't going to be cheap, is it? :ohno:

A lot of those would have been needed anyway and the OPLC already has a £30m warchest for a basic conversion (covering toilets, floodlights, food outlets and all things that'd be needed regardless of the tenant). Anything on top of that is negotiable I suppose...

There's a club shop in Westfield so whether they'd build another one I don't know. I suspect they will because the profit would soon cover the cost of that.

There are hundreds of rooms surrounding the 25k bowl. I doubt changing rooms and facilities for match officials would be a problem.

I've a feeling the wrap may not be replaced in the initial stages.

So of your list the things under negotiation would be the extra suites, roof, and demountable seating.

A lot of those would have been needed anyway and the OPLC already has a £30m warchest for a basic conversion (covering toilets, floodlights, food outlets and all things that'd be needed regardless of the tenant). Anything on top of that is negotiable I suppose...

There's a club shop in Westfield so whether they'd build another one I don't know. I suspect they will because the profit would soon cover the cost of that.

There are hundreds of rooms surrounding the 25k bowl. I doubt changing rooms and facilities for match officials would be a problem.

I've a feeling the wrap may not be replaced in the initial stages.

So of your list the things under negotiation would be the extra suites, roof, and demountable seating.

Basically a new stadium, i think the OPLC et al have finally realised that this is untenable.

The stadium has been a cock-up, this is surely now undeniable.

Best return it to what it was meant to be then yeah?

Best return it to what it was meant to be then yeah?

Yep, which is a shame, because with its location and transport infrastructure we could have built a proper multi-sports venue from the outset, which would have had a proper sporting legacy for a variety of sports / clubs.

Any retrofit now will be too costly and not fit for purpose.

Shame!

Yep, which is a shame, because with its location and transport infrastructure we could have built a proper multi-sports venue from the outset, which would have had a proper sporting legacy for a variety of sports / clubs.

Any retrofit now will be too costly and not fit for purpose.

Shame!

And if so the 'legacy' for East London basically amounts to a number of little used elite stadia. Some legacy. Thanks Ken and Tessa.

Is the list of things that would need changing something like this:

1. New roof that covers all the seats.
2. Extra suites.
3. Some sort of retractable or demountable seating.
4. Permanent toilet facilities.
5. Permanent food outlets.
6. Club shop.
7. Replacing the temporary external wrap.
8. If the existing roof goes, then new floodlights would be needed.
9. Undersoil heating.
10. Changing rooms that meet Premier League requirements.
11. Facilities for the match officials.

Anything else? Isn't going to be cheap, is it? :ohno:

You've listed merely half of the facilites that would be required.

Despite this, it would still be cheaper to build a fit-for-purpose venue from scratch
- 50,000 seats with all mod cons and a decent standard of facilities
such as parking, a learning zone for the local community and a
club museum presenting West Ham's rich heritage.

But that would be "destroying the Olympic legacy" wouldn't it? :nuts:

You've listed merely half of the facilites that would be required.

Despite this, it would still be cheaper to build a fit-for-purpose venue from scratch
- 50,000 seats with all mod cons and a decent standard of facilities
such as parking, a learning zone for the local community and a
club museum presenting West Ham's rich heritage.

But that would be "destroying the Olympic legacy" wouldn't it? :nuts:

The budget for the list of refurbishments above is approximately £100 million.

If this is only half of the facilities required, what is the other half missed out?

How on earth do you get a purpose built 50,000 capacity stadium for less than £100 million, or cheaper as you say??

Would it really be cheaper to build a multi-purpose stadium from scratch? If what Rob says about the retractable option being £100 million were true, then with the rest of the works, including the extended roof, we're probably talking about something approaching £200 million. Taking the money already spent as a sunk cost, that's pretty cheap still for s top spec multi-purpose venue.

Not to mention the difficulty in building it. Hello Wembley!

Would it really be cheaper to build a multi-purpose stadium from scratch? If what Rob says about the retractable option being £100 million were true, then with the rest of the works, including the extended roof, we're probably talking about something approaching £200 million. Taking the money already spent as a sunk cost, that's pretty cheap still for s top spec multi-purpose venue.

?? The Olympic Stadium has cost 500million!

This has not been a cheap build by any measure.

Have we really got value for money??

I cant see how we have on this one.

I'm not sure who has quoted 100million for retractable seating, certainly nothing has been published anywhere. Retractable seating is certainly what is required, however this option is not technically possible with the current sunken lower bowl. This would clearly have to be removed, which would first mean the upper tier and roof structure removed first.

Such changes would basically mean ripping up the entire fabric of the permanent bowl and essentially creating a new stadium.

My argument has always been that we have fundamentally got the design wrong from day one. Unfortunately we did not have the foresight to realise there were genuine legacy opportunities from athletics, cricket, football, community use and concerts.

And to think we were originally going to spend 500million and then reduce the stadium to 25,000 seats, which would still not have a roof! This would of been a disaster and the biggest waste of taxpayers money ever imagined.

Im glad we are keeping the majority of seats, as there is demand, but the retrofit will cost alot, and we could of planned for this properly. Most stadiums of this size take 2 years to construct, i except Wembley took a little longer, but it was still built within 3 years!

In all we will end up spending 600million plus, hardly the cheap, flexible, environmentally friendly option first promoted.

A mess...

PS Please do not accuse me of being a troll, this is a genuine post, from a frustrated supporter of British developments.

We can do better than this!

I'm not entirely sure it isnt technically do-able. As Rob said, Spurs looked at that option and came up with a £100 million figure. I know the money already spent is a LOT but if its a question of spending 200 mil to make it into a proper top spec multi-purpose stadium or ripping it down and spending 400 mil on a new one then you should see my point.

Anyway, it surely isnt the biggest waste of money ever. What about the aquatic centre? A 200 million + leisure centre..

?? The Olympic Stadium has cost 500million!

Retractable seating is certainly what is required, however this option is not technically possible with the current sunken lower bowl. This would clearly have to be removed, which would first mean the upper tier and roof structure removed first.

Such changes would basically mean ripping up the entire fabric of the permanent bowl and essentially creating a new stadium.


Why do you think the upper tier will have to be removed in order to remove the lower bowl? Have you seen how this stadium has been constructed from day one? Have you seen what they are doing at the Maracana in Brazil?

The lower tier is only considered permanent because it was the only part of the stadium that was due to remain. The undercroft is the permanent struncture that sits on the foundations of the upper tier. Here is a time laspe video that shows there is nothing about the lower teir that could be considered permanent.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10745320

I'm not entirely sure it isnt technically do-able. As Rob said, Spurs looked at that option and came up with a £100 million figure. I know the money already spent is a LOT but if its a question of spending 200 mil to make it into a proper top spec multi-purpose stadium or ripping it down and spending 400 mil on a new one then you should see my point.

Anyway, it surely isnt the biggest waste of money ever. What about the aquatic centre? A 200 million + leisure centre..

Yeah, that is expensive also, that being said, it looks awesome and i cant wait to see inside myself - it looks special!

