They're not straight like that though, are they?

They're not straight like that though, are they?

no. but if they were. it would have been a good legacy to reuse them.
any issues with wind through the gap can be resolved with a continous outer facade. the main wind issue is the wind from the top of the stadium, not necessarily from the concourse.

Great idea but it is too late now

Found this the other day, haven't seen this render of the stadium before.. gives it a slightly different perspective! we can only hope the final stadium maintains this type of elegance!



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3531/3835964167_53eed7cec6_o.jpg

-(E-on Software)

Joe

No image showing up for me Joe.

http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/Pictures/Architecture/1240838100.jpg
if it doesn't show up

deleted

try this

http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/index.php?page=Day&Index=3424

and links from this page

http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/?page=6

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3531/3835964167_53eed7cec6_o.jpg

i see both images.

the roof will probably just be white fabric. dont think it will be that transparent. perhaps translucent.

deleted

I've found the original artist for that image, and whilst I hadn't seen that image before, I've seen some of his others of the stadium:

http://www.ca-d.co.uk/visualisation.php

http://www.ca-d.co.uk/images/Banner_Massing_002.jpghttp://www.ca-d.co.uk/images/Banner_Massing_007.jpghttp://www.ca-d.co.uk/images/Banner_Massing_003.jpghttp://www.ca-d.co.uk/images/Banner_Massing_007.jpg

http://www.ca-d.co.uk/images/Banner_Photomontage_002.jpghttp://www.ca-d.co.uk/images/Banner_Photomontage_003.jpg

http://www.ca-d.co.uk/images/Banner_CGI_001.jpghttp://www.ca-d.co.uk/images/Banner_CGI_005.jpghttp://www.ca-d.co.uk/images/Banner_CGI_003.jpg

IMHO this new olympic stadium looks like slightly the Maracana Stadium...Both have round shape...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3531/3835964167_53eed7cec6_o.jpg

kool

^^ Looking darn similar to my sketchup renders I did ages ago.

That's cos it's the same stadium :)

I think its better if we get back to the progress of the construction of this stadium, cause there haven't been any updates for quite a while.

Patience, my friend. Updates will come when they come.

That said, what's the next significant change we'll see to the stadium - will it be the lighting structures being fitted?

Patience, my friend. Updates will come when they come.

That said, what's the next significant change we'll see to the stadium - will it be the lighting structures being fitted?

Am I right in thinking that the roof structure will involve a compression ring? If so, surely that will be the next major focus for those working on the stadium?

I wouldn't expect work to start on the lighting structures until the roof is completed. The lighting structures, after all, are not integral to the structure of the stadium.

We might even see the installation of seats before we see the erection of the lighting structures.

Oh yeh, I'm being dumb; of course the roof has to go up first! :hammer:

It was getting on a bit last night when I posted that. :lol:

your sister stadium opened recently

http://www.bayer04.de/bilder/09_10/07_t580/06-IMG_6700.jpg

your sister stadium opened recently

http://www.bayer04.de/bilder/09_10/07_t580/06-IMG_6700.jpg

which one is this ?

your sister stadium opened recently

http://www.bayer04.de/bilder/09_10/07_t580/06-IMG_6700.jpg

Hahaha funny mo. just wait till there indian cousin is completed for the Commonwealth Games :) :bash::banana:

First Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, now this, hmm not much innovation in stadium design letely

I like it.

- A

hmm not much innovation in stadium design letely

Yeah, I mean a stadium that is two thirds temporary, hardly innovative...gees.

Yeah, I mean a stadium that is two thirds temporary, hardly innovative...gees.

Thats a function not a from, plus, I read that they might not remove the tiers and keep them permanently. Is this true?

deleted

^^Age isn't important. Plus, making it permanent is a very bad and illogical move at this point, because then you cancel the whole philosophy behind its design, construction and cost....If you do that, then why it was designed and advertised like that in the first place? If this was to have been decided beforehand, then you could have designed a much better permanent venue.....

deleted

However my example of the Berlin stadium still being used for large events (admittedly not frequently) all these years on shows that a premanent stadium should have been designed from day one and have the same features as the Stadt de France so it is multi purpose inorder to have more frequent use and then advoid it being a white elephant.


we have Wembley for that, it can be converted into Athletics mode if needs be. We have 3 stadia already in London with over 60,000 capacity. It would most probably end up as a white elephant if we kept the olympic stadium at the 80,000 cap.

do we know the colour of the seats?

do we know the colour of the seats?

As I have seen on some renders, they will possibly be blue.

The reason it was designed to be made smaller was to avoid the problems of being left with a 'white elephant' so it was advertised as such to win the support.

However my example of the Berlin stadium still being used for large events (admittedly not frequently) all these years on shows that a premanent stadium should have been designed from day one and have the same features as the Stadt de France so it is multi purpose inorder to have more frequent use and then advoid it being a white elephant.

It is clearly to late to get around this now hence why i suggested even though it can be 'shrunk' maybe not to do so and be left with a 2012 legacy for prehaps 100's of years - you never no the Olymipcs could be held in the same stadium more than once (Berlin should definately give it a shot at hosting the Olymipcs again).

The Olympic stadium in Berlin and the Stade de France are the premier stadiums in those cities though. They both host international football and the Stade de France hosts domestic rugby on a fairly regular basis (Stade Francais play their big games against the likes of Toulouse or Heineken Cup games there) and the Olympic stadium has permanent use by Hertha Berlin. In London this isn't the case, Twickenham and Wembley are used for international events, and each club has a domestic stadium. The chances of London getting the World Championships is slim to none in the near future. If Athletics events are held at the stadium, they are likely to only attract a maximum of 20,000 people. Similarly, if a football or (more likely) a rugby club (Saracens, Wasps, London Irish maybe) move into the stadium they will only need a capacity of 20-30,000. Keeping it at full size permanently just doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe for a couple of years to host specific events like an Ashes test or a major competition final (Champions League, Europa League, Challenge Cup, Heineken Cup etc.) but even then I imagine it will be scaled down.

deleted

Found this the other day, haven't seen this render of the stadium before.. gives it a slightly different perspective! we can only hope the final stadium maintains this type of elegance!



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3531/3835964167_53eed7cec6_o.jpg

-(E-on Software)

Joe


you know why it looks elegant ? :) its the same main reason olympiastadion in perlin looks elegant , the colour of the track and surrounding area of the track.

is it decided that it will be black and grey ? please be so , that would rocket this stadium up to the best olympic stadium during the time the games were held , only for its elegant track color.

It also looks like the spectators are a mile from the action. :ohno:

It also looks like the spectators are a mile from the action. :ohno:

In fact completely the opposite, the tight nature of the permanent bowl has meant the spectators are the closest they've ever been to the track in an Olympic stadium.

Wembley was not used because the Olympic Park with the athlete's village, stadium and other venues was decided to be located in the east of the city, to aid long term regeneration of a massively deprived area.

^^ Also there was massive piece of land going to waste in Stratford where it made sense to build the Olympic site. Wembley Stadium is in a built up area without enough space for an Olympic Park.

In fact completely the opposite, the tight nature of the permanent bowl has meant the spectators are the closest they've ever been to the track in an Olympic stadium.

Wembley was not used because the Olympic Park with the athlete's village, stadium and other venues was decided to be located in the east of the city, to aid long term regeneration of a massively deprived area.

According to the above rendering, there is a big space between the running track and the seats behind the goal post. Many other modern athletic stadiums don't have that much space and the seats are almost next to the running track, giving bearable lines of sight even for football matches

It also looks like the spectators are a mile from the action. :ohno:
which stadium have you been looking at?

According to the above rendering, there is a big space between the running track and the seats behind the goal post. Many other modern athletic stadiums don't have that much space and the seats are almost next to the running track, giving bearable lines of sight even for football matches

The render is incorrect. The planning application diagram shows the correct arrangement.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2237/2534215928_cc6fdd6187_b.jpg

That looks better. Hope they have the dark grey running track though.

http://www.ca-d.co.uk/images/Banner_Massing_002.jpg

So this is the after Olympic configuration? Love the raised platforms in the park, that's awesome.

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r48/Athinaios/stadium-close.jpg

Hmm I'm confused...why they are making lights right now? Anybody knows when the roof is scheduled to be completed? It seems to be done the same way like in Cape Town.

From the thread in the London forum:

Had an interesting indepth discussion about the compression ring and how it works, the ring will be built from pre-made segments shipping in, and will be constructed inside the stadium (on top of those wooden pallets that have appeared around the upper tier) and then hoisted in one go upwards before being secured with the cables to the crown. The lighting rigs will then be hoisted upwards by the cranes and placed on top, before the fabric membrane is then rolled out around the stadium. in essence, the compression ring is being held up by the tightness of the crown.

The lighting rigs are the traingular shape and taller than the stadium to reduce glare on TV cameras inside the stadium.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=694556&page=60

At the University of Manchester, a number of researchers have been developing modes of visualising architectural controversies on the web. We recently completed a case study on the London Olympic Stadium which some of you might find interesting.

London 2012 Case Study (http://www.msa.ac.uk/mac/london) (Manchester School of Architecture)

It tracks the debate in the press surrounding the bidding, design, construction, and future of the stadium by analysing press articles, and subsequently tracing connections between actors. Also, provided are the links to most of the articles appearing in the press from 2000 through to July 2009.

The case study website is http://www.msa.ac.uk/mac/london
Our project website is http://www.msa.ac.uk/mac/

http://i33.tinypic.com/308l5l2.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2640/3968119369_ec18cde8da_b.jpg

It looks a bit "small"...

It looks a bit "small"...

80 thousand stadium
that could be the idea to have a compact stadium for a very
friendly/intimate approach! and have a close spectator experience

80 thousand stadium
that could be the idea to have a compact stadium for a very
friendly/intimate approach! and have a close spectator experience

Yes, I was referring precisely about the dimensions. It's very much samller than what anyone who'd have expected for an 80k, but I do like it! :)

Are they going to dig for the the lower stands?

