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.

The "Olympic spirit" has nothing whatsoever to do with "lavish venues". The "Olympic spirit" is supposed to be all about what is best in sport and human nature. Not about spending untold billions of public money on buildings that will become white elephants, purely because your city has a point to prove to the world.

Unlike Beijing, London doesn't need to prove a point. It is already a world leading city. It has more than enough iconic and world famous buildings. It has more than enough existing major stadia.

And as to "Olympic spirit", I am confident that it will be far stronger in London, where ordinary people will be allowed to partake in the celebration and to soak up the atmosphere of the Olympic fortnight in a way that the ordinary people of Beijing were denied. London's Olympic Park will be a far more lively and welcoming space than the bleak concrete that surrounds the Birds Nest.

Beijing had fantastic venues and was fantastically organised. But the atmosphere was sterile. London 2012 will, by contrast, deliver a Games with a party atmosphere. And that is far more important to the "Olympic Spirit" than building lavish venues.

Don't say party, call it somewhat else, cause I have seen a lot of parties and they don't tend to end pretty.

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. !

Although Sydneys venues were great,they certainly were not as amazing as Beijings.But Sydney didnt need to spend $$$Billions on venues to make them spectacular..Why would you,when you have a spectacular venue as Sydney itself?
http://z.hubpages.com/u/1795684_f520.jpg
The visuals that people remember from Sydney is the city itself,the harbour,the beaches,the landscape and the wonderful atmosphere generated by the people and the visuals the people remember from Beijing is the venues.
Im sure London is going to produce a great olympics with a great atmosphere.An atmosphere not seen since Sydney 2000.

I'm sure our Greek members would disagree with regard to the atmosphere - but let's please not get into that old argument again ;)

But certainly, the emphasis is going to be quite different from Beijing. It has to be. London was never going to spend the amount it would take to match Beijing's structures, so it's putting less emphasis on the venue aesthetics and a great, great deal more on the park environment and the visitor experience.

Fabulous photo by the way ExSydney. If London even comes close to matching what Sydney gave us I'll be a very proud Brit in three years time. :) By the way, there's very strong suggestions we'll be seeing the Olympic rings on Tower Bridge - that'll be a nice counterpoint to what Sydney did.

it also doesn't make sense to try to copy something just because it's impressive, but not sustainabl. the birds nest is a pretty serious headache for the chinese government and the other olympic facilities are also struggling. you have to think of that when comparing venues.

Exactly, that's why London went down the temporary route for many venues, and a partially temporary route for others.

^^ which i had a problem with initially, but it's understandable.

Well, since all SSC unanimously agrees about the last 3 Olympiads, (Atlanta, Sydney, Beijing), taking Sydney as an example is your best shot for success

I don't know if this is still happening, but I expect it will.

http://www.london2012.com/photos/news-before-july-07/london-eye.jpg

I never figured out how they would manage to do that, considering the whole thing spins and hangs over the river. It would be pretty cool though.

I haven't heard anymore on that since the bid to be honest, but I have heard about Tower Bridge being a possibility for the illuminated rings. We'll have to see I guess...

Just build another 4london eye rings and position them like the olympic logo.... magic!

^^ a bit excessive me thinks

I never figured out how they would manage to do that, considering the whole thing spins and hangs over the river.

The central hub of the spindle does not turn, so it would be attached to this portion.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2379/2279666711_02531b3736_o.jpg

^^ Plus, they've already done something similar in the past.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-461458/The-Silver-Surfer-hangs-London-Eye.html

The Silver Surfer span with the wheel though I seem to remember.

http://i819.photobucket.com/albums/zz114/ExSydney/london.jpg

Nice photoshop - that'd work really well on both sides

it also doesn't make sense to try to copy something just because it's impressive, but not sustainabl. the birds nest is a pretty serious headache for the chinese government and the other olympic facilities are also struggling. you have to think of that when comparing venues.

Depends on the angle you take at the issue. At the moment it is the second or third most visited venue in the city. Tourists are coming in, money is flowing in with them, so for now the Chinese seems to have achieved their objective.

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:

No presumptions. The fact that the visual matters for TV watchers is proved, again, by the popularity of the Bird's Nest with tourists post-games.

In any case, let's hope London can dazzle. The stadium, which is the face of the Olympics, usually plays an integral role in the overall image of the games (Atlanta...). Sydney, which has been mentioned more than once, also had a pretty monumental stadium. It remains to be seen then how the London Olympic Stadium will affect the games

^^ Fair enough.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2h4deoh.jpg

there raising the roof ring now?? Kool

^^ Those are the light projectors that are going to be on the roof. If you look at page 74, you can see that they even tested them out :D

^^ Those are the light projectors that are going to be on the roof. If you look at page 74, you can see that they even tested them out :D

We know that! on about the roof ring....its being raised!

http://i47.tinypic.com/15q4s3r.jpg

It's good to see the progress:yes: :cheers2:.

I'm waiting you Olympic~

damn, at the rate its going, the stadium looks like it could be ready at the beginning of 2011. really fast construction!

Flythrough of the Olympic park site (Jonathan Edwards presents - official London 2012 video)

http://89.234.19.19/twentytwelve/flythrough_nov09/flythrough_nov09_blog.swf

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2761/4127942228_af75afc7fb_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2617/4127951142_b06a77b39f_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2687/4127955486_ffe54f5fd9_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2761/4127942228_af75afc7fb_b.jpg

What are those horizontal platforms above the vomitories on the upper tier?

Just found this photo in the London forum. From b0000per on flickr:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2524/4132231152_c7343d809c_b.jpg

This is moving along well :)

Olympic Stadium could host World Athletics

Lord Coe has hinted that UK Athletics may use London's 2012 Olympic stadium as its centre-piece for a bid to host the 2015 world athletics championships.

The venue is one of four vying to stage a match in London should England's 2018 football World Cup bid be successful.

Even if the arena is used for football, Coe has always insisted that it will remain the home for British Athletics.

"It's not inconceivable that UK Athletics might look at 2015 and think it's an opportunity," he said

Daegu in South Korea and Moscow are hosting the 2011 and 2013 championships respectively, while Beijing has expressed an interest in hosting in 2015.

Coe, who is chairman of the London Organising Committee, added: "We have talked about the decade of sport (in Britain) and there is an athletics world championships up for grabs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/8382514.stm

From Sze Lee on Flickr:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2491/4138475772_9ee90ac717_b.jpg

this stadium is due for a 2012 event, and look ahead of the 2010 Commonwealth stadium in India (cant this be borrowed for a few weeks)

At this stage, from the air, the stadium looks like River Plate Stadium in Buenos Aires.

this work site is HUGE. It looks so un organized, hard to believe that in a few years it will be a beautiful olympic park. Do Work London!

It's on, if not well ahead of schedule. And there will be 10,000 workers on site next year.

No need to worry Ganis, things will be ready in 2011 and test events will be run before the Games. :)

Incidentally, the photo above shows only a small section of the Olympic Park. To get a real sense of its scale, have a look at some of the photos in the Olympic Park threads:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=596478&page=13

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=484358&page=70

do work London...are you serious?

its more like..slow down London so that you dont have to pay to maintain the venue pre july/aug 2012

LOL, it really shows the scale of London's project when a Texan comes into this thread and says "that's huge" :lol:

I meant it as a compliment as to how well and smooth London is going.... Have you guys not heard the term "Do Work" when someone is kicking ass?