Im suprised Spurs didnt consider using retractable seating considering they were quoted 100million, this would of been far cheaper then demolishing the stadium and rebuilding a new one. Im not sure this is entirely accurate!

I guess we will have to wait and see what becomes of the stadium, i hope they salvage a decent legacy, i for one would love to see 60,000 cheering on the Barmy Army during the Ashes, we could do with a large capacity cricket venue akin to the MCG.

nice olympic stadium, but i still preferring beijing's one.

^^ So I am, too sir/ma'am (underline which one is correct)

I dread to think how much a stadium like the Bird's Nest stadium would cost to build in a city like London, Paris or New York.

Retractable seating is certainly what is required, however this option is not technically possible with the current sunken lower bowl. This would clearly have to be removed, which would first mean the upper tier and roof structure removed first.

I'v seen this stated many times in this thread but it seems based on a fundamental error, that is that seating would need to be "retracted" from its current position when infact it would need to be moved forward with the current position being as far back as it would ever need to go.

...or maybe it means retractable TO it's current position...

Saracens also have plans to move into an athletics stadium.

Rugby:

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/4130/40078034.jpg

Athletics:

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4284/88887460.jpg

The demountable seating they use in Cagliari certainly gets the fans closer to the pitch than the retractable seating system they have at the Stade de France, even if it does look rather naff:

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1438/santelia1.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/220/santelia1.jpg/)

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1438/santelia1.jpg[/URL]

The Calgiari option should be totally unacceptable to everyone. I'm on of the main advocates for moving to the OS amongst West Ham fans, but even i appreciate that anything that at least doesnt look something like the Telstra in Melbourne will be rejected. Much as Upton Park isnt modern and isnt the easiest to get to, it is still a football stadium, after all.

The Calgiari option should be totally unacceptable to everyone. I'm on of the main advocates for moving to the OS amongst West Ham fans, but even i appreciate that anything that at least doesnt look something like the Telstra in Melbourne will be rejected. Much as Upton Park isnt modern and isnt the easiest to get to, it is still a football stadium, after all.

If they could just rebuild one stand at Upton Park, they could probably get to just over 40,000 seats, which would be perfect for West Ham. I can't fathom why they are so keen on moving to a venue that's completely unsuitable.

If they could just rebuild one stand at Upton Park, they could probably get to just over 40,000 seats, which would be perfect for West Ham. I can't fathom why they are so keen on moving to a venue that's completely unsuitable.

David Gold was saying that the cost of redeveloping the East Bank made it unviable, and also some excuse about the public transport not being god enough to cope with the extra 6,000 people on matchday. Obviously, the management had the pound signs in their eyes with the move to the OS, but the change to a lease rather than outright ownership, talk of the OPLC retaining stadium naming rights and so on have significantly reduced the commercial appeal of it. I still think most West Ham fans would like to move IF the OS was properly configured - for one thing it makes getting to a game much easier from the Essex and Kent heartlands, and Upton Park is frankly a dump, lets be honest. If not done right, which means if a significant deal more than is currently being suggested is not spent, then there will be virtually no support for the move, though.

I think they should have think a TRUE stadium at the basis of project.
With All the money needed to build& refurbish this stadium you can two stadiums :ohno:.

I predict that no tenant club in this stadium before 2016(and i'm optimistic)

I'v seen this stated many times in this thread but it seems based on a fundamental error, that is that seating would need to be "retracted" from its current position when infact it would need to be moved forward with the current position being as far back as it would ever need to go.

No - some people are simply suggesting that the lower bowl be replaced with retractable seating, i.e. seating that can be close to a rectangular football pitch and retracted when necessary to allow space for a running track.

No - some people are simply suggesting that the lower bowl be replaced with retractable seating, i.e. seating that can be close to a rectangular football pitch and retracted when necessary to allow space for a running track.
Which would still be as flat as can be and upper sections would still remain miles away from the pitch...

Not miles - for example, those sitting on the upper tier would be just as far as they are at Wembley. The difference is that there would be a gap between those on the upper tier and those on the (extended, retractaBLE) lower tier. A gap that equates to about 30k seats.

Not miles - for example, those sitting on the upper tier would be just as far as they are at Wembley. The difference is that there would be a gap between those on the upper tier and those on the (extended, retractaBLE) lower tier. A gap that equates to about 30k seats.
That's a manipulation though :) They will be as far as fans at Wembley - sure, but fans at the furthest seats of Wembley. And while at Wembley those are - arguably - the worst seats, at the Olympic they are the optimum selction. Which says a lot about the much hated phrase 'matchday expereince'...

Club could buy Olympic Stadium

MP admits stadium shouldn't always be under public ownership

Last Updated: January 24, 2012 6:28pm.

Olympic Stadium: Could be owned by football club in future

A football club could one day own the 2012 Olympic Stadium, minister for Sport and the Olympics Hugh Robertson has suggested.

Such a move would come in the future as the current plans are for the stadium to be publicly owned, but leased out for a mixture of sporting events and concerts.

Robertson told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee: "It is not our intention that it should remain in public ownership indefinitely."

Robertson explained that it could be possible for a club to buy the stadium, but that there would be an agreement in place protecting the rights of UK Athletics and other members of the legacy deal signed up as part of the original agreement for post-games stadium use.

West Ham's proposed move to the Stadium fell through after a legal challenge from Tottenham and Leyton Orient.

The Olympic Park Legacy Company, Government and London mayor Boris Johnson then decided the stadium would be leased out and retain the running track.

Manchester

Robertson also told MPs that they had learned from how the City of Manchester Stadium (now the Etihad Stadium) had been handled after the 2002 Commonwealth Games.

He added: "We have absolutely looked at the sensible lessons that have been learned out of Manchester, which to be fair, was regarded as a great success.

"It is a pretty good argument for how to get it right. We will certainly build all that into the negotiations.

"If a football club was one of the legacy users and there should be a change of ownership in the future - and they should want to acquire the stadium in the future, that will certainly be built into the process.

"It is not our intention that it should remain in public ownership indefinitely.

"There is no reason why it should be a public stadium forever and a day."

by Andy Wilkes on Flickr.

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/3671/672471590790b1791942b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andywilkes/6724715907/sizes/l/in/photostream/

looks nice

Club could buy Olympic Stadium

MP admits stadium shouldn't always be under public ownership

Last Updated: January 24, 2012 6:28pm.

Olympic Stadium: Could be owned by football club in future

A football club could one day own the 2012 Olympic Stadium, minister for Sport and the Olympics Hugh Robertson has suggested.

Such a move would come in the future as the current plans are for the stadium to be publicly owned, but leased out for a mixture of sporting events and concerts.

Robertson told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee: "It is not our intention that it should remain in public ownership indefinitely."

Robertson explained that it could be possible for a club to buy the stadium, but that there would be an agreement in place protecting the rights of UK Athletics and other members of the legacy deal signed up as part of the original agreement for post-games stadium use.

West Ham's proposed move to the Stadium fell through after a legal challenge from Tottenham and Leyton Orient.

The Olympic Park Legacy Company, Government and London mayor Boris Johnson then decided the stadium would be leased out and retain the running track.