It looks like Maracana only smaller :D

jerseyboi - that first picture is surely a month or more out of date? The upper tier structure was completed quite a while ago.

Or were you posting a before and after comparison of work on the bridge?

Yes, I was referring precisely about the dimensions. It's very much samller than what anyone who'd have expected for an 80k, but I do like it! :)

Are they going to dig for the the lower stands?

The lower stands are below ground level, that's why it looks smaller from the outside. You'll enter the stadium somewhere in the middle when walking in.

jerseyboi - that first picture is surely a month or more out of date? The upper tier structure was completed quite a while ago.

Or were you posting a before and after comparison of work on the bridge?

the image is a current image from London 2012 and I liked it!

the image is a current image from London 2012 and I liked it!

You mean that it is currently on the 2012 official site?

Because it can't be a recent photo unless they've started dismantling some of the concrete terraces on the upper tier!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2614/3933988117_ea28d9f602_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2586/3934772088_631fbeb7b6_b.jpg

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

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2586/3933985283_967b260f73_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3466/3934767862_2715f98761_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/buddyicons/87229884@N00.jpg?1145232084#87229884@N00 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/darrenlewis/)Uploaded on September 19, 2009 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/darrenlewis/sets/72157622286299967/)
by darrenjle15 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/darrenlewis/)

http://i38.tinypic.com/11hqyv9.jpg

It looks like this gonna be the most boring Olympics in recent time.(Personal opinion):goodnight

...
Personal opinion)

It looks like this gonna be the most boring Olympics in recent time.(Personal opinion):goodnight


thinks your in for a shock! us brits know how to party.......
and there is a British saying....

the proof of the pudding is in the eating!:cheers:

I really like the concept of this stadium. There is no point in building an over the top exspensive monument to ego if you cannot sustain it long term post games.

Bravo.

I'm not going to argue with your opinion because you're obviously entitled to it, but I think this stadium will really come into its own when surrounded by parkland and when the waterways around it are properly opened up. At the moment it's a pile of white and grey concrete in the middle of a dust bowl, agreed.

Think of what Wimbledon would look like if, rather than being surrounded by greenery and gardens, it was surrounded by mud and dust and you can see that the whole picture is oftentimes greater than the sum of its individual parts.

I think this will look surprisingly good in context; a context which is missing at the moment.

@ RobH's post. I know I can't wait to see the whole park completed. I'm sure it will look stunning once all the trees/grass/flowers are in place, as the whole park really will prove to be something special for the spectators who attend, plus, I'm sure that visually it will look fantastic on TV.

Has there ever been an Olympic Park with so many venues being so close to each other? I know that in recent games the main stadiums have been surrounded by concrete and tarmac, even in Beijing they seemed to use this area as one huge car park. :ohno:

Gonna be awesome

In fact , the 2012 olympic stadium looks like Maracana Stadium

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37/gutooo/copa%202014/maracana/15mhgmaracana.jpg

http://oglobo.globo.com/fotos/2007/11/30/30_MHG_ESP_maracana.jpg

http://www.football-wallpapers.com/wallpapers3/maracana_3_1024x768.jpg

Lets not go down the Athens-Sydney route. Please :) Especially not in a London stadium thread

Fantastic! I'm looking forward to this!

Any new updates?

Look on the previous page before this silly argument broke out NMAISTER007, there have been loads of updates this week.

Bridges are being built, the roof and lighting supports are being built, the tension ring for the roof is being laid out on scaffolding inside the stadium, and there are photos of models of what the stadium will look like in Games time (black and white seats with a blue track apparently)

Don't forget the webcams either NMAISTER007. Lots of interesting activity going on... (http://www.london2012.com/plans/olympic-park/webcams/index.php) :cheers:

Somebody is erasing my replies, and here come more people flaming me, with comments directed at me. I cannot even participate in the discussion.
Mo Rush is moderator now? Well, this is getting even better. Well, he will erase this comment too since its just a reply, but remember, unless you can make an educated comment, don't make one at all.

One reply was deleted. This is not the place to be posting tons of images of Athens. There are so many other threads where Athens and its great Olympic games and great venues can be discussed e.g. Olympic Venues: Benefit or burden.

In fact , the 2012 olympic stadium looks like Maracana Stadium

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37/gutooo/copa%202014/maracana/15mhgmaracana.jpg

http://oglobo.globo.com/fotos/2007/11/30/30_MHG_ESP_maracana.jpg

http://www.football-wallpapers.com/wallpapers3/maracana_3_1024x768.jpg

no MARACANA IS BETTER... the London stadium is too messy..
but not ugly..

I dont mean to be rude but this stadium is the ugliest by far, I think even poor countries can build something way better. I checked your party in the closing ceremony of china yours was the coldest and I still cant figure out what you were trying to do. The London Eye is good to look at but this is terrible. Did they pay the guy who design this? Its now official its very ugly.

I dont mean to be rude but this stadium is the ugliest by far, I think even poor countries can build something way better. I checked your party in the closing ceremony of china yours was the coldest and I still cant figure out what you were trying to do. The London Eye is good to look at but this is terrible. Did they pay the guy who design this? Its now official its very ugly.

We know that this stadium isn't the most beautiful or impressive. At least, not from the outside.

But at least the designers of London's stadium have got their priorities right. The interior of the stadium bowl will be better than many past Olympic stadiums, including the Bird's Nest.

I shouldn't have to remind you that what really matters to the Olympics is the action on the field. The aesthetics of the stadium come a poor second.

We know that this stadium isn't the most beautiful or impressive. At least, not from the outside.

But at least the designers of London's stadium have got their priorities right. The interior of the stadium bowl will be better than many past Olympic stadiums, including the Bird's Nest.

I shouldn't have to remind you that what really matters to the Olympics is the action on the field. The aesthetics of the stadium come a poor second.

Dont console yourself JimB the exterior aesthetics are as important as the interior, remember at school inherent and consequential value? Just to put into context the birds nest has inherent value because it is innately beautiful meaning it has value in and for itself as opposed to moral value or implications of what athletics should stand for (consequantial value). If indeed the London Olympic stadium has any aesthetic value it should be simply beautiful, which unfortunately is not.

If indeed the London Olympic stadium has any aesthetic value it should be simply beautiful, which unfortunately is not.

Don't you think you should wait until it's finished before giving your opinion on how it looks?!

Dont console yourself JimB the exterior aesthetics are as important as the interior, remember at school inherent and consequential value? Just to put into context the birds nest has inherent value because it is innately beautiful meaning it has value in and for itself as opposed to moral value or implications of what athletics should stand for (consequantial value). If indeed the London Olympic stadium has any aesthetic value it should be simply beautiful, which unfortunately is not.

London has many beautiful stadia Khwezi!:cheers:Hopefully wc 2010 will turn out well...im presuming with such a short time left to go all the grounds have been finished?

Don't you think you should wait until it's finished before giving your opinion on how it looks?!

Well Luke if the renders are anything to go by this stadium is well on course to go down as the most uninspiring stadiums in the history of the Olympics amongst others in the past. Maybe its because of cultural influences Im more concept design inclined and you... well... simplicity inclined, for lack of a better word. For me, besides the latter explained aesthetic definition, a stadium in our days has got to resemble something.

London has many beautiful stadia Khwezi!:cheers:Hopefully wc 2010 will turn out well...im presuming with such a short time left to go all the grounds have been finished?

I wasnt trying to pick a bone with you Greenwich but I might as well go along with it. Just to answer you on that rhetorical question, South African stadiums are nothing short of ambitious design, with every stadium encompassing the three most important aspects of design, Aesthetics, Symbolism and Function. The cable car on Moses Mabhida's unifying arch, the colossus calabash of Soccer City, the elegant wave-sum curves of Greenpoint Stadium just to name the pinnacle before you go green with jeolousy. So judging from what a first world country like England can manage, these stadia might as well wait for the fat lady because its no childs play. In short perfection takes a bit longer, something the London Olympic designer had little bearing of. LOL

Too many people here watch the Olympics for architecture. It's quite bizarre and you don't get this sort of discussion around any other sporting event on earth.

Regarding all the stadiums you listed from South Africa; are any of those two thirds temporary?

(I can't believe I'm getting into this boring discussion again!)

Too many people here watch the Olympics for architecture. It's quite bizarre and you don't get this sort of discussion around any other sporting event on earth.

Regarding all the stadiums you listed from South Africa; are any of those two thirds temporary?

(I can't believe I'm getting into this boring discussion again!)

No, mainly permanent and still...not 550m pounds. :) As I've said before, a slightly more imaginative wrap and roof and there would be no moans and groans.

I will now proceed to post 12,000 high res images of the 2010 FIFA WC venues.

The point is, this stadium's being judged by people here without the wrap or the roof on! It's way too early to have any idea what it'll look like yet as the wrap has yet to be revealed and we don't quite know how the roof will look

True. Scrap the roof and wrap.Expose those trusses

Dont console yourself JimB the exterior aesthetics are as important as the interior, remember at school inherent and consequential value? Just to put into context the birds nest has inherent value because it is innately beautiful meaning it has value in and for itself as opposed to moral value or implications of what athletics should stand for (consequantial value). If indeed the London Olympic stadium has any aesthetic value it should be simply beautiful, which unfortunately is not.

Your opinion.

Not one that I share.

Olympics are about sport. Not architecture. If you disagree, perhaps you'd care to take it up with the ancient Greeks? There's a good fellow.

As for the Bird's Nest, it's undoubtedly unique and impressive from the outside - though opinion is split as to whether it is beautiful.

But, on the inside, it is gloomy and oppressive according to those who have been there. The interior of the London Olympic stadium will, with its translucent roof, compare favourably in that respect.

I believe that spectators in the London Olympic stadium will also be closer to the action than at the Bird's Nest.

Finally, the London Olympic stadium doesn't have a legacy mode that will reduce it merely to the role of oversized and underused tourist attraction.

So you can be as verbose as you like in support of the Bird's Nest and as dismissive as you like of the London Olympic stadium. It won't matter because, to bastardize a line from Will Shakespeare, the sport's the thing.