I meant it as a compliment as to how well and smooth London is going.... Have you guys not heard the term "Do Work" when someone is kicking ass?

It doesn't really make sense, if you think about it?

I meant it as a compliment as to how well and smooth London is going.... Have you guys not heard the term "Do Work" when someone is kicking ass?

No, that must be an American saying. But thanks for the compliment - it's nice that a project in this city is getting good reactions :)

My last coming to London was 2 months ago and I'm very impressed to see how fast the construction of the Olympic Stadium is going...(Among others):)

No doubt that it will be completed before schedule.I look forward to getting my ticket for the opening ceremony...

A frog loving London.:cheers:

^^

Regarding tickets, does anyone know how it will work out? When will tickets be out for sale? Perhaps 2011?

It would certainly be a dream come true, an experience for life, watching an opening cerimony of the Olympic Games.

http://www.london2012.com/visiting/tickets/index.php

http://www.london2012.com/visiting/tickets/index.php

Thank you very much:okay:

I want to make sure I get mine on time...

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/485/greenbuildontrack.gif

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p49/zedferret/stadium-close.jpg

Brainwave.

At the start of the 2011/2012 season send the first 5 Chelsea Matches to this stadium at 80,000 capacity.

As much as the track detracts from the atmosphere, I have a feeling they will attract over 60k a match.

As much as the track detracts from the atmosphere, I have a feeling they will attract over 60k a match.

Well that won't be an issue for Chelsea home games anyway! :lol:

Finally they r wokrin on the roof :D!!!!

http://i48.tinypic.com/xbp0h.jpg

http://i46.tinypic.com/2cxbuiu.jpg

The cable net roof of the Olympic Stadium has been lifted into place.

BBC London Gallery (http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/people_and_places/2012/newsid_8414000/8414037.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46924000/jpg/_46924264_091209_oda_mda_ac_095_hi.jpg

The cable net roof will be covered with material next Spring providing the correct conditions for athletes on the field of play and covering two-thirds of spectators.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46924000/jpg/_46924265_091209_oda_mda_ac_105_hi.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46924000/jpg/_46924266_stadium_08_dec.jpg

The cable net is formed between the outer white steel roof truss and an inner tension ring 30m above the field of play.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46924000/jpg/_46924267_091209_oda_mda_ac_100_hi.jpg

Over 900 tonnes of scaffolding and over a kilometre of support platforms were used to assembled over 12,000m of cables and the walkways.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46924000/jpg/_46924268_091209_oda_mda_ac_101_hi.jpg

It took four weeks and 56 hydraulic jacks to lift the 450 tonne structure into place.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46924000/jpg/_46924269_091209_oda_mda_ac_102_hi.jpg

The steel support cables are made from galvanised spiral strand, with the largest cable having a breaking strength in excess of 600 tonnes.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46924000/jpg/_46924270_091209_oda_mda_ac_114_hi.jpg

What? Is that how far the roof goes? Wow thats quite small, only covers like half of the stadium :S

Reminds me of the time Cape Town's ring was lifted. Images are almost identical..except for the stadium bowl of course.

http://www.tfphotography.co.za/watermark/watermark.php?img=categories/cat_4/full/_25i8190_-_version_2.jpg

Brainwave.

At the start of the 2011/2012 season send the first 5 Chelsea Matches to this stadium at 80,000 capacity.

As much as the track detracts from the atmosphere, I have a feeling they will attract over 60k a match.

Isn't Stamford Bridge like on the other side of the city from this one?

what a shame they are going to knock two-thirds of this stadium down...

what a shame they are going to knock two-thirds of this stadium down...

Two thirds of it that will never be filled again.

What? Is that how far the roof goes? Wow thats quite small, only covers like half of the stadium :S

Two thirds actually. If the roof covered the permanent lower bowl as well, it would block the view of the farther end of the track from the highest rear seats. This way every spectator has an uninterrupted view of the complete athletics track.

Brainwave.

At the start of the 2011/2012 season send the first 5 Chelsea Matches to this stadium at 80,000 capacity.

As much as the track detracts from the atmosphere, I have a feeling they will attract over 60k a match.

Chelsea can't play home matches anywhere other than Stamford Bridge and still call themselves "Chelsea".

Chelsea can't play home matches anywhere other than Stamford Bridge and still call themselves "Chelsea".

I know that but surely that clause can be removed.

I read that its in place not to prevent a move but at the time was put in place to prevent the site/stadium being sold.

Reminds me of the time Cape Town's ring was lifted. Images are almost identical..except for the stadium bowl of course.

http://www.tfphotography.co.za/watermark/watermark.php?img=categories/cat_4/full/_25i8190_-_version_2.jpg

Its a pretty standard procedure that has been used many times now, i think the first was Ernst happel Austria (not 100% sure) and then many others since. This roof type technology is over a quarter of a century old, so simple and effective that it has continued to be used ever since without much modification.

Its a pretty standard procedure that has been used many times now, i think the first was Ernst happel Austria (not 100% sure) and then many others since. This roof type technology is over a quarter of a century old, so simple and effective that it has continued to be used ever since without much modification.

Yes, Rome too!

http://i46.tinypic.com/dcupg.jpg
testing more lights today....

The cable net roof of the Olympic Stadium has been lifted into place.

BBC London Gallery (http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/people_and_places/2012/newsid_8414000/8414037.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46924000/jpg/_46924264_091209_oda_mda_ac_095_hi.jpg

The cable net roof will be covered with material next Spring providing the correct conditions for athletes on the field of play and covering two-thirds of spectators.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46924000/jpg/_46924265_091209_oda_mda_ac_105_hi.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46924000/jpg/_46924266_stadium_08_dec.jpg

The cable net is formed between the outer white steel roof truss and an inner tension ring 30m above the field of play.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46924000/jpg/_46924267_091209_oda_mda_ac_100_hi.jpg

Over 900 tonnes of scaffolding and over a kilometre of support platforms were used to assembled over 12,000m of cables and the walkways.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46924000/jpg/_46924268_091209_oda_mda_ac_101_hi.jpg

It took four weeks and 56 hydraulic jacks to lift the 450 tonne structure into place.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46924000/jpg/_46924269_091209_oda_mda_ac_102_hi.jpg

The steel support cables are made from galvanised spiral strand, with the largest cable having a breaking strength in excess of 600 tonnes.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46924000/jpg/_46924270_091209_oda_mda_ac_114_hi.jpg

2000 years ago:
http://wereldwonderen.punt.nl/upload/colosseummetdak.gif

Pardon?

University of East London plans sports faculty under Olympic stadium
(http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23795474-university-of-east-london-plans-sports-faculty-under-olympic-stadium.do)Matthew Beard, Sports News Correspondent
15.01.10

A university is in talks to establish a specialist sports faculty at the Olympic Stadium after 2012.

The University of East London, with campuses in Stratford and Docklands, is proposing to teach sports-related degrees to up to 600 undergraduates in lecture halls in the venue's undercroft.

Next month, a proposed tenancy for UEL will be put to the Olympic Park Legacy Company, which will take the 600-hectare park and its venues off taxpayers' hands after the Games.