Manchester

Robertson also told MPs that they had learned from how the City of Manchester Stadium (now the Etihad Stadium) had been handled after the 2002 Commonwealth Games.

He added: "We have absolutely looked at the sensible lessons that have been learned out of Manchester, which to be fair, was regarded as a great success.

"It is a pretty good argument for how to get it right. We will certainly build all that into the negotiations.

"If a football club was one of the legacy users and there should be a change of ownership in the future - and they should want to acquire the stadium in the future, that will certainly be built into the process.

"It is not our intention that it should remain in public ownership indefinitely.

"There is no reason why it should be a public stadium forever and a day."

If it were ever to happen, the various authorities will have to tread very carefully. Safeguards to ensure the stadium's continued use as an athletics stadium will have to be watertight.

Daniel Levy and Spurs will be watching and ready to press the green light for legal action.

If it were ever to happen, the various authorities will have to tread very carefully. Safeguards to ensure the stadium's continued use as an athletics stadium will have to be watertight.

Daniel Levy and Spurs will be watching and ready to press the green light for legal action.

He has nothing to sue for. The bid process has been scrapped so no level of fairness is owed to him. Whatever clauses are in the sale are none of his business. It would be like Abromovich suing over Spurs receiving help from the Northumberland Project Development fund.

He has nothing to sue for. The bid process has been scrapped so no level of fairness is owed to him. Whatever clauses are in the sale are none of his business. It would be like Abromovich suing over Spurs receiving help from the Northumberland Project Development fund.

Spurs may well still put in a bid under the new tender process.

Unless Spurs want to bid then it no longer has anything to do with them.

It has all gone rather quiet with Daniel Levy and Barry Hearn.

So when are they putting the cladding on the stadium?

^^

The wrap will comprise 336 individual panels, each approximately 25 meters high and 2.5 meters wide, and will help the stadium become the visual centerpiece of the London 2012 Games. Installation will be completed by spring 2012.

http://www.pcimag.com/articles/dow-to-use-uv-curable-inks-on-stadium-wrap-for-london-olympics

He has nothing to sue for. The bid process has been scrapped so no level of fairness is owed to him. Whatever clauses are in the sale are none of his business. It would be like Abromovich suing over Spurs receiving help from the Northumberland Project Development fund.

If West Ham are allowed to get rid of the track, then Spurs would most definitely have a case.

They only entered the bidding initially because they were assured (lied to) that there was no need to keep an athletics track at the stadium.

And they only withdrew their interest because they were subsequently assured that, come what may, the athletics track MUST remain.

Spurs may well still put in a bid under the new tender process.

Unless Spurs want to bid then it no longer has anything to do with them.

It has all gone rather quiet with Daniel Levy and Barry Hearn.

Nothing left to discuss as far as Spurs are concerned. They got what they wanted from the legal process (and what they felt they were due, after being shafted by the authorities). They are now concentrating all their efforts on the NDP.

nice olympic stadium, but i still preferring beijing's one.

Deaths building the Birds Nest Alone = 10

Deaths on the whole entire London 2012 Project = 0 ( 2 deaths by natural causes have been reported )

An acceptable price to pay?

http://insidelondon2012.blogspot.com/2012/01/first-view-from-top-of-arcelormittal.html

If West Ham are allowed to get rid of the track, then Spurs would most definitely have a case.

They only entered the bidding initially because they were assured (lied to) that there was no need to keep an athletics track at the stadium.

And they only withdrew their interest because they were subsequently assured that, come what may, the athletics track MUST remain.

No-ones suggesting that, though, are they? Though i commend you on your desire to waste even more taxpayers money on legal fees.

No-ones suggesting that, though, are they?

Read back a few posts. The point I was making was that, if the stadium was ever to be turned over to private owners, there would have to be watertight agreements in place, guaranteeing the future of an athletics track at the stadium.

Though i commend you on your desire to waste even more taxpayers money on legal fees.

Try a little bit harder not to be such a tediously antagonistic troll, eh fella? There's a good lad.

And just for clarification, if tax payers' money has been and continues to be wasted on legal costs relating to the stadium's legacy, then the only people responsible are those in authority who lied through their teeth and bungled the whole process. The same authorities will have lied and bungled again if they ever allow the athletics track to be removed.

Haven't UKA already signed a 99 year lease on the stadium though, and that being the case then Spurs surely have no interest in the place.

How does this work then if the stadium is sold on to private ownership within that time?

Surely it would have to be sold on with that lease still in place...

Deaths building the Birds Nest Alone = 10

Deaths on the whole entire London 2012 Project = 0 ( 2 deaths by natural causes have been reported )

An acceptable price to pay?

What caused all those deaths in Beijing?:eek:

Deaths building the Birds Nest Alone = 10

Deaths on the whole entire London 2012 Project = 0 ( 2 deaths by natural causes have been reported )

An acceptable price to pay?

Now that is just pathetic and low. It's not the fault of the Bird's Nest that people died on the construction site. It has absolutely nothing to do with the stadium itself. So NO, not a price worth paying because similar number of people might have died on any construction site in China while the Bird's Nest built in London might have gone without an accident.

Warsaw's stadium is very advanced technologically and difficult as a construction site, generating risks. There were deaths, but none of them due to the sole complexity of the project, they were just accidents that could occur on almost any 'less advanced' stadium. How can anyone use this as an argument?

The true reason of the design for this stadium :lol:

Hy0Xydz4aI4

The true reason of the design for this stadium :lol:

Hy0Xydz4aI4

FREAKS!

^^ seems legit

I don't see London building and underfield tunnels for Olympic ceremonies. What purpose do the underfield tunnels serve during Olympic ceremonies anyway?



testing training in Chennai (http://www.accordedu.com/)|software testing course chennai (http://www.accordedu.com/)


........................................................................................:bash:

I think they should have think a TRUE stadium at the basis of project.
With All the money needed to build& refurbish this stadium you can two stadiums :ohno:.

I predict that no tenant club in this stadium before 2016(and i'm optimistic)

Me think you have the trollistic attitude. Stadium maybe be before 2016. :nuts:
They no think should tenant club.:banana:
Can 2 stadiums have? :lol:

hurted by truth?

New Wembley
Twickenham
Emirates
Olympic Stadium
NEW Tottenham
Stamford Bridge
West Ham
QPR
Fulham
Millwall

i missed a stadium?:nuts:
sportcapital of the world:banana:

New Wembley
Twickenham
Emirates
Olympic Stadium
NEW Tottenham
Stamford Bridge
West Ham
QPR
Fulham
Millwall

i missed a stadium?:nuts:
sportcapital of the world:banana:

You missed loads!

Football:

Charlton _ The Valley
Crystal Palace - Selhurst Park
Brentford - Griffin Park
Leyton Orient - Brisbane Road (Matchroom stadium)
Dagenham & Redbridge - Victoria Road
Barnet - Underhill

+ loads more non league clubs.