You all can be evasive to your hearts content but the fact remains, you are giving birth to an ugly baby. If athletics is not about the fixation of aesthetics why is the run track blue and not orange as usual? Listen when you design something you seek a level of aesthetics (beauty) unless you are not intending to produce an aesthetic object. Especially when that object has a mandate to attract and accomodate people, whether its athletics or otherwise. The fact that its an athletics stadium has nothing to do with the stadium's aesthetic merits or lack there of (which is the unfortunate case her). For example the Best Nest again could have been a football stadium and it would have had no bearing on the facade's design. But before you go and contact Scotland-yard to track me down, my assessment is only comparitive to other stadiums, perhaps if it were the only 80k athletics stadium on earth indeed this stadium is the rose amongst thorns. LOL

Calling it ugly would be extreme.

You all can be evasive to your hearts content but the fact remains, you are giving birth to an ugly baby

Not a fact at all, it's your opinion - don't confuse the two.

I think it's elegant and airy - a hundred times better than most of the renders inside and out - and will look beautiful in the lush, green Olympic Park. Some agree with this, others dont. Difference being, I'm not presenting my opinion as fact like you are.

We wish you all the best with the whole function. Please fix your ceremony coz the one you showed in china was nothing but embarrassing especially from a nation with a good history of stage plays .

Not a fact at all, it's your opinion - don't confuse the two.

I think it's elegant and airy - a hundred times better than most of the renders inside and out - and will look beautiful in the lush, green Olympic Park. Some agree with this, others dont. Difference being, I'm not presenting my opinion as fact like you are.

Oh my goodness here pops-up the "elegant" adjective again, its just another midevil word implying modern library. LOL. I mean Im really disappointed in you Brits I expected better then a bunch of hidden lights around a replica bowl maca stadium to try and trick us into awe. The nerve to call Beijing fake, we can see through the plagiarism yol. lmfoa ha ha ha bhu ha ha bhu a ai hi hi hi!!!

Lol. You funny

*sigh*

Guys and Gals

Like/Dislike a design = opinion
Stadium capacity = fact

Oh my goodness here pops-up the "elegant" adjective again, its just another midevil word implying modern library. LOL. I mean Im really disappointed in you Brits I expected better then a bunch of hidden lights around a replica bowl maca stadium to try and trick us into awe. The nerve to call Beijing fake, we can see through the plagiarism yol. lmfoa ha ha ha bhu ha ha bhu a ai hi hi hi!!!

You've made your opinion clear enough. Do you want to try saying something constrcutive for a change? :bash:

I'm not saying London stadium will be an architectural wonder (it won't), but before starting to bash this Olympic Stadium, why not take a look at the Olympic Stadiums from these last two decades? Some were great, sure, but others:puke: (eg. Atlanta 96).

That was when George was still the king and Shaka was still a kid.

I'm not saying London stadium will be an architectural wonder (it won't), but before starting to bash this Olympic Stadium, why not take a look at the Olympic Stadiums from these last two decades? Some were great, sure, but others (eg. Atlanta 96).

I'd rather have a stadium which is less awe inspiring during the games but has a legacy as good as Atlanta's afterwards than a stadium which looks brilliant but is rarely used for a sporting events like Beijing's. I mean that quite sincerely. Atlanta may have got the looks wrong, but the architectural reasoning behind their stadium was much more sound and much more responsible in the long-term than the reasoning behind Beijing's.

London's looks decent - much, much better than I expected after seeing the initial renders in 2007, and it will be used post-2012 in its smaller configuration. It's a decent balance between form and function, between games-times and legacy.

But you have a point PortoNuts. Lined up against past Olympic stadiums London's doesn't fare badly at all in the looks department. The recent, and might I add unhealthy trend of architectural oneupmanship at the expense of almost everything else, and London's refreshing unwillingness to continue this trend, means it was never going to match Beijing's stadium in terms of aesthetics. But it compares well to almost all the others, which isn't bad considering it's two thirds temporary.

And as has already been pointed out, on non-subjective criteria - i.e. stuff we can't argue about - such as closeness to the track, sightlines etc. London's is probably the best stadium we've seen in recent years.

Expectations of what an Olympics should be about are now way, way too high. If London's project, the largest construction site in the whole of Europe, can be described by some people and some sections of the media as an "austerity games" - because of the distorting effect of Beijing's event four years earlier - then we've really lost all sense of perspective. Khwezi is doomed to be eternally dissapointed, because this generation is not going to see anything like Beijing again. It was, aesthetically, an architectural high-point which no city will match and the IOC knows this. If they were as concerned as you about what the venues looked like, Rio 2016, with it's fairly average (and relativly small) 60,000 seat stadium would not have won a fortnight ago. As it is, they're not concerned because, as JimB has pointed out so eloquently, it's what goes on inside the stadium that counts.

My favourite Olympics is still Sydney 2000, but I'm not going to start arguing that their stadium was more awe-inspiring than Beijings, or more graceful than Athens', because it wasn't. It just goes to show that people spend far too much time worrying about aesthetics. During the two weeks of the games, it'll matter very little and will only be commented on if the atmosphere isn't there, or if the athletes aren't getting what they expect.

I'd rather have a stadium which is less awe inspiring during the games but has a legacy as good as Atlanta's afterwards than a stadium which looks brilliant but is rarely used for a sporting events like Beijing's. I mean that quite sincerely. Atlanta may have got the looks wrong, but the architectural reasoning behind their stadium was much more sound and much more responsible in the long-term than the reasoning behind Beijing's.

You're absolutely right. I second that.

You all can be evasive to your hearts content but the fact remains, you are giving birth to an ugly baby. If athletics is not about the fixation of aesthetics why is the run track blue and not orange as usual? Listen when you design something you seek a level of aesthetics (beauty) unless you are not intending to produce an aesthetic object. Especially when that object has a mandate to attract and accomodate people, whether its athletics or otherwise. The fact that its an athletics stadium has nothing to do with the stadium's aesthetic merits or lack there of (which is the unfortunate case her). For example the Best Nest again could have been a football stadium and it would have had no bearing on the facade's design. But before you go and contact Scotland-yard to track me down, my assessment is only comparitive to other stadiums, perhaps if it were the only 80k athletics stadium on earth indeed this stadium is the rose amongst thorns. LOL

If athletics is not about the fixation of aesthetics???????????

You're one confused little puppy!

Athletics is about sporting endeavour. It is about winning and losing. It is not about looking pretty in the process.

Example: Michael Johnson - one of the greatest sprint athletes of all time. He is the current 400 metre world record holder (a record set more than 10 years ago) and was, until this summer, also the 200 metres world record holder. He was a phenomenon of a stature almost equal to the phenomenon that is Usain Bolt now.

Yet, unlike Bolt, his running style could never be described as anything other than bizarre - even downright ugly. Did he care? Did his fans?

Not a bit. Because he was a great champion. And that was all that mattered.

You really are barking up the wrong tree. You're arguing that the designers of the London Olympic stadium could and should really have done a better job of making it more aesthetically pleasing. Now here's the thing (and read carefully now.....it may save you a lot of time) - you won't find many people who disagree with you.

What we will disagree with is when you spout a load of pompous nonsense about the aesthetics of the exterior of the stadium being just as important as (or more important than) the internal function of the stadium....or when you risibly claim that the Bird's Nest is a great stadium for athletics or any other sporting event simply because (to you, at least) it is beautiful to look at from the outside.

Oh, and for future reference, you should know that there is no longer a "usual" colour for athletics tracks.

Oh my goodness here pops-up the "elegant" adjective again, its just another midevil word implying modern library. LOL. I mean Im really disappointed in you Brits I expected better then a bunch of hidden lights around a replica bowl maca stadium to try and trick us into awe. The nerve to call Beijing fake, we can see through the plagiarism yol. lmfoa ha ha ha bhu ha ha bhu a ai hi hi hi!!!

Hahahaha!

I cannot recall having encountered anyone before with such a liking for long words but such an inability to arrange them into an articulate and comprehensible whole!

Bless!

That was when George was still the king and Shaka was still a kid.

Oh my...............I see that Khwezi has a little tweedledee to his tweedledum!

I'd rather have a stadium which is less awe inspiring during the games but has a legacy as good as Atlanta's afterwards than a stadium which looks brilliant but is rarely used for a sporting events like Beijing's. I mean that quite sincerely. Atlanta may have got the looks wrong, but the architectural reasoning behind their stadium was much more sound and much more responsible in the long-term than the reasoning behind Beijing's.

London's looks decent - much, much better than I expected after seeing the initial renders in 2007, and it will be used post-2012 in its smaller configuration. It's a decent balance between form and function, between games-times and legacy.

But you have a point PortoNuts. Lined up against past Olympic stadiums London's doesn't fare badly at all in the looks department. The recent, and might I add unhealthy trend of architectural oneupmanship at the expense of almost everything else, and London's refreshing unwillingness to continue this trend, means it was never going to match Beijing's stadium in terms of aesthetics. But it compares well to almost all the others, which isn't bad considering it's two thirds temporary.

And as has already been pointed out, on non-subjective criteria - i.e. stuff we can't argue about - such as closeness to the track, sightlines etc. London's is probably the best stadium we've seen in recent years.

Expectations of what an Olympics should be about are now way, way too high. If London's project, the largest construction site in the whole of Europe, can be described by some people and some sections of the media as an "austerity games" - because of the distorting effect of Beijing's event four years earlier - then we've really lost all sense of perspective. Khwezi is doomed to be eternally dissapointed, because this generation is not going to see anything like Beijing again. It was, aesthetically, an architectural high-point which no city will match and the IOC knows this. If they were as concerned as you about what the venues looked like, Rio 2016, with it's fairly average (and relativly small) 60,000 seat stadium would not have won a fortnight ago. As it is, they're not concerned because, as JimB has pointed out so eloquently, it's what goes on inside the stadium that counts.