John Lock, UEL's 2012 director, insisted that despite nationwide funding cuts of £135 million in higher education, the university could finance the move, with demand for sports studies expected to rise as a result of the Olympics.

The college hopes to sign a memorandum of understanding with the legacy company within months, before a legally binding agreement.

But if the plan goes ahead UEL may have to suspend lectures for a year in 2018 if the stadium becomes a World Cup venue.

Mayor Boris Johnson backs a major role for higher education in the Olympic Park and commissioned a £200,000 study to consider the feasibility of a “world class” university setting up there.

The National Skills Academy and English Institute of Sport have signed up to tenancies at the stadium, which has 700 rooms.

But the venue's core legacy role remains in doubt as top-flight rugby and football clubs have shown no interest in becoming anchor tenants.

The £550 million stadium will become a 25,000-seat athletics facility after 2012.

A legacy company spokesman said: “We continue to have good discussions with UEL about their future plans.”

Rumours about West Ham moving into the stadium have sprung back up again now they've been taken over.

One hopes so, that way the stadium would be put to good regular use instead of wasting away as a white elephant.

If they can afford it, the parkland legacy plans aren't damaged beyond repair by their moving in, and the athletics legacy remains it's a good idea. Three big ifs.

I heard West Ham United FC will be play at this stadium after Olimpic.
Am I right? or wrong:)?

At the moment wrong, but you may be right if things change. Lots of hurdles to get over before they can play there, but the new owners of West Ham want it to happen.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2597/4282618876_7bf789892f_b.jpg

by Rick Holman on flickr.

I see, thanks for quick ansver!

If they can afford it, the parkland legacy plans aren't damaged beyond repair by their moving in, and the athletics legacy remains it's a good idea. Three big ifs.

If the athletic legacy goes it would be a better idea. There's no need for it.

It would be embarrassing and a horrible indictment on our city and our country if the only city in the world which has hosted the Olympics three times can't match the athletics facilities of cities like Sheffield. London is a city of 8 million and should be able to maintain a world class athletics facilty. If it can't do this, it doesn't deserve the Olympics in two years time. So yes, there is absolutely a need for it. If West Ham want a stadium on the cheap (which is essentially what they're tryiing to get) they'll have to live with British Athletics also using said stadium and the occaissional Diamond/Golden league event. If they don't want a stadium on the cheap they can, by all means, spend a few hundred million on a new build instead.

The athletics track is not going anywhere. West Ham can't afford to change the stadium, it would cost a ton, and LOCOG/London will have none of it.

If they are serious about moving, surely there would be some agreement which could see West Ham maintaining the venue alongside other agencies.

If the athletic legacy goes it would be a better idea. There's no need for it.

Yes, there is. London lacks a Golden League quality athletics venue.

Besides, as RobH has pointed out, because of the high water table, there is no option to dig down and build the stands close to the pitch (as Man City did at Eastlands). So the athletics track might as well stay.

Originally posted by DarJoLe.

London's first glimpse inside the Olympic Stadium (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23797307-londons-first-glimpse-inside-the-olympic-stadium.do)
Rowan Moore Rowan Moore
20.01.10

The doors of the hoist clang open, I step out, look down, and there it is. The great concrete oval of the Olympic Stadium lies below, the until-now unseen umbilicus of the nine-billion-pound hoopla of London 2012, the place where for a feverish fortnight-and-a-bit the eyes of the world will be turned.

http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/20-25-stadium-415.jpg
Brick by brick: clean-lined concrete terraces at the arena, designed by Populous.

For a student of the Olympic project, it's a minor Neil Armstrong moment. Were it not perishing cold 30 metres above the Lower Lea Valley, you'd feel something like an explorer's awe on crossing the rim of a jungle volcano and finding a lost world. To be sure, one giant stadium bowl looks quite like another but, four-and-a-half years since London won the bid to host the Games, and many more since the London Olympics were a gleam in the eye, the enterprise looks real and tangible as never before.

Later, I'm in the stadium's hidden voids, in a great concrete hall where athletes will jog, reflect, pray, quell their demons, enter their personal zone and do whatever else they must before they pass through an oblong portal into the glare of billions of TV spectators. Then I'm on the future field of play, for now populated with batteries of floodlights which are waiting to be lifted above the stadium. I also see the exit tube, where successful athletes might take up to an hour to work their way through the throng of media people seeking interviews.

I am there as an Olympic sceptic. I question the approach whereby the initial concept — that of holding the Games at all — is a vastly speculative and extravagant gamble, following which the delivery has to be conservative and risk-averse. For the most part, for example, tried and tested architects are used because the project's scale and deadlines prohibit experiment.

I dislike the culture of control that the Olympics generate — the intense and immense security that will be necessary, the special powers that will be enacted, the privileges given to the International Olympic Committee, the pressure to be on-message for the long duration of the project, the sucking of funds from the arts and more grassroots sports projects. I object to the erasure of the messy vitality that existed on the site before the Games came along.

But right now, the appropriate emotion is to be impressed. The stadium is designed by Populous, formerly HOK Sport, and in its current state it is a handsome piece of equipment. Inside, the concrete terraces are clean-lined. On the outside its triangulated, black steel structure has a pleasing simplicity, without the sort of ticky-tacky add-ons that mar the same architects' Emirates Stadium. I find myself inwardly addressing the architects, “don't mess it up, don't mess it up”.

It is not just the stadium that impresses. It stands amid 246 hectares of activity, the largest building site in Europe, a panorama of machines and blinking warning lights in which colossal quantities of mud are resolving themselves into the geometry of buildings. It is a reverse Passchendaele, with better generals, the making of chaos into order.

At the northern end, the steel skeleton of the 6,000-seat Velodrome can now be seen. Since the 2008 Olympics we have made the surprising discovery that we are a nation of cyclists — after the stadium this will be one of the main locations of the Games. Its wooden track, we are promised, will be the fastest in the world. The form of its curvaceous roof, designed by Hopkins Architects, now hovers like a dainty hat above the maelstrom.

At the other end another curvy roof, that of Zaha Hadid's Aquatic Centre, also stands. Between them are the rectangle where the basketball arena will rise, the emerging handball arena, and the structures of the 30-plus bridges that will cross the site's channels, canals and river. You can see where the hollows and hillocks of the future park are being scooped out.

Off to one side, like serried freighters, stand the 10-storey blocks of the Athletes' Village, London's largest single housing development since the massive council estates of the Sixties and Seventies. On another side stands the completed electrical sub-station, a dignified work in brick, and the still-building Energy Centre. There is also the unfinished grey shed of the International Broadcast Centre, the building where the London Olympics' architectural ambition finally ran out. This so much resembles the cut-price industrial stuff that once stood hereabouts that you wonder why they bothered knocking the latter down.

Around the horizon, outside the control of the Olympic Delivery Authority, some of the worst-designed housing in London gathers like scum in a canal lock. These are both council tower blocks of the Sixties, and the cynical cylinders of Noughties buy-to-let flats. Marketed with the help of a 2012 tag, these are pure units of investment, without any sentimental notion that a home might be a place you could love.