Cricket:

Lords
Oval

Rugby:

Twickenham Stoop

Tennis:

Wimbledon centre court
+ No.1 Court
No.2 and No.3 are decent too

Indoor arenas:

O2 Arena
Wembley Arena

Horse Racing:

Epsom Downs
Kempton Park
Sandown Park

Athletics:

Crystal Palace

In addition to all of that, there are the other permanent Olympic Park venues, of course - Velodrome, Aquatics Centre, Handball Arena.

Loving this mega mea culpa from former sports minister Richard Caborn regarding how they've totally effed up this entire project:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/feb/02/caborn-oda-football-olympic-stadium

It was all sorted to an extent until Spurs put a spanner into the works. But this stadium hasn't even hosted the Olympics yet, i want to see that first.

Richard Caborn, a former sports minister, said not planning for a “dual use” future, on the Stade de France model, was a mistake.

The sound of truth :|

It was all sorted to an extent until Spurs put a spanner into the works. But this stadium hasn't even hosted the Olympics yet, i want to see that first.

Nevermind that West Ham were going to accept an illegal loan and the original bidding process was based on a lie. As long as it was "all sorted" that's all that matters obviously.

What the OPLC are doing now is what should have taken place a year ago. Instead we had one club being lied to about their chances and public monies being offered to one bidder over another in breach of EU law.

And what we would have been left with would have been a £500m public asset being sold to West Ham's owners for a pittance! No wonder they changed their tune about football and athletics coexisting so quickly once they realised what was on offer!

As for the question as to whether football should have been there at the start, well it really depends doesn't it? There is no "truth" here. At "the start" it was generally accepted that a 25k athletics stadium could be subsidised and made to work as a community and elite sports asset for the country - just as the other facilities in the Olympic Park are (nobody questions a velodrome being a velodrome). The only thing that's changed is the politics. There's no reason why the original plan couldn't have worked, but nobody now wants to try it. So we're getting square pegs into round holes.

The OPLC could do a good job this time around, let's wait and see.

Nevermind that West Ham were going to accept an illegal loan and the original bidding process was based on a lie. As long as it was "all sorted" that's all that matters obviously.

What the OPLC are doing now is what should have taken place a year ago. Instead we had one club being lied to about their chances and public monies being offered to one bidder over another in breach of EU law.

And what we would have been left with would have been a £500m public asset being sold to West Ham's owners for a pittance! No wonder they changed their tune about football and athletics coexisting so quickly once they realised what was on offer!

As for the question as to whether football should have been there at the start, well it really depends doesn't it? There is no "truth" here. At "the start" it was generally accepted that a 25k athletics stadium could be subsidised and made to work as a community and elite sports asset for the country - just as the other facilities in the Olympic Park are (nobody questions a velodrome being a velodrome). The only thing that's changed is the politics. There's no reason why the original plan couldn't have worked, but nobody now wants to try it. So we're getting square pegs into round holes.

The OPLC could do a good job this time around, let's wait and see.

Absolutely.

Spurs did indeed put a spanner in the works - but that's a very good thing. They exposed the incompetence and dishonesty of the various authorities involved.

If there is anyone who is to blame for the whole stadium legacy issue being a mess, then attention needs to turn to Boris, the OPLC and, to a certain extent, even Newham council.

They're the ones who, separately or collectively, decided that the initial plan to scale the stadium down to 25K was unacceptable. They're the ones who insisted, instead, that a football club should be the stadium's primary user. They're the ones who begged Spurs to enter the bidding. They're the ones who promised Spurs that there needn't be an athletics track at the stadium after the Olympics. They're the ones who then went back on their word. They're the ones who arranged an illegal loan of public money to West Ham.

The reason the scaling down was unacceptable and they need a long term tenant paying rent and rates is not to just maintain the stadium but the whole Olympic Park which is supposed to become a public space. The other alternative is to make it like Kew Gardens and charge for entry. Nearly £14! I remember when it was subsidised and you paid something like 6d in old money for years. All the sports facilities are labour intensive and I still don't think they know how much the tax/rate payer will have to pay.

New Wembley
Twickenham
Emirates
Olympic Stadium
NEW Tottenham
Stamford Bridge
West Ham
QPR
Fulham
Millwall

i missed a stadium?:nuts:
sportcapital of the world:banana:

Its quality that counts, not quantity.
Just take a look a some of the stadiums recently completed
in the Ukraine and Poland for quality.

In the UK there is only the Stratford velodrome which represents
quality design for sporting venues. Not much for a metropolis of
over 10 million people.

In the UK there is only the Stratford velodrome which represents
quality design for sporting venues. Not much for a metropolis of
over 10 million people.

Wow. What an odd thing to say.

:lol: i agree for a once with you robH

london has Wembley,emirates,O2...
In Uk you have cardiff,aviva, etc...

Wow. What an odd thing to say.

Your choice of the word "wow" is most appropriate here because that is exactly what I had in mind
- sporting venues in London with wow factor.
Apart from the velodrome there is nothing to make you go "wow!"

Unless its "wow what a dosshole", particularly places such as Upton Park and Loftus Road.
Or ''wow what a soul-less place" when referring to Wembley
or "wow so dull" when commenting on venues such as Twickenham, Lords and Wimbledon,
even though they may be steeped in tradition.

Lastly, the Olympic stadium that does not know what it is or what it will be after the games
but will remain a "temporarily permanent" venue for the foreseeable future.
:ohno:

So declaring London "Stadium or venue capital of the world" is a bit far fetched putting it mildly.

Your choice of the word "wow" is most appropriate here because that is exactly what I had in mind
- sporting venues in London with wow factor.
Apart from the velodrome there is nothing to make you go "wow!"

Unless its "wow what a dosshole", particularly places such as Upton Park and Loftus Road.
Or ''wow what a soul-less place" when referring to Wembley
or "wow so dull" when commenting on venues such as Twickenham, Lords and Wimbledon,
even though they may be steeped in tradition.

Lastly, the Olympic stadium that does not know what it is or what it will be after the games
but will remain a "temporarily permanent" venue for the foreseeable future.
:ohno:

So declaring London "Stadium or venue capital of the world" is a bit far fetched putting it mildly.

Based on your limited criteria, how many stadiums in the world DO have wow factor?

Very, very few.

The Bird's Nest, I suppose. Maybe Allianz Arena. Olympic Stadium, Berlin.

Don't try to tell me that all the modestly sized, copycat bowls that are being built around Europe have wow factor. They don't. They merely have a few cosmetic touches that are, frankly, underwhelming.

True sports fans appreciate what venues like Wimbledon and Lords mean - Twickenham and Wembley too, for that matter. Maybe these venues aren't architecturally trail blazing but, their history and / or what they mean in terms of the sports they host gives them an aura that transcends and far surpasses mere architectural dazzle.

As to your disdain for traditional football stadia, you don't appear to be a proper football fan. Because anyone who really loves the game, loves the character and sense of history that you get from these older stadia. They are qualities that are sorely missing in pretty much every new stadium that has been built over the past twenty years.

surely allianz please :D
The lille new stadium too

Your choice of the word "wow" is most appropriate here because that is exactly what I had in mind
- sporting venues in London with wow factor.
Apart from the velodrome there is nothing to make you go "wow!"