My favourite Olympics is still Sydney 2000, but I'm not going to start arguing that their stadium was more awe-inspiring than Beijings, or more graceful than Athens', because it wasn't. It just goes to show that people spend far too much time worrying about aesthetics. During the two weeks of the games, it'll matter very little and will only be commented on if the atmosphere isn't there, or if the athletes aren't getting what they expect.

I agree with all of your post but especially this bit in bold. It should be repeated and stressed more often to deflate the silly architectural snobs.

Just another reminder to remain "fair".

You're allowed to absolutely hate or absolutely love ANY stadium BUT this remains your opinion. Please do not impose your views on others as this only provokes them and leads to things spiraling out of control.

I'll also not be tolerating phrases like " you Brits", "you Africans" etc.
State your case, leave out the personal/cultural/racial remarks.

For any reasonably intelligent person this is not asking for much.

Oh my goodness here pops-up the "elegant" adjective again, its just another midevil word implying modern library. LOL. I mean Im really disappointed in you Brits I expected better then a bunch of hidden lights around a replica bowl maca stadium to try and trick us into awe. The nerve to call Beijing fake, we can see through the plagiarism yol. lmfoa ha ha ha bhu ha ha bhu a ai hi hi hi!!!

I agree with you. I can imagine the interviews now with the athletes who win Gold medals in this very arena. I bet all of them bar none say that their Gold medal is worthless because even though they are Olympic champions and they won their medal in front of 80,000 spectators, the fact that the stadium isn't as pleasing on the eye as Beijings then it means they aren't really Gold medal winning Olympians :nuts:

Oh my...............I see that Khwezi has a little tweedledee to his tweedledum!

My good God Im thankful that I dont speak like that. Tweedle what?

^^ WTF? Did that make any sense to anyone else? "A taste of our own medicine"? I didn't realise Populous and London 2012, the ODA and the LDA, LOCOG or the UK Government had any influence on the 800m run in Berlin, let alone the circumstances which followed it - correct me if I'm wrong! :bash: :lol:

Please, stay on topic mate; the errors made and subsequent politicisation in the Semenya case have nothing to do with this topic. If you've got a bone to pick with people on that, there's a perfectly good Skybar (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15) for that sort of chat.

The very real point in this thread, and one that has been pointed out several times, is that whilst you may not like the look of the stadium, that has little to no influence on how good the Games will be or how good that stadium will be for the Games. I rank Sydney's Games ahead of Beijing's, but Beijing's stadium was better from the outside by miles. JimB has also pointed out, quite patiently I might add, the thought process about the interior of London's stadium. You're taking your point way too far and the fact that you're now quoting the Semenya case and trying to turn this into a gender/race issue in which we're "getting a taste of our own medicine", shows your opinion on this is way off. And it also perhaps suggests you're in the wrong forum.

khwezi, dude, you're taking all of this too seriously. you can't throw all londoners or brits in the same box, just like we as saffers or africans don't want to be labeled. this thread is about the design and construction of a sports stadium, not the ideological influences that impacted on it. if you like the stadium, cool, if not, that's cool too.

Dont expose your limited sense of comprehension, please try to keep up, if you can. I was responding to a point counter-claimed by JimB opposing the thesis of the relation between athletics and aesthetics. When I accuse the western perception of aesthetics of ideological descrimination in the context of athletics, I immidietely include the whole of Europe and the Americans and of course our dear friends the Aussies. Whether England was directly involved in the Caster saga was not my primal point because the term 'Western' is generic. Get it?

khwezi, dude, you're taking all of this too seriously. you can't throw all londoners or brits in the same box, just like we as saffers or africans don't want to be labeled. this thread is about the design and construction of a sports stadium, not the ideological influences that impacted on it. if you like the stadium, cool, if not, that's cool too.

Heggy I dont think Im taking this issue more seriously as some people in the thread are taking it, if you may, take scroll back and read some of the damning response to a simply opinionated remark on the stadium made by yourstruly. Now what Im simply pointing out is according to recent events, athletics is indeed fixated with the perception of aesthetics. And so by their own admition, the London Olympic Stadium is in fact an ugly stadium (according to western perception of what is beautiful). I may have used an opinionated tone but my difinition of aesthetics is theoreticaly founded that...

One things for certain ... you're boring me.

Ladies and Gents, This is going off topic. Any further reference to Semenya will simply be deleted.

@Khwezi, its OK that you dont like the stadium. We respect your views of the stadium design/aesthetics, but not everybody agrees with it. Being a fellow South African, I actually don't like the Birds Nest.


Please stay on topic and calm down.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

You'll find the following entry in the Oxford English dictionary:

(noun) - a pair of persons or things that are virtually indistinguishable.

You'll also find the following entry in wikipedia:

Tweedledum and Tweedledee are fictional characters in an English language nursery rhyme and in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass, and Alice in Wonderland. Their names may have originally come from an epigram written by 18th century poet John Byrom.

In DC Comics, two long-time Batman villains call themselves Tweedledum and Tweedledee , because they are cousins that happen to be identical and very similar to the original versions. Their true names, appropriately, are Deever and Dumfree Tweed. They occasionally appear as henchmen of the Joker, but just as often operate solo.

"Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum" features as the opening song on Bob Dylan's 2001 album Love and Theft.

Nursery rhyme:

Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Agreed to have a battle;
For Tweedledum said Tweedledee
Had spoiled his nice new rattle.
Just then flew down a monstrous crow,
As black as a tar-barrel;
Which frightened both the heroes so,
They quite forgot their quarrel.

John Tenniel's illustration of Tweedledum and Tweedledee, from Through the Looking-Glass (1871), chapter 4:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Tennieldumdee.jpg


As entertaining as you are and given my apparent love for all things "commonwealth" and batman, you know the above is unnecessary :)

An object x is an aesthetic object if the sender (designer) has the intention, on the part of producing an aesthetic object. Hence I say if it wasnt the intention of the designer to produce an aesthetically pleasing object (which I think he/she had intended but failed) then this (stadium) is a disfavor to the western community either way.

The truth is the London 2012 stadium will be controversial for years to come...
its simple and designed for the criteria that London wanted.

Design can be simple and functional and well done to the Brits for tying something new!
The thought process went out side the conventional design box.

Dont expose your limited sense of comprehension, please try to keep up, if you can. I was responding to a point counter-claimed by JimB opposing the thesis of the relation between athletics and aesthetics. When I accuse the western perception of aesthetics of ideological descrimination in the context of athletics, I immidietely include the whole of Europe and the Americans and of course our dear friends the Aussies. Whether England was directly involved in the Caster saga was not my primal point because the term 'Western' is generic. Get it?

No, keep on topic please.

I like this stadium.Its not monumental but London doesnt need another monumental stadium. The interior bowl looks good, actually looks quite like the Athens stadium but maybe a bit more intimate because of the lower roof.
So long as it doesnt rain throughout the 2 weeks there will be a great atmosphere. My only concern is that the opening ceremony might be a bit crappy in comparison to the previous 2 games, if the handover was anything to go by.

What was wrong with the handover? What were people expecting anyway?

The handover wasn't great, I'll admit that! But to be fair, most aren't a reflection on how the opening ceremony turns out.

What was wrong with the handover? What were people expecting anyway?

My opinion is that it was a bit naff. Hopefully it will be sorted out come 2012.

Handover was poor...but thats just my view.

Jeez wtf went on here. Khwezi chill bro, I understand what you saying but you got to look at the bigger picture, yes one of the main draw cards to the Olympics is the stadium. Its what we look out for first. Awe inspiring venues is the image that gets installed in our head for years to come but you've go to look at the piratical side of things to. London has many stadia and for this to serve its purpose after 2012 would be hard as a 80K, yes as Mo pointed out, they could have done a better job with the out layers and roof but again in this time of recession cost effectiveness is the main thing people will look at. Whats the sense building some fancy facade when 2/3 of it will be taken down? Its recent times thats forced these cut backs, we're lucky that proposals and designs for our stadia were passed way before anyone could see the recession coming and with the influx in concrete and steel prices this design could prove a winner even though it costs more to build than any of our's.

On behalf oe me and fellow South Africans alike, I would like to externd my deepest and most sincere apology to all those partaking in this thread whose feelings I have severely hurt and coursed paramount disturbance in their otherwise monotous circles. lol. But on a serious note (as if the latter wasnt serious enough) I will from herein conduct myself in the uttmost respect and honour of this work of austority. I thank you.

I agree durbsboi, now you are talking my home lingo. I was begining to fall under the impression that intellectual expression was some kind of jibberish jargon that no one besides myself had apparant bearing on... JimB put it down, I can see you reaching for your Oxford Dictionary, put it down I say! lmfoa!!

I agree with you. I can imagine the interviews now with the athletes who win Gold medals in this very arena. I bet all of them bar none say that their Gold medal is worthless because even though they are Olympic champions and they won their medal in front of 80,000 spectators, the fact that the stadium isn't as pleasing on the eye as Beijings then it means they aren't really Gold medal winning Olympians :nuts:

Sarcasm yes?

You don't say! :happy:

I agree durbsboi, now you are talking my home lingo. I was begining to fall under the impression that intellectual expression was some kind of jibberish jargon that no one besides myself had apparant bearing on... JimB put it down, I can see you reaching for your Oxford Dictionary, put it down I say! lmfoa!!

Bless!

This lad is trying to lecture me about the English language!

A tip for you, sunshine: good writing isn't about gathering together all the long and impressive words that you can muster and then vomiting them all out, poorly spelt, in one sentence.

You claim to love simplicity in design. Well, practise what you preach. Learn to apply the same principle to your writing.

And stop trolling.

I seem to recall a very popular "Form follows function" principle being taught during architectural school.

Even Vitruvius' definition of beauty comes into play, no?

:dunno:

Bless!

This lad is trying to lecture me about the English language!

A tip for you, sunshine: good writing isn't about gathering together all the long and impressive words that you can muster and then vomiting them all out, poorly spelt, in one sentence.

You claim to love simplicity in design. Well, practise what you preach. Learn to apply the same principle to your writing.

And stop trolling.