There is also, next to the Aquatic Centre, the fast-rising shell of the Westfield shopping centre, the eastern counterpart of the one in Shepherd's Bush, the second half of a dumbbell of retail laid across London. As it lies between Stratford station and the Olympic Park, an estimated two-thirds of visitors to the Games are expected to pass through this mall.

The ultimate question is whether all this construction adds up to a piece of city. Will the equation “mall plus curvy roofs plus big chunk of housing” equal more than the sum of its parts? Will the Olympic Park perform the tough task it has been given, which is to make these many elements hang together? Or will we end up with a series of citadels, of shopping and sport, that simply demonstrate the relative power of the Olympic Delivery Authority and the Westfield property group?

It is too early to know for sure. What we have now is a spectacle less of architecture and town planning than of project management, in which thousands of building workers and hundreds of vehicles are effectively marshalled every day on a plain of seeming confusion. It is on budget, ahead of schedule and has a low rate of accidents. The bad news stories that usually cluster around major British construction projects are so far absent.

It is currently one of the sights of London, best seen from the A12 to the north or from the elevated platform of Pudding Mill Lane station on the Docklands Light Railway, or from the “View Tube”, the public viewing platform created by Leaside Regeneration for the purpose of viewing the site. There has been nothing like it for decades — and if immense building projects are your thing, you should go and have a look.

It would be embarrassing and a horrible indictment on our city and our country if the only city in the world which has hosted the Olympics three times can't match the athletics facilities of cities like Sheffield. London is a city of 8 million and should be able to maintain a world class athletics facilty. If it can't do this, it doesn't deserve the Olympics in two years time. So yes, there is absolutely a need for it. If West Ham want a stadium on the cheap (which is essentially what they're tryiing to get) they'll have to live with British Athletics also using said stadium and the occaissional Diamond/Golden league event. If they don't want a stadium on the cheap they can, by all means, spend a few hundred million on a new build instead.
London has the Crystal Palace stadium. If this isn't good enough, well, then the Olympic Stadium won't be a few years after the games. It will be as run down as the venue in Crystal Palace is right now.

Not if it's maintained it won't be.

London has the Crystal Palace stadium. If this isn't good enough, well, then the Olympic Stadium won't be a few years after the games. It will be as run down as the venue in Crystal Palace is right now.

Why would that necessarily happen?

The Olympic stadium, in legacy mode, will have far better and more extensive facilities than Crystal Palace. It will be used all the year round.

Unlike the legacy mode Olympic stadium, Crystal Palace is neither big enough nor good enough for Golden League events.

Not if it's maintained it won't be.
If Crystal Palace had been maintained it would still be in good conditions.

its coming on nicely

Unlike the legacy mode Olympic stadium, Crystal Palace is neither big enough nor good enough for Golden League events.
Neither will the Olympic stadium be big enough. A capacity of 25'000 is hardly bigger than Crystal Palace and a ridiculous size for a city like London anyway.

If Crystal Palace had been maintained it would still be in good conditions.

Err Crystal Palace is actually very well maintained. It has new seats and they even had a new track installed couple of years ago now as it hosts the international London Grand Prix every year which always attracts a strong field. It is regularly used as a training facility for athletes and for the community.

So i don't know where you got the idea that its in a bad condition when infact it is in very good condition.

Neither will the Olympic stadium be big enough. A capacity of 25'000 is hardly bigger than Crystal Palace and a ridiculous size for a city like London anyway.

I suggest that you take a look at the IAAF Diamond League calendar for the coming year.

You will see that 8 of the 14 stadia are smaller (some of them, considerably so) than the proposed legacy capacity for the London Olympic stadium:

Bislett Stadion, Oslo, Norway - 15,400
Icahn Stadium, New York, USA - 5,000
Hayward Field, Eugene, USA - 10,500
Stade Olympique de la Pontaise, Lausanne, Switzerland - 15,900
Gateshead Stadium, Gateshead, England - 11,800
Stade Louis II, Monaco - 18,500
Stockholm Olympic Stadium, Stockholm, Sweden - 14,500
Crystal Palace National Sports Centre, London, England - 15,500

One other, Letzigrund in Zurich, will only be marginally bigger, at 30,000.

In other words, 25,000 will be plenty big enough. It simply reflects the comparative lack of demand to watch athletics events around the world, other than a once-in-a-lifetime event like the Olympic Games.

^^ Good post

London has the Crystal Palace stadium. If this isn't good enough, well, then the Olympic Stadium won't be a few years after the games. It will be as run down as the venue in Crystal Palace is right now.

Crystal Palace is nearly fifty years old. If the Olympic stadium gets to that age I have no doubt it will be superseded by an even newer facility just as the Palace is now.

The top tiers look a bit like the Emirates Stadium with the curve at the top of the stand

The top tiers look a bit like the Emirates Stadium with the curve at the top of the stand

wheres the curve?

I suggest that you take a look at the IAAF Diamond League calendar for the coming year.

You will see that 8 of the 14 stadia are smaller (some of them, considerably so) than the proposed legacy capacity for the London Olympic stadium:

Bislett Stadion, Oslo, Norway - 15,400
Icahn Stadium, New York, USA - 5,000
Hayward Field, Eugene, USA - 10,500
Stade Olympique de la Pontaise, Lausanne, Switzerland - 15,900
Gateshead Stadium, Gateshead, England - 11,800
Stade Louis II, Monaco - 18,500
Stockholm Olympic Stadium, Stockholm, Sweden - 14,500
Crystal Palace National Sports Centre, London, England - 15,500

One other, Letzigrund in Zurich, will only be marginally bigger, at 30,000.

In other words, 25,000 will be plenty big enough. It simply reflects the comparative lack of demand to watch athletics events around the world, other than a once-in-a-lifetime event like the Olympic Games.
Plenty big enough for whom. To be bigger than Gateshead is a rather disputable achievement. The ISTAF in Berlin set the Golden League attendance record of 70'000 in 2007. This is what is possible. This is what London should be aiming for. London is three times as big as Berlin. In fact, London is multiple times bigger than most of the Diamond League cities you mentioned. To put London in line with Oslo and Eugene is pretty risible anyway.
London is wasting an opportunity in my eyes. They could at least delay the reshaping after the Olympic games for one year and give it a try.

Plenty big enough for whom. To be bigger than Gateshead is a rather disputable achievement. The ISTAF in Berlin set the Golden League attendance record of 70'000 in 2007. This is what is possible. This is what London should be aiming for. London is three times as big as Berlin. In fact, London is multiple times bigger than most of the Diamond League cities you mentioned. To put London in line with Oslo and Eugene is pretty risible anyway.
London is wasting an opportunity in my eyes. They could at least delay the reshaping after the Olympic games for one year and give it a try.

Did you see the capacity for the New York venue? And New York is twice the size of London.

Yes, the Berlin Olympic stadium is bigger - as are other Diamond League venues such as Stade de France, Paris; King Baudouin (formerly Heysel) stadium, Brussels; Stadio Olimpico, Rome; Shanghai stadium; and even the Khalifa International stadium in Doha, Qatar.

But those stadiums all have one thing in common........they are multipurpose stadiums. It is economically viable to maintain their 50K, 70K or 80K capacities because they are used for far more than just one or two athletics meetings a year.