Unless its "wow what a dosshole", particularly places such as Upton Park and Loftus Road.
Or ''wow what a soul-less place" when referring to Wembley
or "wow so dull" when commenting on venues such as Twickenham, Lords and Wimbledon,
even though they may be steeped in tradition.

Lastly, the Olympic stadium that does not know what it is or what it will be after the games
but will remain a "temporarily permanent" venue for the foreseeable future.
:ohno:

So declaring London "Stadium or venue capital of the world" is a bit far fetched putting it mildly.

You're not a football fan at all are you oxo.

You don't understand the sentiment of traditional football stadiums.

Have you ever been to a cup final at Wembley? Hardly what I would call a soul-less place.

Upton Park and Loftus Road, doss holes. Do us all a favour...

surely allianz please :D
The lille new stadium too

Nice try!

But while the new Lille stadium will be a very good French club stadium, it won't have wow factor. It's just a variation on a common European theme. And it's not big enough to have a wow factor merely by virtue of its size.

It'll has the wow factor.
Except wembley,emirates O2 in london England haven't a lot of wow stadiums France will have within 4 years.
Lille,lyon,marseille,Nice,stade de france , perhaps the future national rugby stadium for stadiums
And a lot of new arenas are coming for the 2017 handball championchip ;)

For the case of Lille i explain the wow factor just by those pics:

http://info-stades.fr/images/euro2016/grand-stade-lille/FOOTBALL.jpg

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/8093/newrender2.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/404/newrender2.jpg/)

:cheers:

Obviously that's a rather nifty feature, but the stadium bowl and exterior are pretty standard.

But all stadiums in europe have a standard bowl no? :dunno:

No.

then show me the recent stadiums in europe which don't have the same bowl :|

You have the most of times:
-a single tiers designed (worclaw)
-two (juve)
-or three( Lille,lyon,allianz,emirates etc...)

then show me the recent stadiums in europe which don't have the same bowl :|

You have the most of times:
-a single tiers designed (worclaw)
-two (juve)
-or three( Lille,lyon,allianz,emirates etc...)

That's the point.

All the modern stadiums look more or less the same. None of them have any real character or individuality.

It'll has the wow factor.
Except wembley,emirates O2 in london England haven't a lot of wow stadiums France will have within 4 years.
Lille,lyon,marseille,Nice,stade de france , perhaps the future national rugby stadium for stadiums
And a lot of new arenas are coming for the 2017 handball championchip ;)

For the case of Lille i explain the wow factor just by those pics

No doubt that the new Lille stadium will have a wow factor at a local level, within France.

But on a global scale, there's nothing that is truly remarkable or jaw dropping about it.

Remember that we are discussing wow factor according to oxo's rather bizarre, exacting and ill conceived criteria.

In which case, we're talking about a mere handful of stadia in the entire world. And Lille, sorry to say, is not one of them.

Based on your limited criteria, how many stadiums in the world DO have wow factor?

Very, very few.

The Bird's Nest, I suppose. Maybe Allianz Arena. Olympic Stadium, Berlin.

Don't try to tell me that all the modestly sized, copycat bowls that are being built around Europe have wow factor. They don't. They merely have a few cosmetic touches that are, frankly, underwhelming.

True sports fans appreciate what venues like Wimbledon and Lords mean - Twickenham and Wembley too, for that matter. Maybe these venues aren't architecturally trail blazing but, their history and / or what they mean in terms of the sports they host gives them an aura that transcends and far surpasses mere architectural dazzle.

As to your disdain for traditional football stadia, you don't appear to be a proper football fan. Because anyone who really loves the game, loves the character and sense of history that you get from these older stadia. They are qualities that are sorely missing in pretty much every new stadium that has been built over the past twenty years.

With some venues its difficult to measure ''historical value'' as you put it.
For example the newly built national stadium in Warsaw rests on hundreds of tons of rubble transported to the stadium site after the Warsaw uprisng. The rubble included hundreds of corpses.
Do the unknown uprising victims and rubble on which the Warsaw stadium sits give this venue an aura that transcends and far surpasses its architectural dazzle​?

Besides, if the criteria for mantle of ''STADIUM CAPITAL OF THE WORLD'' is history and tradition, then Athens would be a leading contender for the title with its rich ancient history of sport. Its modern Olympic stadium also has much more ''architectural dazzle'' than any stadium in London, Olympic or otherwise.

Lastly, how does your notion of history and tradition fit with rebuilt stadiums? When Spurs move to the new stadium what will happen to the history and tradition? Or can history and tradition be physically moved from one venue to another? Wembley stadium would seem to disprove that – a primarily corporate venue that seems to have left its soul behind with the twin towers.

s6ZT79FNfWQ

@jimB-> i disagree 100%

According to you Amsterdam arena,velstins arena aren't wow stadiums are average quality? :|
But the premier league has no equivalent of retractable stadiums which are quite spectacular.

Lille is one of them because retractable.

My opinion is Lille is AAA stadium. Not the bigger but beautiful enough to be considered superior to a lot of ones in Europe.

Please tell your list of wow stadiums in Europe.

During this interview, David Gold says how close the front row of seats would need to be if West Ham moved to the Olympic Stadium:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/latekickoff/

:lol: i agree for a once with you robH

london has Wembley,emirates,O2...
In Uk you have cardiff,aviva, etc...
You're lucky no Irish people saw you put their national stadium in the UK...

then show me the recent stadiums in europe which don't have the same bowl :|

You have the most of times:
-a single tiers designed (worclaw)
-two (juve)
-or three( Lille,lyon,allianz,emirates etc...)
Now that's just stupid. Wroclaw is NOT a regular single-tier stadium. Proof? Find one other stadium in Europe that is as big in terms of capacity and has only one tier. They have created a huge cauldron there and it's far more unique than a stadium I won't name because that would destroy the thread with you only talking about how wonderful it is.



I agree with oxo that the Olympic Stadium is pretty much a failure in terms of the so much discussed legacy. I know some of its fans are pretty sensitive about the issue, but London bought itself a 500mln venue that is absolutely inattractive and has barely any future use. I mean, it surely has some use in mind, but only when investing another 9-figure amount of money to redevelop it.

And I can clearly remember that when the first concept renders were shown (2007) it was described as being less impressive than the Bird's Nest, but instead sustainability, ecology and price were set as a priority. Then the price grew by 77%(!), no future tenant is known to date and as far as ecology is concerned the Dow Chemical sponsorship overshadowed any possible features.

I agree with oxo that the Olympic Stadium is pretty much a failure in terms of the so much discussed legacy. I know some of its fans are pretty sensitive about the issue, but London bought itself a 500mln venue that is absolutely inattractive and has barely any future use. I mean, it surely has some use in mind, but only when investing another 9-figure amount of money to redevelop it.

And I can clearly remember that when the first concept renders were shown (2007) it was described as being less impressive than the Bird's Nest, but instead sustainability, ecology and price were set as a priority. Then the price grew by 77%(!), no future tenant is known to date and as far as ecology is concerned the Dow Chemical sponsorship overshadowed any possible features.