Me? Simplicity? Hell to the No! I was infact mocking yoll when I refered to this stadium as a work of austority. Now if it so happened that you came across that word and thaugh it was a compliment, well I got news for you, its not, it means severe simplicity. Lets get back to the topic at hand, when are they planning to complete it? It seems way ahead of schedule and thats something I have to take my hat off for you guys, Im impressed.

Edit.

Montreal was a big statement stadium and it kind of backfired on them, Moscow had a functional bowl, LA was a tarted up old stadium, Seoul was a bland modern bowl, Barcelona was attractive retro on the outside and bland on the inside, Atlanta was a Baseball Stadium, Sydney was a huge modern stadium with emphasis on scale over aesthetics, Athens was like LA a tarted up old stadium, Beijing was an elaborate white elephant. What example should London use? Main rival to London,Paris, again was going to use a functional already existing stadium. The apparent lack of Disney like theme or grandiose statement doesnt mean this stadium is bad.It is hopefully going to be a very smart arena for the Olympics. Nothing so far suggests otherwise.

Montreal "kind of backfired"? It took them 30 years to pay for it. Not to mention that it was not ready for the Olympics and was finished in the early 80s. LA and Athens have nothing in common, especially at the scale of reconstruction, 300million Euro is not "tarting it up". Barcelona was ok because nobody had any problems about it whatsoever at that time. You make the error of judging with contemporary standarts. London and Atlanta have A LOT in common, especially the philosophy behind it.

Maybe a lot more was done to update Athens but its the principle of using an existing stadium and modernising it I was pointing out.
London does have similiarities to Atlanta but a significant difference is that the interior design of the London stadium isnt going to be compromised because of its future use.

You all can be evasive to your hearts content but the fact remains, you are giving birth to an ugly baby. If athletics is not about the fixation of aesthetics why is the run track blue and not orange as usual? Listen when you design something you seek a level of aesthetics (beauty) unless you are not intending to produce an aesthetic object. Especially when that object has a mandate to attract and accomodate people, whether its athletics or otherwise. The fact that its an athletics stadium has nothing to do with the stadium's aesthetic merits or lack there of (which is the unfortunate case her). For example the Best Nest again could have been a football stadium and it would have had no bearing on the facade's design. But before you go and contact Scotland-yard to track me down, my assessment is only comparitive to other stadiums, perhaps if it were the only 80k athletics stadium on earth indeed this stadium is the rose amongst thorns. LOL

^^:ohno::bash::nuts::lol:

Montreal "kind of backfired"? It took them 30 years to pay for it. Not to mention that it was not ready for the Olympics and was finished in the early 80s. LA and Athens have nothing in common, especially at the scale of reconstruction, 300million Euro is not "tarting it up". Barcelona was ok because nobody had any problems about it whatsoever at that time. You make the error of judging with contemporary standarts. London and Atlanta have A LOT in common, especially the philosophy behind it.

Oh, really?

And the research that supports this claim can be found where, exactly?

I always thought that the Barcelona Olympic stadium (Montjuic) was ordinary in the extreme - not to mention far too small. And I know many others who feel as I do about it.

I just didn't make a big song and dance about it because, as a true sports fan (as opposed to architecture obsessive), I was far more interested in the wonderful sport on display in 1992 and the fantastic atmoshpere of the Barcelona Games.

And the London and Atlanta Olympic stadiums have virtually nothing in common other than the fact that the majority of signs at both stadiums are / will be written in English and that both were designed with the aim of ensuring that they don't become expensive white elephants.

As to philosophy, again London and Atlanta are quite different - diametrically opposed, in fact. The Atlanta Braves needed a new baseball stadium. London really doesn't need a permanent 80,000 capacity athletics stadium.

I'd disagree with that actually Jim.

London and Atlanta have an awful lot in common in their philosphies; regeneration of a run down area, creation of a new city park, a stadium which is to be reconfigured after the event because the country will not accept a useless 80,000 seat stadium afterwards, and a legacy stadium which the city needs after the games (Atlanta needed a new baseball ground, London, for a city its size really needs a world class athletics facility; it is an embarrasment that small cities like Sheffield are better than us in this respect)

The only difference really is that London doesn't have to compromise the stadium design or its games-time functions to anywhere near the same extent because, happily, the legacy sport is athletics. We can build arguably the best Olympic stadium in terms of ergonomics there's been for a long while, after the games have finished lop the top off and have a legacy akin to Atlanta's - the best of both worlds.

It's a huge compliment that the thought-process behind London's design is being compared to Atlanta. The aesthetics may have been all over the place, the games themselves may have been overcommercialised and tainted by the pipe-bomb, but the core thought behind all of their venues was sound. What London is doing is very much like Atlanta in a lot of ways, except in my opinion, our venues are a lot prettier than theirs were, although, for obvious reasons, not as pretty as Beijing's.

...except in my opinion, our venues are a lot prettier than theirs were.Sadly, that bar had been set pretty low so I'm in complete agreement. Atlanta is woefully lacking in quality architecture, both in singular structures and in civic spaces. Centennial Park provided a nice return and to be sure Turner Field (aka: Olympic Stadium) is among the nicest baseball venues going. Alas, it's a short list of monuments to something that was supposed to be a watershed moment in the city's history. *sigh*

- - - - -

I think an analogy that needs recollection is that of the circus big tent. A century ago that was the iconic structure for housing the special showcase that toured the country. It was efficient, provided just enough on the outside to celebrate its interior function, and then was gone so as not to leave behind an empty shell. London's venue has almost exactly the same role, and as such almost defies proper assessment until its role has been fulfilled. I wonder if we can truly begin to discern its effectiveness and appeal until it's been disassembled.

Yes we can critique the aesthetics based on our own arbitrary scale and sensibility, but doing so risks passing judgment based on a false set of parameters. In the meantime, to the people in the stands, in the circus or wandering amidst the festivities outside the big tent was immensely appealing without the need for grandiose detailing. It was beautiful because it meant the circus was in town.

One man's opine. :cheers:

I think an analogy that needs recollection is that of the circus big tent. A century ago that was the iconic structure for housing the special showcase that toured the country. It was efficient, provided just enough on the outside to celebrate its interior function, and then was gone so as not to leave behind an empty shell. London's venue has almost exactly the same role, and as such almost defies proper assessment until its role has been fulfilled. I wonder if we can truly begin to discern its effectiveness and appeal until it's been disassembled.

Yes we can critique the aesthetics based on our own arbitrary scale and sensibility, but doing so risks passing judgment based on a false set of parameters. In the meantime, to the people in the stands, in the circus or wandering amidst the festivities outside, the big tent was immensely appealing without the need for grandiose detailing. It's beauty lay in simply doing its job.

One man's opine. :cheers:

That's the best assessment I've read on these forums about London's stadium from someone outside the UK. You actually get it! The analogy I've used in the past is that of a stage for a music festival, but your circus tent one works just as well.

The parameters this stadium will ultimately be judged by aren't the ones so many people are judging it by at the moment. Such a good point. Have a beer on me! :cheers:

So you are happy with the "circus" terminology?

As an analogy in the sense GunnerJacket intended it, yes.

So you are happy with the "circus" terminology?In case you're thinking I'm trying to belittle the stadium or the Olympics please know that's not the case at all. There was a time when the circus was among the premier forms of entertainment going, long before we grew accustomed to modern special effects or the term "media circus." It may not have been high-brow but it was a greatly appreciated celebration of athletic skill and dramatic showmanship. You could even argue the opening and closing ceremonies we so highly praise today are directly evolved from circus acts. When the circus came to town, everyone came and life was different for 2 weeks. No grand architecture needed.

London's venue is indeed an Olympic stadium, but if you judge it solely by that singular definition you discount at least part of the structure's purpose. Put another way, its' beauty cannot be fully appreciated unless you are also properly accounting for the function of this structure as something to be easily disassembled and used as individual pieces elsewhere.

That's all I'm saying. :cheers:

Sadly, that bar had been set pretty low so I'm in complete agreement. Atlanta is woefully lacking in quality architecture, both in singular structures and in civic spaces. Centennial Park provided a nice return and to be sure Turner Field (aka: Olympic Stadium) is among the nicest baseball venues going. Alas, it's a short list of monuments to something that was supposed to be a watershed moment in the city's history. *sigh*

- - - - -

I think an analogy that needs recollection is that of the circus big tent. A century ago that was the iconic structure for housing the special showcase that toured the country. It was efficient, provided just enough on the outside to celebrate its interior function, and then was gone so as not to leave behind an empty shell. London's venue has almost exactly the same role, and as such almost defies proper assessment until its role has been fulfilled. I wonder if we can truly begin to discern its effectiveness and appeal until it's been disassembled.

Yes we can critique the aesthetics based on our own arbitrary scale and sensibility, but doing so risks passing judgment based on a false set of parameters. In the meantime, to the people in the stands, in the circus or wandering amidst the festivities outside the big tent was immensely appealing without the need for grandiose detailing. It was beautiful because it meant the circus was in town.

One man's opine. :cheers:

Top post Squire :cheers:

You also need to give kudos to London, since it was willing to take a risk in terms of "temporary strucutres". Regardless of the cost, it is a brave host and it clearly sent a big NO to those who persist on building 25,000 + athletics venue the olympic hosts and most other cities simply do NOT need.

That said, the use of the upper tier and roof structure after the Games will be interesting.

I'd disagree with that actually Jim.

London and Atlanta have an awful lot in common in their philosphies; regeneration of a run down area, creation of a new city park, a stadium which is to be reconfigured after the event because the country will not accept a useless 80,000 seat stadium afterwards, and a legacy stadium which the city needs after the games (Atlanta needed a new baseball ground, London, for a city its size really needs a world class athletics facility; it is an embarrasment that small cities like Sheffield are better than us in this respect)

The only difference really is that London doesn't have to compromise the stadium design or its games-time functions to anywhere near the same extent because, happily, the legacy sport is athletics. We can build arguably the best Olympic stadium in terms of ergonomics there's been for a long while, after the games have finished lop the top off and have a legacy akin to Atlanta's - the best of both worlds.