By contrast, unless West Ham were to move in as tenants, it would not be economically viable to maintain the London Olympic stadium at its full 80K Games capacity. There would be no need for it.

By contrast, unless West Ham were to move in as tenants, it would not be economically viable to maintain the London Olympic stadium at its full 80K Games capacity. There would be no need for it.
Well, if West Ham United is the only option to sustain a 80'000 seater then the fate of the upper tier is decided I suppose.

Any idea when the first seats will be installed?

Well, if West Ham United is the only option to sustain a 80'000 seater then the fate of the upper tier is decided I suppose.

It won't, it will be configured to be around 55,000.

Why would that necessarily happen?

The Olympic stadium, in legacy mode, will have far better and more extensive facilities than Crystal Palace. It will be used all the year round.

Unlike the legacy mode Olympic stadium, Crystal Palace is neither big enough nor good enough for Golden League events.

There is a very real risk that it will not be maintained. Athletics consistently runs at a loss;that is why Ken Livingstone agreed to a £10 million a year subsidy for the Olympic Stadium before the last mayoral election. Boris Johnson may very well come under pressure to withdraw that promised subsidy. Part of the reason that killed off Picketts Lock was the need for on-going subsidy.

Also I think West Ham will find it very difficult to do a deal on using the stadium for football. The cost of converting it for football is huge - this stadium is designed for temporary usage and lacks much of the infrastructure a permanent stadium needs. They would have to live with a running track around the pitch which will destroy the atmosphere. Boleyn Ground can be expanded to 41,000 at relatively low cost, it was designed in when the last redevelopment took place.

Face it guys, this stadium is going to end up as one of the most expensive white elephants ever built -and all for 28 days usage.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4300023422_1c03a4c193_b.jpg

by SiCaTo on flickr.

http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx222/photostuff2010/stadium-close-1.jpg

heres a crazy thought - West Ham should move in, and to combat the running track, dig down and add another 10,000 seats to the whole lower tier to ensure the stands are right behind the goals - this way West Ham could have a massive 90,000 stadium! ...."but it would always be empty?" i hear you say.....Not if you charge about £9/£10 a ticket it wont! what an oppurtunity for West Ham to have a massive stadium and to bring back the real working class supporter!

They can't dig down because of the water table. Which is also why there is no Beijing style centre 'box' in the middle of the stadium floor.

Who knows!

They can't dig down because of the water table. Which is also why there is no Beijing style centre 'box' in the middle of the stadium floor.

Huh? What's that, sounds exciting. :)

They can't dig down because of the water table. Which is also why there is no Beijing style centre 'box' in the middle of the stadium floor.

Exactly. Even if there isn't an athletics track around the perimeter, there is still no way that the stands could be brought any closer to the pitch.

I saw an interview with David Sullivan (West Ham's new owner) in the Evening Standard yesterday in which the arrogant cock said that it was far more important for West Ham to have a stadium than it was for British Athletics to have one. He added that if British Athletics wanted a stadium, they could build one elsewhere.

Err......no, you fat tit. Quite apart from the fact that West Ham already do have a stadium, British Athletics have had the Olympic stadium earmarked as their future home for the past five years. Why should they now go elsewhere? If West Ham want to share with British Athletics, fine......so long as they are prepared to play with an athletics track around the pitch and to pay an appropriate rent.

Why don't they move the water table somewhere else? :)

Why don't they move the water table somewhere else? :)

Because they can't be bothered to move the water chairs as well.

Exactly. Even if there isn't an athletics track around the perimeter, there is still no way that the stands could be brought any closer to the pitch.

I saw an interview with David Sullivan (West Ham's new owner) in the Evening Standard yesterday in which the arrogant cock said that it was far more important for West Ham to have a stadium than it was for British Athletics to have one. He added that if British Athletics wanted a stadium, they could build one elsewhere.

Err......no, you fat tit. Quite apart from the fact that West Ham already do have a stadium, British Athletics have had the Olympic stadium earmarked as their future home for the past five years. Why should they now go elsewhere? If West Ham want to share with British Athletics, fine......so long as they are prepared to play with an athletics track around the pitch and to pay an appropriate rent.

Well said that man! I want to see West Ham survive (not least because it means a certain six points for us every season), and it's good the club look like they'll get stability now, but they can't hijack other people's plans. As I've said, if they want a large stadium on the cheap, keeping the track and sharing with British Athletics is a small sacrifice to make. They could of course instead do what Spurs are doing and Arsenal have done and spend hundreds of millions on their own new build instead...

David Sullivan may be a tit but to be honest this stadium should go to West Ham or a new London NFL Franchise (mentioned in the Telegraph yesterday or today). If it ends up being a 25k athletics venue the public are going to end up having to pay for it through taxes...and do the public want their tax money being spent on a 25k athletics stadium which will be used for a couple of big events per year....i certainly dont & like many others dont want to be paying for it especially with a recession on. At least with West Ham or an NFL team they will be paying the costs and my tax money can be spent on something more worthwhile.

We're out of recession now.

Plenty of much smaller cities manage to maintain athletics facilites. If London - one of the top 3 cities in the world - can't or doesn't want to, it doesn't really deserve these Games - especially given the fact that we were awarded them partly on the promise of the athletics legacy they would leave behind. If it ends up removing the track it would be laughable that the only city to have hosted the Games three times still doesn't have an adequate facility for athletics. Tax subsidies plenty of other worthwhile causes from the arts to other sporting ventures, free museums, art galleries, parks etc. I don't see why some subsidy is a bad thing. Does anyone really feel any poorer because of these things or do they enrich our cities? Another football stadium will add nothing to London. We've already paid, as taxpayers, millions for this stadium to be built; are we really, as a city, going to hand it over to West Ham on the cheap and do ourselves out of the legacy we were promised, for the sake of some subsidies which are a fraction of the cost of building the thing in the first place? I really hope not. London deserves a world class athletics stadium and it was what was promised to the IOC, to the IAAF, to our athletes, and to Londoners.

I don't mind if West Ham move in now as long as the track stays. London 2012 and British Athletics who've been promised the stadium are right that that's non-negotiable.

Whats the big deal in the government maintaining a sports facility. Not everything can "pay for itself", thats exactly why, when there is a good benefit to society, government steps in to maintain public assets.

While not only maintaining the asset, they would be investing in athletics. For a stadium with no plans for a post 2012 roof and facilities limited to certain areas, maintaining the venue should not be a nightmare, unless you are ripped off.

If somehow the 55,000 seat portion of the stadium can be sold, then this can be used to offset maintenance costs.

Plenty of much smaller cities manage to maintain athletics facilites. If London - one of the top 3 cities in the world - can't or doesn't want to, it doesn't really deserve these Games - especially given the fact that we were awarded them partly on the promise of the athletics legacy they would leave behind. If it ends up removing the track it would be laughable that the only city to have hosted the Games three times still doesn't have an adequate facility for athletics. Tax subsidies plenty of other worthwhile causes from the arts to other sporting ventures, free museums, art galleries, parks etc. I don't see why some subsidy is a bad thing. Does anyone really feel any poorer because of these things or do they enrich our cities? Another football stadium will add nothing to London. We've already paid, as taxpayers, millions for this stadium to be built; are we really, as a city, going to hand it over to West Ham on the cheap and do ourselves out of the legacy we were promised, for the sake of some subsidies which are a fraction of the cost of building the thing in the first place? I really hope not. London deserves a world class athletics stadium and it was what was promised to the IOC, to the IAAF, to our athletes, and to Londoners.