The bidding process(supprize supprize one of the first important things Borris has been involved in) has definately been shambolic but really we can't say whether the legacey will be a failiure or not simpley because we don't know what form it will take.

Price wise I'm still very fuzzy over what exactly is included in both figures, just the construction itself or the ground treatment, surrounding access and bridges aswell? this is ultimately the kind of thing its far harder to hide in the UK than in many other nations.

Its quality that counts, not quantity.
Just take a look a some of the stadiums recently completed
in the Ukraine and Poland for quality.

In the UK there is only the Stratford velodrome which represents
quality design for sporting venues. Not much for a metropolis of
over 10 million people.

amen bro. well said.

London lacks quality. The New Olympic Stadium is exact carbon copy of "delhi commonwealth stadium" google it.

It looks to me what london does is it puts seats around any ground it finds in London metro area. Even if they can put 10,000 seats in public ground where football is played, you got a cheap quality stadium. but you increased the quantity.

London lacks quality. The New Olympic Stadium is exact carbon copy of "delhi commonwealth stadium" google it.

It has a similarity on the outside but to say it's an exact carbon copy is the kind of rubbish I've come to expect from you on this forum.

It looks to me what london does is it puts seats around any ground it finds in London metro area. Even if they can put 10,000 seats in public ground where football is played, you got a cheap quality stadium. but you increased the quantity.

Good. Except your understanding of stadium architecture in the UK is nil, as proved by your posts in the Wembley thread, so what it "looks like to you" is not really of any relevence.

It has a similarity on the outside but to say it's an exact carbon copy is the kind of rubbish I've come to expect from you on this forum.

errrr. I dunno. Its too much copy to not call it a carbon copy.


http://i39.tinypic.com/sbrcxt.jpghttp://i44.tinypic.com/1y00ea.png

http://i43.tinypic.com/sv74th.jpghttp://i40.tinypic.com/2yy4j90.jpg

Nope, can't see any differences at all, you're right. :nuts:

Nope, can't see any differences at all, you're right. :nuts:

as usual. you lost an argument. time to act childish & silly since London stadium is no Beijing's Birds nest.

I know London's stadium's no Bird's Nest. I also know it's not a Carbon Copy of the Indian Stadium.

as usual. you lost an argument. time to act childish & silly since London stadium is no Beijing's Birds nest.

Who is really the one being childish? The stadium is definitely not a carbon copy. The interior is VERY different and the exterior too. Triangular shapes are what they share - and that's not enough to call it a copy.

i admit that delhi's satdium exterior is superior to stratford one.

The bowl inside is better in stratford.

But my opinion is that those two are just awful stadiums

I like Stratford. It has personality, it's not another one of those boring round stadiums. Obviously it isn't up there with the Bird's nest (what is?) but I am starting to really like it. It feels kind of Brittish I must say. Also, it's a bit early to judge the exterior since the construction site might spoil the "feel".

With some venues its difficult to measure ''historical value'' as you put it.
For example the newly built national stadium in Warsaw rests on hundreds of tons of rubble transported to the stadium site after the Warsaw uprisng. The rubble included hundreds of corpses.
Do the unknown uprising victims and rubble on which the Warsaw stadium sits give this venue an aura that transcends and far surpasses its architectural dazzle​?

No.

That might give the stadium a certain poignancy to anyone who knows the facts. But there is nothing about the stadium which has a special resonance or significance to followers of football or any other sport.

Wimbledon centre court, by contrast, is a mecca for tennis fans. Likewise Lords cricket ground. Likewise Wembley, even though the old stadium is no more. The name alone has an aura and significance that is unique, palpable and famous the world over.

Besides, if the criteria for mantle of ''STADIUM CAPITAL OF THE WORLD'' is history and tradition, then Athens would be a leading contender for the title with its rich ancient history of sport. Its modern Olympic stadium also has much more ''architectural dazzle'' than any stadium in London, Olympic or otherwise.

This thread and discussion is not about stadium capital of the world. There is such a thread on the main Stadiums and Sports Arenas page.

But since you raise the point, there are many criteria which must be considered in any such assessment: history; sporting significance; number of stadia; capacity of stadia; and global renown. Architectural merit is the least of these considerations, IMO.

Athens had a very ordinary Olympic stadium which was given an extraordinary (and extraordinarily beautiful) roof. Other than that (and the lovely, little 1896 stadium), what else does Athens have to offer by way of famous or impressive stadia? Nothing, that I can think of, I confess.

So, no, Athens would not be a leading contender.

Lastly, how does your notion of history and tradition fit with rebuilt stadiums? When Spurs move to the new stadium what will happen to the history and tradition? Or can history and tradition be physically moved from one venue to another? Wembley stadium would seem to disprove that – a primarily corporate venue that seems to have left its soul behind with the twin towers.

I don't know how often you went to the old Wembley. I went plenty of times. People get nostalgic about it but, frankly, it was a shit hole. There were poor views from the majority of seats and utterly inadequate facilities - rivers of piss in the loos......when you could finally get in. So let's not romanticize it.

Even the fabled Twin Towers were mere hollow, concrete structures - the definition of middle-of-the-road, generic architecture masquerading as ancient grandeur........the stadium equivalent of mock tudor.

What made the old Wembley special was what it meant to world football. It was the home stadium of the country that gave football to the world. It was the home of the FA Cup - the most famous domestic cup competition in world football. It was the sum of all the great games and high drama that had been played out within its confines.

That stadium is no more. But the name lives on in the new stadium. And it is the name which has significance and which conjures dreams of glory. Ask every player in the world which stadiums they'd love to play in before they retire, and Wembley will be on pretty much every list.

@jimB-> i disagree 100%

According to you Amsterdam arena,velstins arena aren't wow stadiums are average quality? :|
But the premier league has no equivalent of retractable stadiums which are quite spectacular.

Lille is one of them because retractable.

My opinion is Lille is AAA stadium. Not the bigger but beautiful enough to be considered superior to a lot of ones in Europe.

Please tell your list of wow stadiums in Europe.

You're still not getting the point.

I'm not the one who is arbitrarily deciding what stadiums do or don't have wow factor. I'm merely following oxo's comments to their logical conclusion.

And according to his criteria, there can only be about three or four stadiums with wow factor in the entire world.

No point you mentioning Premier League stadia because oxo has already declared that none of them have the wow factor. He's also declared that none of Wembley, Lords, the Olympic stadium, Twickenham or Wimbledon have the wow factor.

So I'm afraid that it only follows that none of Amsterdam Arena, Veltins Arena or the new Lille Arena make the cut either.

amen bro. well said.

London lacks quality. The New Olympic Stadium is exact carbon copy of "delhi commonwealth stadium" google it.

It looks to me what london does is it puts seats around any ground it finds in London metro area. Even if they can put 10,000 seats in public ground where football is played, you got a cheap quality stadium. but you increased the quantity.

So.....you're saying that the Delhi stadium lacks quality. Fair enough.