It's a huge compliment that the thought-process behind London's design is being compared to Atlanta. The aesthetics may have been all over the place, the games themselves may have been overcommercialised and tainted by the pipe-bomb, but the core thought behind all of their venues was sound. What London is doing is very much like Atlanta in a lot of ways, except in my opinion, our venues are a lot prettier than theirs were, although, for obvious reasons, not as pretty as Beijing's.

I probably didn't make myself clear enough.

I didn't mean to suggest that there are no similarities between London 2012 and Atlanta 1996.

I was specifically referring only to the two respective Olympic stadiums rather than to the two Games as a whole, because that's what ReiAyanami was talking about.

And I probably should have explained that, with regard to the change of use for either stadium after the Games, it is the rationale behind the philosophy that is diametrically opposed, rather than the philosophy itself. One city's rationale was based on the need for a big, new stadium of a particular type while the other city's rationale is based on the specific absence of any need for an Olympic sized stadium.

I'm rather the worse for a few drinks....so I hope that that makes sense?! I will see in the morning!

I concare with the circus anology albeit it does not augur well for the legacy of the people of London. Earlier I alluded to the three most vital aspect of design, Aesthetics, Symbolism and Function. Now my question will be, by the stadium heavily focusing on the Function of the stadium has it consequently sacrificed on the Symbolism that a permanent Olympic signifies to the people of the area? I may be wrong to suggest that there has never been an Olympic stadium that has packed up parts of its structure like some kind of restless gypsies for the sake of having served its Function, they might have down sized and thats no big deal. Because that has little effect on what people recognise as what was once an Olympic stadium.

Now my question will be, by the stadium heavily focusing on the Function of the stadium has it consequently sacrificed on the Symbolism that a permanent Olympic signifies to the people of the area?

No. The people of the area think that building a permanent 80.000 capacity Olympic athletics stadium that would be only used to its full potential once every 20 or 30 years would be a pointless waste of money. The legacy should have some use to the people of the area. The people of the area have no use for an 80k athletics stadium.

I concare with the circus anology albeit it does not augur well for the legacy of the people of London. Earlier I alluded to the three most vital aspect of design, Aesthetics, Symbolism and Function. Now my question will be, by the stadium heavily focusing on the Function of the stadium has it consequently sacrificed on the Symbolism that a permanent Olympic signifies to the people of the area? I may be wrong to suggest that there has never been an Olympic stadium that has packed up parts of its structure like some kind of restless gypsies for the sake of having served its Function, they might have down sized and thats no big deal. Because that has little effect on what people recognise as what was once an Olympic stadium.

Symbolism doesn't pay the bills of maintaining an 80,000 seat stadium.
These debates have been played out before. Just look at Beijing's Birds Nest..

Athletics stadia above 25,000 seats just don't cut it.

No offence, but I believe you live in a dream world Khwezi, real money is needed to pay the real costs of operating an 80,000 seat stadium.

No. The people of the area think that building a permanent 80.000 capacity Olympic athletics stadium that would be only used to its full potential once every 20 or 30 years would be a pointless waste of money. The legacy should have some use to the people of the area. The people of the area have no use for an 80k athletics stadium.

Carl thanks for that answer. But dont you foresee that Londoners may live to regret that reasoning in hindsight after the Olympics, that the stadium would be slowly writing itself off the history of Olympic stadiums? Because from what I gather its not only the dismentling of the seat capacity but also parts of the stadium. Again my thing is not the reduction of seat capacity, they could down size all they want but if you are going to disassemble large chunks of the stadium then some aspects of design are bound to take a knock. But I hope it doesnt end up looking like a cut and paste puzzle. I HOPE

I concare with the circus anology albeit it does not augur well for the legacy of the people of London. Earlier I alluded to the three most vital aspect of design, Aesthetics, Symbolism and Function. Now my question will be, by the stadium heavily focusing on the Function of the stadium has it consequently sacrificed on the Symbolism that a permanent Olympic signifies to the people of the area?

Mo's post is right. But even if cost and long-term practicality weren't issues, London's legacy stadium is still sybolically a better representation of its former self and of the Olympic spirit than, for example, Beijing's stadium post-2008 is.

The symbolism of an 90,000 seat athletics stadium in China that's never used for sport is bleak. The sybolism of a downsized former Olympic stadium now being used week in week out as a sports ground in Atlanta is much closer to the Olympic spirit and much closer to what London is doing.

Carl thanks for that answer. But dont you foresee that Londoners may live to regret that reasoning in hindsight after the Olympics, that the stadium would be slowly writing itself off the history of Olympic stadiums? Because from what I gather its not only the dismentling of the seat capacity but also parts of the stadium. Again my thing is not the reduction of seat capacity, they could down size all they want but if you are going to disassemble large chunks of the stadium then some aspects of design are bound to take a knock. But I hope it doesnt end up looking like a cut and paste puzzle. I HOPE

Not really worried about it at all. The sport is the most important thing. The best athletics stadium in the world is somewhere like the Bislett Stadium in Norway which only has a capacity of 15000 or so.Huge athletics stadiums are perceived as relics of the past.Almost all of those that do exist are actually used as compromised football stadiums.London already has its fair share of world renowned iconic stadiums that are big and permanently used. The legacy will be the 25k stadium and everything that surrounds it and we are happy with that.

Think e.g. in Cape Town.

It doesn't need a 80 or 60 or even 40k athletics stadium.

If it follows the same concept as London 25k permanent and the remainder temporary, it will likely only cost $US 250-300 million.

Given that the Green Point Stadium wrap only costs about $21 million, they could still "glamour it up" and add more roof cover.

The facade and roof aesthetics are almost entirely separate to the functionality and practicality of the stadium bowl.

But dont you foresee that Londoners may live to regret that reasoning in hindsight after the Olympics, that the stadium would be slowly writing itself off the history of Olympic stadiums?

Er, no. They'll be happy they don't have to pay for the upkeep of an oversized stadium that gets used to capacity once every twenty years.

The permanent bowl with the running track and pitch of the stadium is staying, as well as the cauldron and the notion of 'stadium island'. Everyone will remember the Olympics as taking place in the Olympic Park with the Aquatics Centre, Handball Arena and Veldrome still standing, as well as the Park itself. It's not like London is erasing it's Olympic facilities after 2012. The Park is more than just the stadium. If you think it's not you've woefully misjudged how big this project is.

If you think it's not you've woefully misjudged how big this project is.
Understatement

I was not implying that people in London will suddenly suffer Olympic amnesia , although a vast number of those old chronical farts will eventually do. lol. I was specifically talking the stadium since this is the pertinent thread, anyways its important to make use of the stadium post-olympics hence I wasnt disputing the reduction of seat capacity but more worried how the stadium would look when disassembled. You've made it clear that London doesnt need a 80k stadium because it cant afford it but that sounds like recession talk to me, the money crises will not last long and so building a puzzle stadium for that reason is a radical decision to begin with.

It's not recession talk. This stadium concept was mooted well before anyone even predicted a recession - it was in the original bid documents 6 years ago!

London could afford to maintain an 80,000 seat stadium, but taxpayers would'nt be happy about doing so if it never has more than 25,000 people in it after the games.

It's not recession talk. This stadium concept was mooted well before anyone even predicted a recession - it was in the original bid documents 6 years ago!

London could afford to maintain an 80,000 seat stadium, but taxpayers would'nt be happy about doing so if it never has more than 25,000 people in it after the games.

Noted Rob

I concare with the circus anology albeit it does not augur well for the legacy of the people of London. Again, this remains to be seen. The final state of the stadium combined with all the other structures and the new greenspace might serve as more than ample legacies. Considering the green themes hitting modern development these days this might be considered more important - That maybe the best symbol is the absence of bad development, like a dreaded white elephant or cheesy architecture.
Now my question will be, by the stadium heavily focusing on the Function of the stadium has it consequently sacrificed on the Symbolism that a permanent Olympic signifies to the people of the area? I may be wrong to suggest that there has never been an Olympic stadium that has packed up parts of its structure like some kind of restless gypsies... Because that has little effect on what people recognise as what was once an Olympic stadium.Function comes first, always, and symbolism is derived from how well a structure fulfills its function. Perhaps we've culturally grown overdependent on the icon of a grandiose, permanent structure to validate the event?
But I hope it doesnt end up looking like a cut and paste puzzle.In some sense I wish that it did. An exaggeration of this purpose might have added more flare and fun to the design, where each segment could be independently recognizable even while part of the whole. "See that blue section, son? That's the part that will be coming to our home town!" Granted, that would involve a level of intricacy that obviously counters the chosen style, but that only serves to illustrate how the perceived simplicity of the structure is derived from its purpose: They chose not to add anything more just for the sake of adding. As I said before, that would violate the Vitruvian definition of beauty.

While going through the pages I could clearly see that some fail to acknowledge the FACT that the London 2012 Olympic Stadium is architecturally lackluster. But in times like this, I believe that practicality should rule over everything else, I just wish they didn't act THIS practical. When I look back at Olympics from recent memory, the first thing that pops into my mind is the Olympic Stadium. Oh well, I guess I "might" have Olympic amnesia of the 2012 edition in the year 2020 IF I'm still alive by then.

One giant toilet seat. After the logo, Beckham and co in Beijing this is another low point. Following up Beijing was tough enough already. I fear for the opening ceremony now.

They should hire Calatrava to build an arch over it to save it:lol::lol:. Or Foster could do a watered down copy.

Jacket well done for checking your emotions at the log in page when addressing yourstruly. lol. You know I have to commend the people behind this stadium for their revolutionary redifinition and/or reflection of what is aesthetic in this day and age. Dont be suprised if this stadium is affectionately dubbed "The Recession Stadium" for the right reasons, I might add. I think following Beijing and their incomparible display, fake as you may claim, London did well to create its own context of what the games should be. Now whether they chickened out at the firery breath of the Beijing dragon remains to be seen. Or is setting a new benchmark after just 4years of being blown away by Beijing, meant to be at the expense of the frivolousness perceived at the latter games that most fans will come expecting in 2012. Damn Im so incoherent!! In a good way though! lmfoa!