I don't mind if West Ham move in now as long as the track stays. London 2012 and British Athletics who've been promised the stadium are right that that's non-negotiable.

a) its still going to cost money to keep the stadium running

b) theres still Crystal Palace Stadium which just needs a few upgrades...i think if WH move into the Olympic Stadium they should pay for some upgrades for the Crystal Palace Stadium and this way the tax payer doesnt have to foot the bill to keep the olympic stadium running

Whats the big deal in the government maintaining a sports facility. Not everything can "pay for itself", thats exactly why, when there is a good benefit to society, government steps in to maintain public assets.

While not only maintaining the asset, they would be investing in athletics. For a stadium with no plans for a post 2012 roof and facilities limited to certain areas, maintaining the venue should not be a nightmare, unless you are ripped off.

If somehow the 55,000 seat portion of the stadium can be sold, then this can be used to offset maintenance costs.

without sounding blunt, we've got more important things to spend tax payers money on than an athletics stadium which will be used once or twice a year and to be frank not many people actually care about

without sounding blunt, we've got more important things to spend tax payers money on than an athletics stadium which will be used once or twice a year and to be frank not many people actually care about

the maintenance of an athletics venue, the only world class one in London, is going to bankrupt the city?

If the taxpayers are really concerned, it should be the 550m pound cost for a largely temporary stadium with limited permanent facilities, not the upkeep of what seems to be a fairly simply athletics venue, which can be used as a venue for small athletics events, athlete training, possibly a school, concerts etc.

As before, not every venue should be run to make a profit.

London finally has 1 world class athletics venue, 1 olympic standard indoor pool (2 if you count the training pool), 1 international velodrome....while other cities have had these facilities in abundance for a long while.

Yes athletics attracts no more than 1 or 2 major events, now and then, but is it unreasonable for a major city like London to have a decent athletics venues at an appropriate capacity for one of the main Olympic sports?

David Sullivan may be a tit but to be honest this stadium should go to West Ham or a new London NFL Franchise (mentioned in the Telegraph yesterday or today). If it ends up being a 25k athletics venue the public are going to end up having to pay for it through taxes...and do the public want their tax money being spent on a 25k athletics stadium which will be used for a couple of big events per year....i certainly dont & like many others dont want to be paying for it especially with a recession on. At least with West Ham or an NFL team they will be paying the costs and my tax money can be spent on something more worthwhile.

I don't think anyone objects to the idea of West Ham moving into the Olympic stadium.

What they do object to - and rightly so - is the idea of West Ham moving in and kicking British Athletics out.

There is no need for such an outcome. For starters, as has been emphasised on this thread on a number of occasions, West Ham cannot dig down (like Man City at Eastlands) and build a lower tier that will bring the stands closer to the pitch. The water table at the Olympic site rules out any such plan.

So the distance between the pitch and the stands must remain. In which case, why not keep the athletics track? It is the only sensible solution. If, as you say, the public won't take kindly to having to pay a million or so per annum (what's that - 5p per tax payer?) in order to maintain a 25K capacity athletics stadium, the chances are that they aren't going to want to hand the stadium over to West Ham either, without some benefit for the wider sporting community.

So long as British Athletics can always still call the Olympic stadium home and so long as West Ham pay, at a guess, £5-10 million per annum in rent or buy the stadium for a knock-down £150-200 million, then I see no problem with the deal.

One thing the stadium does have going for it as a football venue is that the upper tier makes up around 2/3rds of the capacity. While a little more distant than your typical stadium I don't see the views from there being a problem for the average fan. Even if West Ham's attendances grow beyond 50K then they still wouldnt need to use the lower teir behind the goals or the first few rows at the sides which is always the killer for most athletics venues.

we should have built a retractable stadium,like stade de france,moved a football club in there during the winter and then during the summer we'd have a athletics venue big enough to meet the ticket demands for any future athletics event we want to hold whether that be diamond league,european champs,world champs or commonwealth games...


but then again i've been saying that for 4 years...

550m pounds too late.

£550million for a 25,000 capacity stadium.......heads should roll

the whole project is a massive waste of money,like building venues in one place then moving them to a different place after the games (the hockey stadium iirc?)

About the water table; it isn't a problem nowadays. If you dig and have concrete walls around it, you overcome the problem.
But perhaps a tad to late now.

its all a tad late now..lol

http://i49.tinypic.com/2z8z24o.jpg
today

post games instead of removing the top ring they should take out the lower ring and replace it with retractable/movable seating....theres absolutely no reason why that could'nt happen..

we should have built a retractable stadium,like stade de france,moved a football club in there during the winter and then during the summer we'd have a athletics venue big enough to meet the ticket demands for any future athletics event we want to hold whether that be diamond league,european champs,world champs or commonwealth games...


but then again i've been saying that for 4 years...

Thing is, you can't just decide to move a football club somewhere. They actually have to consent to the move.

And it's not as if efforts weren't made to bring a football partner on board. It's just that there wasn't any agreement.

post games instead of removing the top ring they should take out the lower ring and replace it with retractable/movable seating....theres absolutely no reason why that could'nt happen..

No reason...........other than the fact that it would be fantastically expensive.

http://i49.tinypic.com/2z8z24o.jpg
today

bloody hell is that roof even going to cover the top tier?:ohno:

The ODA wanted the easiest stadium to build for what they wanted it to do. Building a retractable stadium could potentially have been fraught with construction problems and dogged with technical issues.

Be thankful nothing has gone wrong with what we're getting.

And rolo1984 or whatever you're called, what 'more important' things should the Government be spending money on? If that's the case the Government might as well stop funding for all the arts, sports, defence and everything under the sun for 'more important things'.

The ODA wanted the easiest stadium to build for what they wanted it to do. Building a retractable stadium could potentially have been fraught with construction problems and dogged with technical issues.

Be thankful nothing has gone wrong with what we're getting.

And rolo1984 or whatever you're called, what 'more important' things should the Government be spending money on? If that's the case the Government might as well stop funding for all the arts, sports, defence and everything under the sun for 'more important things'.

lol well thats polite!

Well considering the country as gone tits up econimically it seems stupid to spend people's tax money on a 25k athletics stadium for a couple of events a year which to be honest only the small minority care about, when this money could be spent on more important things such as sorting out our diabolical hospitals and Railway Network....and also when the country already has a perfectly good 25,000 athletics stadium in 'Don Valley' in Sheffield

Well if that's the case we might as well cancel the Olympics and put the money to 'better' use.

Well if that's the case we might as well cancel the Olympics and put the money to 'better' use.

Well the Olympics along with the Football WC is the Worlds most important Sporting event and will generate money through tourism and is a great way to showcase our nation as the whole World will be watching us put on an amazing show. A fantastic once in a lifetime oppurtunity which we will be looking back on in many years to come, would be tax money well spent.

A 25k athletics stadium hosting a couple of "unimportant" athletics meetings a year will not however.

London finally has 1 world class athletics venue, 1 olympic standard indoor pool (2 if you count the training pool), 1 international velodrome....while other cities have had these facilities in abundance for a long while.
25'000 mainly uncovered seats are far off from being world class.

lol well thats polite!