London's stadium only looks like it does because it was designed to be two thirds temporary. It was only after the politicians interfered that it was decided to make the upper tier permanent.

What's Delhi's excuse?

the lovely, little 1896 stadium

Athens is obviously not the stadium capital of the world, but having the new 34,000 Karaiskaki and a dozen basketball arenas and all Olympic infrastructure is not "nothing". As far as the little 1896 Olympic....
Panathenaic Stadium had a capacity of 80,000 in 1896 games and 100.000 were inside during the opening ceremony, which if you think is more than this one. Considering it was basically built in 329 BC, draw you own conclusions.

And I can clearly remember that when the first concept renders were shown (2007) it was described as being less impressive than the Bird's Nest, but instead sustainability, ecology and price were set as a priority. Then the price grew by 77%(!), no future tenant is known to date and as far as ecology is concerned the Dow Chemical sponsorship overshadowed any possible features.

Political interference. It was supposed to be scaled down to 25K. But the authorities decided, after construction had begun, to make the entire structure permanent.

Can't blame the designers for that. They met the brief they were given.

As to Dow, they merely happen to own the site of the old Union Carbide plant. They took it over after the Indian government had already settled with Union Carbide.

Bhopal was a terrible tragedy. The people responsible were never properly punished and the people who suffered were never properly compensated.

But Dow were not responsible. Anyone who wishes to point fingers should point them either at Union Carbide executives at the time of the tragedy or the Indian government officials who negotiated the woefully inadequate settlement.

Athens is obviously not the stadium capital of the world, but having the new 34,000 Karaiskaki and a dozen basketball arenas and all Olympic infrastructure is not "nothing". As far as the little 1896 Olympic....
Panathenaic Stadium had a capacity of 80,000 in 1896 games and 100.000 were inside during the opening ceremony, which if you think is more than this one. Considering it was basically built in 329 BC, draw you own conclusions.

I don't doubt that it once had a big capacity.

In much the same way, White Hart Lane stadium used to have a capacity of 75,000. Now, despite being a bigger structure overall, the current White Hart Lane only has a capacity of 36,000. Back in the day, they used to pack crowds into stadiums in a manner which would never be allowed today.

I've been to Athens. I've stood in that stadium. And, by modern Olympic standards, it is small. Lovely. But small. It has a capacity these days of 45,000.

As to the rest, yes, of course there are other stadiums and arenas in Athens. But, in the context of this discussion, they're not especially globally famous or significant to their sport, as far as I know.

awesome!

dehli's stadium's bowl is located approximatly 250 kilometres from the pitch.
there's a difference for ya.

dehli's stadium's bowl is located approximatly 250 kilometres from the pitch.
there's a difference for ya.

It also looks very bland on the inside, almost starting to look run down even. No corporate boxes that I can see either.

I would say the stadium looks better on the outside than it does on the inside.

Whats the legacy for this place? I see they have already put up a market stall in the centre of the pitch!

Whats the legacy for this place?

maybe cricket?

condos with a large garden for children :D

Designated area for dogging? :colgate:

Designated area for dogging? :colgate:

Some of them might be in with a chance of smashing Usain Bolt's 100m time. :D

Alot of off topic posts here. Talking about all these other stadiums in the London Olympics stadium thread. Lille stadium?? There is a separate thread for that. I don't want this thread to be locked!! (sorry Axel, not trying to pick on you). I come here to see progress and some good information but all I see is the same crap :gaah:

To all those trolls if you don't like the stadium or London or the UK or the stadiums in the UK that's fine. But dont take this thread off topic, I've read certain posts over and over again. Same people saying the same things, it's you're opinion that's fine but stop posting the same thing!! Be constructive with your posts, don't need to read the same negative posts, once is enough, I get it the first time. Also if you really hate something so much you don't have to keep coming back to look at it. It obviously has such an effect on you that you can't help yourselves!


Rant over :sleepy:

My apologies. Back to the thread.

Well said, I come on hear to see the progress of the stadium not to read peoples dislike for the UK and it's stadia.

Maybe we should open up a thread of 'How crap are all the UK Stadia' where everyone can fuck off to so we can get back to topic.

is this one still u/c?

Structurally it's finished, but they still have a load of rigging and a wrap to install, so the stadium is not complete yet.

^^ when are they going to do that? I mean they've got time still but the clock's ticking

Hmm well im not a betting man, but i reckon some time between now and when the olympics start.

^^ when are they going to do that? I mean they've got time still but the clock's ticking

They are doing all that now as was scheduled. There wouldn't be much point doing all that a year in advance, mostly for the opening ceremony. The Wrap is temporary so will go in near the end.

I thought I read somewhere last year that the wrap was scheduled for installation in March.

With respect to the wrigging / spiders web, well that will need to be completed in plenty of time for extensive rehersals.

So I would expect everything being ready by the end of March. I can also see them switching off the webcam around this time too.

http://i40.tinypic.com/21oyau8.png

Lighting tests for ceremonies:

http://www.london2012.com/videos/2012/olympic-closing-ceremony-preview.php

Is there an official pictures from how the stadium will look after the olympics?

amazing interior shots jerseyboi, they've given me a whole new appreciation for the stadium

amazing interior shots jerseyboi, they've given me a whole new appreciation for the stadium

The bottom right picture shows the toilet blocks (mostly female) between each staiway. The doors are disabled toilets at the end of most blocks. Not sure if the blocks will remain after the reconfiguration.

The source for this is unknown, but it's been stated that the crowd for the Opening Ceremony may be around 60,000 because of the need to free up space for TV cameras and performers.

del

My Photos I took on Saturday 25/02/12, sorry they're blurry as I took them on the phone while walking:

http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/q608/Viewkool/IMG_8590.jpg

http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/q608/Viewkool/IMG_1028.jpg

If true, this is basically the whole lower tier!

Seems excessive, reading between the lines, is this because there are no 'back stage areas' for performers to wait in?

Apparently not. I don't think the performers will end up having to occupy a portion of the Olympic Stadium's stands. May have to wait outside the stadium?

Potential ...

del

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/jmagnay1/100023908/london-2012-olympics-diary-danny-boyle-promises-a-cinematic-treat-for-couch-spectators/

The London 2012 Olympic Games will be an intimate experience for the four billion television viewers, say Olympic insiders.

Creative director Danny Boyle is using his vast film background to present the Games in a different tele-visual fashion so that it won't just be a faithful recording of what goes on inside the stadium, but rather a cinematic storytelling that those on the couch can enjoy in its own right.

About 20,000 seats will be cordoned off during the ceremony for performers and athletes.

I actually like the idea of having the athletes in the Audience from midway through the ceremony rather then have them parade in at the end. A bit similar to Vancouvers opening ceremony.

Could anyone please explain why the 20,000 seats will be cordoned off for spectators or athletes during the opening ceremony?

^^ Read before you write and think! He's saying that approximately 20,000 seats will be made available for athletes and performers (I assume it's to allow for quick entry into the track and field for performers, perhaps done several times during the ceremony).

As such seating for spectators will be the minimum 60,000.