While going through the pages I could clearly see that some fail to acknowledge the FACT that the London 2012 Olympic Stadium is architecturally lackluster. But in times like this, I believe that practicality should rule over everything else, I just wish they didn't act THIS practical. When I look back at Olympics from recent memory, the first thing that pops into my mind is the Olympic Stadium. Oh well, I guess I "might" have Olympic amnesia of the 2012 edition in the year 2020 IF I'm still alive by then.

And they declared me an extremist when I only called it ugly! Whats next, a terrorist? So typical!

amazing amazing stadium.....i did knew it exists....

^^ Who cares about that? Why do you have to post that here? They got a thread in the African general section for you to wabble your mouth on.

And I am a black dude but I can give a rats ass about it.

Oh sweet jesus thats a great looking stadium. London could probably host a world cup by itself if it could!

One giant toilet seat. After the logo, Beckham and co in Beijing this is another low point. Following up Beijing was tough enough already. I fear for the opening ceremony now.

They should hire Calatrava to build an arch over it to save it:lol::lol:. Or Foster could do a watered down copy.

:|

Oh sweet jesus thats a great looking stadium. London could probably host a world cup by itself if it could!

i wouldn't go that far, maybe a European Championship.

but this just shows to some people on this thread (not naming names:sly:) that London doesn't need another 80,000 seater stadium. it has soooooo many stadiums already and Londoners don't want to pay for the upkeep of an 80,000 seater athletics venue which would be better used as a smaller stadium.

Its kinda funny how most people outside of London want it to stay big, whereas most Londoners don't mind it being reduced in size for the legacy. London will have enough iconic Venues for the Olympics, it won't be forgotton.

^^ Who cares about that? Why do you have to post that here? They got a thread in the African general section for you to wabble your mouth on.

And I am a black dude but I can give a rats ass about it.

I would like to externd my repell to black brothers like you from attending the 2010 WC. I think we can do without you Raggae Boy. You should be ashamed of yourself for hating on such a mammoth African achievement, no matter what platform it may be celebrated. And you are the only person (you being a black person makes it worse) with an issue with Ghana being champions and me giving notoriouty. It goes to show how deep the barrious of slavery still run, coz here I am celebrating Africa and the only thing that concerns you, is the borders and fences of a virtual thread. Perhaps your response has more to it than slave mentality but a high degree of stupidity. To show how stupid you are, the only thing you will respond to in anger from this post, is the word stupidity

According to the above rendering, there is a big space between the running track and the seats behind the goal post. Many other modern athletic stadiums don't have that much space and the seats are almost next to the running track, giving bearable lines of sight even for football matches


You are right.
The track seems to far from the spectators, the 100 m dash will be a distant spectacle.
Compare it with Berlin Olympic Stadion or Bird's Nest, it is far off the viewing galleries, if not for the curved tracks for the longer races. This way even the filed events would seem distant.

That is actually an old post, the renderings are not very good indeed, but someone posted the detailed plans with a normal configuration, like all the other athletic stadiums. My question now is why it does not have a moat like the rest.

Just a reminder, please do not use caps.
Anybody who repeatedly uses caps will simply receive an infraction.

I would also advise "newer" forumers, to perhaps take 5 minutes to browse a thread to see what has been discussed. Questions are always welcome but we can't be repeating the same "debates" each time somebody causes a stir.

Just 5 minutes.

That is actually an old post, the renderings are not very good indeed, but someone posted the detailed plans with a normal configuration, like all the other athletic stadiums. My question now is why it does not have a moat like the rest.

I've been looking through the planning documents (http://planning.london2012.com/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=K0LTMFSZK0000) to try to find an answer to your question and found this:

http://planning.london2012.com/upload/publicaccessODAlive/%281821%29%20MS-HS-3AX-MU-SE-AR-2-1821%28E%20W%20ceremonies%29%20%286017%29.pdf

It looks like there'll be a 'moat' of sorts for photographers, but not a security moat.

A traditional moat would mean spectators are further from the field of play. I also wouldn't be at all surprised if it were against UK Health and Safety, but don't quote me on that.

You seem very interested in this question. You asked the same one in the UK forums :)

Repetition is the mother of learning.

don' t really like it, sorry..

50p coin for the Olympics:

http://i33.tinypic.com/1z2fuy8.jpg

Is that Brian Peppers?

6 pages without construction pics? 6 pages of the usual bickering gibberish I won't bother reading? C'mon Londoners, get on the ball here.

No huge updates have happened. They'll be posted when they happen, don't worry.

Looking back, those 6 pages all happened over about a week, so it must have been all just a week long bitch, and whine session? Sorry about the interruption, carry on.

http://i34.tinypic.com/xpbvon.jpg

^^ Awesome :D

i don't understad. why build such huge stadiums when people siting in the back wount be able to see anything!!!! everybody should see!

^^Life is unfair

i don't understad. why build such huge stadiums when people siting in the back wount be able to see anything!!!! everybody should see!

Everybody will be able to see.

i don't understad. why build such huge stadiums when people siting in the back wount be able to see anything!!!! everybody should see!

who cant see what?!?!?!?!?

50p coin for the Olympics:

http://i33.tinypic.com/1z2fuy8.jpg

Is that Beavis or Butthead? I can never remember which is which.

No, it's the Queen!

My goodness, what is happening here!! Isnt there anything more interesting to talk or update us on besides talking about old age royalty? Unless there is some sort of synonymous connotation to the stadium, which would be a damning shame. This is the reason why this thread needs people like me to shake things up in here and pose pertinent questions as to why London is building another Library?lol

Webcam images from today showing the current progress of the stadium.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2447/4051995191_7015fb56b1_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2541/4051995199_f64193aedc_o.jpg

Any info on when they are going to start building the roof? (Not the crown)

It can't be that long away. You can see the tensile ring being built around the stadium, which will be hoisted up into the air and the lighting rigs then placed on top of that.

I reckon they'll have the ring up before Christmas.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2750/4053183735_1371f14427_b.jpg

nicnac100 - flickr.

1000 days to go before the Olympic stadium needs to be ready!
looking good.

LOL, I hope we don't cut it that fine!

this stadium will be beautiful :)

Its too bad that after the Olympics the capacity of the stadium will be about 25,000 :(

Its too bad that after the Olympics the capacity of the stadium will be about 25,000 :(

Well, it has to turn out useful to something. Look to what happened in Beijing after the OG.

London has got (and will )very big stadiums-
Wembley 90,000
Twickenham (Rugby) 82,000
Olimpic Stadium - 80,000
Emirates 60,000
Stamford Bridge 42,449
White Hart Lane 36,214
Bolyen Ground 35,056
and others over 20,000

Absolutelly 1. world stadium-city :cheers:

London has got (and will )very big stadiums-
Wembley 90,000
Twickenham (Rugby) 82,000
Olimpic Stadium - 80,000
Emirates 60,000
Stamford Bridge 42,449
White Hart Lane 36,214
Bolyen Ground 35,056
and others over 20,000

Absolutelly 1. world stadium-city :cheers:

Yeah, so they don't need another one, especially an 80,000 seat stadium useful only for athletics. I see no problem at all with this stadium, it's attractive, doesn't waste too much taxpayer money (something the Chinese didn't have to worry about) and will be turned into something useful after the games. Same with Atlanta, it was not a beautiful Olympic stadium but it served it's purpose and was turned into an excellent baseball stadium after the games.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cjNQFQVN7O8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cjNQFQVN7O8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

One thing i know that people find weird is the fact the stadium will be so dramatically downgraded. Most Londoners however don't mind at all, we are (like most people have pointed out) blessed with so many stadia in this city this will be the best option. Obviously if they find a use for it to stay at the current capacity then fine.

Webcam images from today showing the current progress of the stadium.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2447/4051995191_7015fb56b1_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2541/4051995199_f64193aedc_o.jpg

Looking good, it looks so compact on the outside, like it can't possibly be an 80,000 seat Olympic stadium. Does it look like that in person? Or is it just an illusion and in person looks massive?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8332969.stm

Stop-frame construction video.

I see no problem at all with this stadium, it's attractive, doesn't waste too much taxpayer money (something the Chinese didn't have to worry about) and will be turned into something useful after the games.

£500 million seems like quite a lot of taxpayers money to me for such a basic stadium. A number of my friends are still struggling to understand how they managed to spend so much for so little.

The engineering needed (and never seen on this scale in terms of temporary stadiums) probably cost quite a bit.

The engineering needed (and never seen on this scale in terms of temporary stadiums) probably cost quite a bit.

No it didn't. It cost a lot cause it is being built in London. We have been through this 100 times

London and Tokyo are the most expensive capitals! :ohno:

The chinese Bird´s Nest was probably cheapper, even though it looks more expensive (not necessarily more beautiful), because we need to consider that in China people work 16 hours/day to gain 30 cents dollar/hour :bash:

You know I have to give it to the Brits for the advancement of the stadium when so many days are still remaining. Keep up you doing fine.

No it didn't. It cost a lot cause it is being built in London. We have been through this 100 times
and there was no competition during the tender phase
and somebody is making lots of money
and its a rip off.

Ahaa, I didnt want to raise this financial imbalance issue again because of the unpleasant reputation that my constructive criticism has created amongst blindly patriotic Londoners. It seems very much irrational to spend so many pounds just to build a glorified shack, lol. Anyways I wanted to know what is with the rose-like lapel with men in England lately? Is it the Queen's birthday, or is it "the annual get in touch with your feminen side period circle month"? lmfoa

Poppies were the first flowers that grew in the empty battlefields after the first world war. British people wear poppies this time of year to remember the millions who've died fighting for our country in battle. And the money raised from the sales of poppies goes to the Royal British Legion, who use it help disabled ex-Servicemen and their familes rebuild their lives.

http://www.poppy.org.uk/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_British_Legion#Poppy_Appeal

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

http://pal2pal.com/BLOGEE/images/uploads/bugleramonggraves.jpg

@ kwezi poppies are also part of remembrence day in SA

Oh I get it, thats very commemorative but I didnt know SA is part of that rememberance though.