Well considering the country as gone tits up econimically it seems stupid to spend people's tax money on a 25k athletics stadium for a couple of events a year which to be honest only the small minority care about, when this money could be spent on more important things such as sorting out our diabolical hospitals and Railway Network....and also when the country already has a perfectly good 25,000 athletics stadium in 'Don Valley' in Sheffield

I'm not sure that £1 million per annum is going to make the critical difference to the National Health service, transport or education.

I'll be passing the stadium on the train this weekend. Will be good to see how the park has progressed since September.

No reason...........other than the fact that it would be fantastically expensive.


£550million for a 25,000 capacity stadium already makes it the most expensive stadium,per seat,in the world

whats another £100million (?) to install a moveable lower ring and at least give the stadium a fighting chance of making some money one day

And it's not as if efforts weren't made to bring a football partner on board. It's just that there wasn't any agreement.


the reason no football club wanted to move in is because of the athletics track..had we built a retractable stadium clubs would have been falling over themselves to get involved and you know it...


we had the chance to build a true national stadium....and we blew it

maybe wembley stadium should have been built here instead, with stade de france system.

seb coe and the rest of the BOA had their noses put out of joint when athletics was booted from the wembley project....now they've got all this money to build a stadium they are adement that it's going to be for athletics only...

if it was me i'd have built a stadium to sink wembley,and try to take away as much business away from wembley as possible......but thats just me.

Actaully, Seb Coe and most of the 2012 team have been adament it should be a multi-purpouse stadium and has never been against the idea of a football team moving in as long as the athletics track remains.

Actaully, Seb Coe and most of the 2012 team have been adament it should be a multi-purpouse stadium and has never been against the idea of a football team moving in as long as the athletics track remains.

and they knew no football club would want to move in if the track remained

maybe wembley stadium should have been built here instead, with stade de france system.

Planning, site preparation and construction of Wembley was under way long before London's unexpected victory over Paris in the 2005 vote.

£550million for a 25,000 capacity stadium already makes it the most expensive stadium,per seat,in the world

whats another £100million (?) to install a moveable lower ring and at least give the stadium a fighting chance of making some money one day

If a temporary stadium with a half-roof cost £550 million, what on earth makes you think that digging down beneath the existing stadium (which, unlike the COM stadium, wasn't specifically designed to be dug under), having to take extreme protective and preventative measures to counter the high water table, constructing 10-15,000 retractable seats, re-constructing an athletics track, building a proper roof that fits over the whole stadium and that is designed to last the lifetime of the stadium and, finally, incorporating proper facilities (toilets, catering outlets etc) inside the stadium is going to cost as little as £100 million? Double it (or more) and you'll be closer to the mark.

the reason no football club wanted to move in is because of the athletics track..had we built a retractable stadium clubs would have been falling over themselves to get involved and you know it...


we had the chance to build a true national stadium....and we blew it

I would have thought that the option of building retractable seating was offered to interested football clubs - on the proviso that they should pay for it.

They would also have to be happy with the idea of a 90K+ football stadium - even if they could only half fill it.

Planning, site preparation and construction of Wembley was under way long before London's unexpected victory over Paris in the 2005 vote.
and that came at a price too.

If a temporary stadium with a half-roof cost £550 million, what on earth makes you think that digging down beneath the existing stadium (which, unlike the COM stadium, wasn't specifically designed to be dug under), having to take extreme protective and preventative measures to counter the high water table, constructing 10-15,000 retractable seats, re-constructing an athletics track, building a proper roof that fits over the whole stadium and that is designed to last the lifetime of the stadium and, finally, incorporating proper facilities (toilets, catering outlets etc) inside the stadium is going to cost as little as £100 million? Double it (or more) and you'll be closer to the mark.

who said anything about digging under anything??

remove the lower ring and install slide in/slide out retractable seating like melbourne's ethiad stadium

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/max_skill/Telstra%20Dome/P1010033.jpg

that would work much better than it does because there is no grass covered by the seating when ther is an athletics track

who said anything about digging under anything??

remove the lower ring and install slide in/slide out retractable seating like melbourne's ethiad stadium

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/max_skill/Telstra%20Dome/P1010033.jpg

Eh?

Do you mean remove the 25K lower ring and replace it with 40K retractable seats? In which case, the entire lower tier would have far too shallow an angle. It would be the worst view in football.

Besides, you'd still be talking £150 million for that. And where would you keep the retractable seating when it wasn't in use?

If I'm not mistaken, alot of german stadias has a pretty high steep between the stands and the pitch.

Eh?

Do you mean remove the 25K lower ring and replace it with 40K retractable seats? In which case, the entire lower tier would have far too shallow an angle. It would be the worst view in football.

25k...40k....just where am i'm saying these figures???


Besides, you'd still be talking £150 million for that. And where would you keep the retractable seating when it wasn't in use?

eh?

wow you really don't understand retractable seating do you?

you retract them....numbnuts

do yourself a favour.... go and study how the retractable seating at melbourne's stadium actually works....then come back and rejoin the debate

having been to a rugby league game there,in unretracted mode,i sat in the lower ring and the view was fine...talking to an aussie who went to a aus v NZ game at the same stadium a year or 2 before,when the stands where pushed out,like in the picture about..he said the view was even better...

25k...40k....just where am i'm saying these figures???




eh?

wow you really don't understand retractable seating do you?

you retract them....numbnuts

do yourself a favour.... go and study how the retractable seating at melbourne's stadium actually works....then come back and rejoin the debate

having been to a rugby league game there,in unretracted mode,i sat in the lower ring and the view was fine...talking to an aussie who went to a aus v NZ game at the same stadium a year or 2 before,when the stands where pushed out,like in the picture about..he said the view was even better...

Hahahahahaha!

Bless! We have a little cyber warrior on our hands!

Okay, fella, let me explain it to you slowly.......

You suggested earlier that there would be no need to dig under anything. But if you don't dig under anything, where do you expect to retract the retractable seating to?

You can't have it both ways. You either have to dig down to create the storage space for the retractable seating OR you can't have retractable seating. It's quite simple really. So which is it to be?

As to existing stadia with retractable seating, the thing is that they were all, as far as I know, designed to accomodate retractable seating from the outset. The Olympic stadium is not. Which means that the foundations for the upper tier will likely make the installation of retractable seating highly complex and very expensive, if not an outright impossibility.

Finally, with regard to capacity figures, again it's quite simple.....you're suggesting that we demolish the 25K lower tier and replace it with retractable seating that reaches to the pitch (which, on the basis of, say, Eastlands), would result in a 10-15K capacity increase. Hence 40K. OK?

I don't think he gets that the first tier is permanent, so they'll basically have to replace it by knocking it down before installing a retractable tier.

Park is looking good. There are interesting structures everywhere you look.

Stadium legacy deal "to be done this year" (http://beard.standard.co.uk/2010/02/stadium-legacy-deal-to-be-done-this-year-.html)
01 February 2010 10:26 AM

LONDON 2012 legacy chiefs have set a deadline to take the £537m Olympic stadium off taxpayers’ hands by the end of the year, the Standard can reveal.