^^

The question is after the olympic, what will happen to the stadium?:) Hope it will

not be a big elephant.:nuts:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/jmagnay1/100023908/london-2012-olympics-diary-danny-boyle-promises-a-cinematic-treat-for-couch-spectators/

The London 2012 Olympic Games will be an intimate experience for the four billion television viewers, say Olympic insiders.

Creative director Danny Boyle is using his vast film background to present the Games in a different tele-visual fashion so that it won't just be a faithful recording of what goes on inside the stadium, but rather a cinematic storytelling that those on the couch can enjoy in its own right.

About 20,000 seats will be cordoned off during the ceremony for performers and athletes.

Makes me feel all the more privaledged to have tickets for this :o)

Shouldn't have said "spectators and athletes" I actually meant "performers and athletes".

^^

The question is after the olympic, what will happen to the stadium?:) Hope it will

not be a big elephant.:nuts:

It won't. After the World Athletics Championships in 2017 it will be downsized, or kept at the supposed Championships capacity of 60,000.

As for Jim, I think we've sufficiently answered your question. Athletes will be seated much like spectators it seems and furthermore, that answers Rio once and for all. We all know Rio dedicated seating for Athletes and Officials during the 2007 Pan American Games and will do so again for the 2016 Olympics. There probably won't be seating dedicated for performers (some of them) however, as it appears to be the case for London.

^^But if any Summer Olympic host city has a main stadium in the 60K-to-79K seat range, with the "dedicated seating for athletes" be a problem for those kind of stadiums since there are over 10,000 athletes participating in the Summer Olympics? Also, does this mean that there will be a literally packed stadium with attendance for the ceremony going above its 80K capacity? We'll wait and see on July 27.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/jmagnay1/100023908/london-2012-olympics-diary-danny-boyle-promises-a-cinematic-treat-for-couch-spectators/


About 20,000 seats will be cordoned off during the ceremony for performers and athletes.

I really hope this is the case, then not only will i be performing in the opening ceremony, I'll get to watch it all too!

What a disappointing thread. I was hoping to see the latest photos of how the London Olympic venues were progressing, not a lot of small talk. Unfortunately I'm away from London at the moment so can't check it out for myself.

What a disappointing thread. I was hoping to see the latest photos of how the London Olympic venues were progressing, not a lot of small talk. Unfortunately I'm away from London at the moment so can't check it out for myself.

Given that this thread is for the stadium, well, you were always going to find very little in here regarding the progress of the other venues. You're better off checking this thread. ;)

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1038521

What a disappointing thread. I was hoping to see the latest photos of how the London Olympic venues were progressing, not a lot of small talk. Unfortunately I'm away from London at the moment so can't check it out for myself.

Construction finished a number of months ago. Very little has changed in the intervening period so it's only natural that photos are thin on the ground.

Once the wrap starts to go up, I dare say that there'll be a sudden flurry of activity by photographers. Likewise, when LOCOG stages London Prepares events at the stadium in the coming months.

Just got an email about the paralympic torch relay, in the video it shows a bunch of square huts surrounding the stadium. What happened to the multicoloured round pods in the original artists impression? Have they ditched them for some cheap sheds from the Local DIY centre?

Just got an email about the paralympic torch relay, in the video it shows a bunch of square huts surrounding the stadium. What happened to the multicoloured round pods in the original artists impression? Have they ditched them for some cheap sheds from the Local DIY centre?

Yep:

For those of us who didn't want to face it. The truth is now out there:ohno:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-e6g8Qqpj2T0/TywPTcTcz_I/AAAAAAAABuM/YgmuqcALlW0/s640/podium1.JPG

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ib8TTYzEvZY/TywPaWvHPTI/AAAAAAAABuU/SzFp9672AoQ/s640/podium5.JPG

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-i_PQ_cxuJqM/TywPgQjOFsI/AAAAAAAABuc/TR44_Bw3i5s/s640/podium6.JPG

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-M4qv53qcaDI/TywPjsDfwUI/AAAAAAAABuk/UgdI2VwW_1A/s640/podium7.JPG

:doh:

Thanks for that, missed the post first time round.
God that is so depressing, why not just save more money and have a bunch of burger vans parked outside.
I'm sure I'd seen what I thought was a couple of white pods outside the stadium in past photos. Optimistically thought these were trial runs.
I see more and more semi-permanent white tents (for security/ticket checks?) going up everywhere on the Olympic site on a daily basis. With these hideous chalets right alongside the stadium the whole place is going to look a shambles come the games.

I see more and more semi-permanent white tents (for security/ticket checks?) going up everywhere on the Olympic site on a daily basis. With these hideous chalets right alongside the stadium the whole place is going to look a shambles come the games.

All Games have had these. This is nothing new.

The concession stands around the stadium have started construction and their frames are now evident on the stadium island.

London 2012 Olympic Stadium
http://i40.tinypic.com/10rv4zk.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/neepog.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/11treyp.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/33wmfeq.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/35i1892.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/o7r3vt.jpg
POPULOUS ARCHITECTS

http://i40.tinypic.com/2wcmumd.jpg

Just a query about those delightful concession stands: anyone know what those ramps up the side, and extended out at the rear, are for? The label is chopped off the artists impressions posted on here.
Jerseyboi, those images of the stadium are rather good. I'm warming to the raw, utilitarian look and the subtle use of colour in the underside areas. I think the multicoloured inside of the wrap will make it quite spectacular.

Just a query about those delightful concession stands: anyone know what those ramps up the side, and extended out at the rear, are for?

They contain the power cables, water and sewage pipes, all the utilities, and double up as ramps to the back and viewing area.

Just a query about those delightful concession stands: anyone know what those ramps up the side, and extended out at the rear, are for? The label is chopped off the artists impressions posted on here.
Jerseyboi, those images of the stadium are rather good. I'm warming to the raw, utilitarian look and the subtle use of colour in the underside areas. I think the multicoloured inside of the wrap will make it quite spectacular.

It's so people can gain access to the seating/standing areas at the rear of the kiosks. Wooden decking for those seating/viewing areas?

Just a query about those delightful concession stands: anyone know what those ramps up the side, and extended out at the rear, are for? The label is chopped off the artists impressions posted on here.


On the larger pods now kiosks I believe have toilets as well to the rear.

What a disappointing thread. I was hoping to see the latest photos of how the London Olympic venues were progressing, not a lot of small talk. Unfortunately I'm away from London at the moment so can't check it out for myself.

Check here: http://insidelondon2012.blogspot.com/

And Here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andywilkes/

http://i40.tinypic.com/2wcmumd.jpg

whats the accreditation for this pic? do you know, i'd like to post it..

From rabinal on Flickr:

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/3381/6815098672061853586do.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/832/6815098672061853586do.jpg/)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rabinal/6815098672/
kool

http://www.flickr.com/photos/75648527@N06/6852216110/

Interesting choice of Render used by Sky Sports!

Hey everyone. I may have missed something.

So West Ham will no longer be given the stadium after the Olympics?

What will the stadium's capacity be after the Games?

i wish it'll be reduced to at least 30k seats instead 25k :D