^^ quite a few remembrence day services happen in Cape Town, lots of schools hold them and things like that, A fair share of South Africans fought in both World Wars.

The Queen visited the Stadium today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8341031.stm

^^ Spectacular footage ;)

Also take a look at this vid that was uploaded on the 31st of October :D
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8332969.stm

Ahaa, I didnt want to raise this financial imbalance issue again because of the unpleasant reputation that my constructive criticism has created amongst blindly patriotic Londoners. It seems very much irrational to spend so many pounds just to build a glorified shack, lol. Anyways I wanted to know what is with the rose-like lapel with men in England lately? Is it the Queen's birthday, or is it "the annual get in touch with your feminen side period circle month"? lmfoa

COCK!

http://www.connietalk.com/poppy-field.jpg

Also take a look at this vid that was uploaded on the 31st of October :D
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8332969.stm

Lovely :cheers1:.

There still much to do but it's been a long way already.

The Queen visited the Stadium today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8341031.stm

Oh my goodness, what a show stopper, the headliner, the main event!! lol

Oh my goodness, what a show stopper, the headliner, the main event!! lol

What a communist thing to say... :ohno:

Oh my goodness, what a show stopper, the headliner, the main event!! lol

So, if the OG were to be held in South Africa, the president wouldn't be allowed to visit the site?

What a communist thing to say... :ohno:

Either you are not familiar with the word communism or you misused it in place of sarcasm. Which is what I was going for. Frankly that post had no marxist connotation but if you insist on calling me a communist then be my guest I've been dubbed worse in this thread i.e. extremist and terrorist which has become a colloquial for anyone expressing dislike to the stadium. But hey the stadium is really ahead of schedule, one wonders how old it would be come the opening stadium. lol

^^^ Lmao

So what is the total cost to build this stadium in Rands?

Found this browsing the net tonight, a picture someone took from a plane:

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/7384/dsc00739.jpg


Stadium is obviously visible.

Aquatics Centre roof to the far right in the middle

Just above this will be the water polo venue

Boxy building at the top is the IBC/MBC

Handball arena is being constrcucted in the space surrounded by blue fences just below the IBC/MPC

Hockey venue will be just to the right of the IBC/MPC

Warm up tracks will be built in the bottom left of the photo

-------

Out of shot, to the right of the photo are the velodrome, bmx circuit, basketball arena and Olympic Village

-------


Map of the site (http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/2855/olympicparkmaptf8.gif)

http://i33.tinypic.com/2n0pljb.jpg

Ahaa, I didnt want to raise this financial imbalance issue again because of the unpleasant reputation that my constructive criticism has created amongst blindly patriotic Londoners. It seems very much irrational to spend so many pounds just to build a glorified shack, lol. Anyways I wanted to know what is with the rose-like lapel with men in England lately? Is it the Queen's birthday, or is it "the annual get in touch with your feminen side period circle month"? lmfoa

ignorant twat.:nuts:

Simple yet effective!

Ahaa, I didnt want to raise this financial imbalance issue again because of the unpleasant reputation that my constructive criticism has created amongst blindly patriotic Londoners. It seems very much irrational to spend so many pounds just to build a glorified shack, lol. Anyways I wanted to know what is with the rose-like lapel with men in England lately? Is it the Queen's birthday, or is it "the annual get in touch with your feminen side period circle month"? lmfoa



Khwezi,
I have to say I find your incoherent ramblings tedious and pointless. I’m certain much of what you say is for effect and to provoke a reaction, so to that end…congratulations… you’ve succeeded. Stay on topic my friend, and don’t forget the spell check button (as you like using long words..!) :okay:

Anyways I wanted to know what is with the rose-like lapel with men in England lately? Is it the Queen's birthday, or is it "the annual get in touch with your feminen side period circle month"? lmfoa

You really should grow up and show some respect.

Lmfao you guys really kill me, you so uptight all the time, is it the gloomy weather? Well its something! lol. Oh, let me address this hopeful who called me his friend, listen up, you dont know me like that, ayt! Lol-ology

Another irrelevent post Khwezi. It would have taken you 10 seconds to Google what poppies were rather than posting off-topic stuff in the London stadium thread and riling other Brits. Please learn how these forums work.

Another irrelevent post Khwezi. It would have taken you 10 seconds to Google what poppies were rather than posting off-topic stuff in the London stadium thread and riling other Brits. Please learn how these forums work.

You're giving him far too much credit. By the looks of it he can barely use a computer, so google is a bit of a stretch. And I doubt he even has the capacity to learn.

No, he'll just keep spouting pig ignorant bile until he get's a reaction. The sooner people stop responding to him the sooner he will get bored and go away.

Back on topic please.

any new photos?

Why aren't there any updates like every few weeks or so (photos)? There is a website for the reconstruction of the Olympic Stadium in Kyiv, and every week they post new photos. There must be some sort of website like that for this stadium (Not the link with all the webcams).

^^ Well there are almost daily updates to www.flickr.com and brilliant monthly updates on www.london2012.com

What more do you want!



http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt118/awaren8/oly4-1.jpg

from http://www.vrwebdesign.co.uk/london-aerial-virtual-tour/

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2681/4089913728_3173d0009c_b.jpg

kristina_kostadinova on Flickr.

Nice photo. Not much happening on the outside of the stadium; hence the lack of updates. The lighting rigs are being constructed, and have been tested, inside the stadium though.

And of course, not relevent to this thread but perhaps worth pointing out for those who haven't followed London's progress closely, the Aquatics Centre roof is the massive "sting-ray shaped" steel structure in the foreground.

I still have some doubts about the Aquatics Centre design. It looks 'vintage' (not in a bad way) from the inside and yet so clean and innovative from the outside. I just don´t know if the stadium and de acquatics center will match.

This is well, well worth looking at; an interactive virtual panorama of the Olympic Park taken from a helicoptor or light aircraft:

http://www.vrwebdesign.co.uk/london-aerial-virtual-tour/

------

Click on the third box from the left in the bar at the bottom to load the Olympic Park.

Once it's loaded, click the circle with three arrows to turn off auto rotate.

Clockwise from top left:

The first shot you'll see shows piles of mud in the top left. Temporary tennis courts for the Paralympics will be built here.

The velodrome's shell is clearly visible next to that, above which will be the BMX circuit. The big flat brown patch next to that is where the basketball arena is being built. Then, further right still is the Olympic Village, the massive first blocks of which are structurally complete.

Over the rail lines, and past Stratford International Station, the great big grey lump is the Stratford City development.

Below that you can see the completed roof structure of the Aquatic Centre, and further down still, the Olympic Stadium surrounded by water.

On the far bottom left of the picture is the IBC/MBC (the grey boxy structure) and to the right of that will be the handball arena. Above the IBC/MPC, hockey pitches will be built.

------

I think this gives a great overview of the entire park, and the scale of the development. You can fly around and zoom in on things and rotate round.

Enjoy! :D

Another aerial shot of the park from Frans Zwart on Flickr:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2740/4104118052_6d2d74746a_o.jpg

Wich stadium/arena are they building in the left top corner of the pic?

That's the velodrome (http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com/2009/10/09/1/080905b_ovp_render_roadtrack_final_600.jpg). Here's a map for you :)

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/2855/olympicparkmaptf8.gif

I am looking at this areal posted above and I am thinking that London will have a hard time matching the glamor of Beijing Olympics. Leaving aside the issue of sustainability/use of the stadium post-games, I think Beijing reinvigorated the Olympic Spirit because of how lavish the venues were. And for the vast majority of people who watch Olympics on TV, the visual matters. It will be hard for London to match this, although I suspect it will receive much better publicity from Western media than Beijing did.

I am looking at this areal posted above and I am thinking that London will have a hard time matching the glamor of Beijing Olympics. Leaving aside the issue of sustainability/use of the stadium post-games, I think Beijing reinvigorated the Olympic Spirit because of how lavish the venues were. And for the vast majority of people who watch Olympics on TV, the visual matters. It will be hard for London to match this, although I suspect it will receive much better publicity from Western media than Beijing did.

Going off topic but Beijing didnt really reinvigorate the Olympic Games (the Spirit really has nothing to do with venues and glamour) but continued a trend started in Barcalona.

I agree. you on;y really see and appreciate the stadium during the opening and closing ceremonies. besides that, their just stadiums. i think this stadium will look great and i like that it's such a contradiction to the bird's nest, because it's so simple. i like the bird's nest but i like variety. there is no olympic stadium that looks like this one.

I am looking at this areal posted above and I am thinking that London will have a hard time matching the glamor of Beijing Olympics. Leaving aside the issue of sustainability/use of the stadium post-games, I think Beijing reinvigorated the Olympic Spirit because of how lavish the venues were. And for the vast majority of people who watch Olympics on TV, the visual matters.


Of the last three Summer Games the one I enjoyed most, by far, was the one with the least interesting architecture - Sydney. I won't presume, like you, to speak on behalf of the vast majority of people though. :lol:

Visuals matter, of course, but that isn't limited to architecture. Imagaine that aerial shot with green parkland, trees, lakes, flowers, clean rivers etc. and you get a better picture of the "visuals" which will come to define London's Games.

It's hard to see that at the moment because it's just mud, but the parkland is probably going to be the most important and memorable visual aspect of these games

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/3682/57623628vw5.jpg

Spot on Rob. We were shown images of smog, hustle and bustle and political issues with regards Beijing. Also, the air of controversy surrounding the games with regards human rights and general expenditure clouded the entire event.

London already has an array of 'visuals' for the world to see. I would agree with Sydney being a great Olympics, but also Barcelona stands out for me too. London will hopefully match these Olympics as far as being a spectacle is concerned. To do this the event needs to run smoothly and the buzz and energy from the crowd and the participants needs to transfer through the media, one or two memorable moments helps of course!

And for the vast majority of people who watch Olympics on TV, the visual matters. It will be hard for London to match this.

London's Games are going to look spectacular on TV. We're going to be planning camera angles for a year before the Games, after all.