The body responsible for the post-2012 use of the Olympic site agreed the plan for the sale or lease of the centrepiece venue this week.

The fast-track plan will put pressure on the new owners of premier league football club West Ham United who last week announced their ambition to make the new Stratford stadium their home from 2013.

Bidders will be given until the autumn to submit their proposals to the Olympic Park Legacy Company, co-owned by the Government and City Hall, which expects to make an announcement later this year.

OPLC chair Baroness Ford, who masterminded the sale of the Government-funded Millennium Dome, believes that striking a stadium deal two years ahead of the Games is in the best interests’ of taxpayers.

The tight timetable has consequences for the Football Association’s ambition to use the Olympic stadium as a competition venue if England win the bid for the 2018 World Cup.

The stadium could potentially be ruled out of contention for the World Cup shortly before the bid decision in December this year if the OPLC opts for a legacy under the 40,000 capacity Fifa requires for a host venue.

The Olympic stadium plan was agreed by the board after the completion of a feasibility study commissioned by the OPLC when it was established last October.

The confidential document produced by the OPLC and the Olympic venue’s builders "Team Stadium" sets out the cost of legacy options ranging from a retained 80,000 capacity to a 25,000-seat venue.

Without this detail, which extends to such items as the cost of adding hospitality boxes after 2012, the OPLC felt it was unable to enter into negotiations with bidders.

The OPLC board felt that it knew the potential market and by setting a deadline would encourage only the serious bidders to come forward.

Although Lady Ford has already said she was reluctant to reduce the stadium in capacity after the Games, it is thought she is confident that there would sufficient interest to make an 25,000- seat athletics stadium viable by leasing to other tenants and holding one-off events.

The OPLC said after West Ham’s interest that "all options are open" although the owners of the East End club have yet to meet with the legacy company.

Lady Ford said: "This is a public asset and any use in legacy must show how the promises made in the Olympic bid can be kept and how the stadium can become a lively and valuable part of the Olympic park. We need to demonstrate value for money for the public purse. We aim to complete this process and reach a settled position by the end of this year."

One thing people have generally ignored when it comes to the stadium being used for football is just what kind of attendances it would get. Even if West Ham grow there matchday fanbase considerabley you'd think they wouldnt be going past 60K very often if at all. Maybe not the best for atmosphere BUT that is likely to make views from the lower tier less of an issue. The upper teir will provide the vast majority fo the capacity they need and if the lower teir is used at all it may only be the higher seats at the sides.

i like the stadium

http://i45.tinypic.com/o0t6b4.jpg
lighting support

Getting along nicely.

I suppose the internal fitting usually takes quite a long time to be complete so it's great to see the external superstructure so far ahead.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2ro2cme.jpg

This is Indonesian Stadium for World Cup 2022

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/28449948.jpg

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/28450882.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2519/4089634710_08f622482b_o.jpg

^^ :nuts:

This is Indonesian Stadium for World Cup 2022


hahahahahaha

and?!?!?

Any new photos of the stadium?

this one!

Couple of shots from egi news this week:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2754/4348223901_28f2236b08_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2686/4348972442_c978e9f247_b.jpg

Looking at the Indonesian really does bring home how the stadiums potentially temporary nature might actually make it a better football ground than other athletics venues. Your typical athletics venue seems to have 40% or more of the capacity in the lower tier which is often at a lower angle(although not with the Indonesian venue) providing less than great views.

With the London venue though over 2/3rds of the capcity is in the upper tier at a fairly high angle. Maybe they'll be a bit further from the pitch than say Wembley but I really don't see any problem with the views from those seats and just using them provides 20K more capacity than West Ham have right now. You can say that not having fans near the pitch loses atmosphere but really you loose that anyway as soon as you have an athletics track.

http://i48.tinypic.com/iqbf4l.jpg

am loving the points on top:)

From Scot Cadman on flickr

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4056/4371012008_9308a27fa8_o.jpg

Wow. Awesome shot if untouched. Looks like a scene from a Terminator movie!

Amazing pic :drool:...

exelente foto
en el extremo derecho de la foto parece que hay un cementerio de gruas de la cantidad de gruas que hay xd

http://yoursay.footprintfriends.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/London_2D00_Olympic_2D00_Stadium.jpg

originally posted by DarJoLe.

I just don't understand one thing, why is the roof so short? I mean, it only covers up the 2nd tier.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4382741478_49011f1899_b.jpg

by wawd.

West Ham's plans being criticized...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/8533774.stm

Olympic and world heptathlon bronze medallist Kelly Sotherton has hit out at West Ham's plans to take over the Olympic stadium after the 2012 Games.

New Hammers owners David Sullivan and David Gold want to leave Upton Park and lease the newly built stadium in nearby Stratford as the club's new home.

However, Sotherton insists the stadium should remain an athletics venue.

"The legacy should be athletics. It's out of order that football think they can just come and have it," she said.

"We don't have a national athletics stadium and we need one. We lost our last big stadium to Manchester City in 2002 after a great Commonwealth Games and the fear is now that we'll lose another one to football.

"I'm a massive fan of football and a big Arsenal fan, but at the end of the day it's our stadium and I think the legacy is to enable us to stage future world and commonwealth championships - who knows, maybe another Olympics.

"To have an Olympic stadium turned into a football stadium by a club struggling near the foot of the Premier League, it's out of order."

West Ham's plans have already met opposition from outside the world of football, with Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell, ex-London mayor Ken Livingstone and UK Athletics chairman Ed Warner among those speaking out against the move.

One of the arguments is that London would not have won the 2012 Games had the Olympic committee heard that the stadium would be turned into a football ground.

Sullivan and Gold remain unperturbed, though, and are confident a deal can be struck.

Gold believes the deterioration of the specialist athletics track at Crystal Palace provides an example that an athletics stadium, in itself, is unsustainable.

However, Sotherton told BBC Five Live: "Of course athletics can't use it every week, but I'm sure uses can be found for it in the off-season - rock concerts for example.

"We just don't have a stadium that replicates the size and grandeur of an Olympic stadium. It's something the sport desperately needs.

Unless I'v missed something about West Ham trying to get the track taken out(which doesnt eve seem possible from what I'v read here) I don't think Sotherton really understands what there taking over the stadium would mean.

Without West Ham your going to end up with a 25K venue with an athletics track, with West Ham your going to be able to keep the 80K venue still with the track and the potential use it for future large events.

Unless I'v missed something about West Ham trying to get the track taken out(which doesnt eve seem possible from what I'v read here) I don't think Sotherton really understands what there taking over the stadium would mean.

Sotherton knows exactly what she's saying. She is responding to this, from an interview with West Ham's owner a couple of days ago:

---------

"One other possibility is to abandon the athletic idea altogether and maybe build a small athletics stadium that can be used for ever," he said.

"Not as an Olympic athletics stadium but a regional stadium with seating facility commensurate to their requirements which would be about 5,000."

However, UK Athletics chairman Ed Warner accused the Hammers co-owner of being "patronising".

"When we are told we can go to a little regional athletics stadium, I think this is another example of football rather arrogantly thinking it has all the solutions to sports problems in the UK," said Warner.

The Games are about leaving an "iconic venue for athletes of all ages and abilities to aspire to compete in", he added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/8527366.stm

---------

Warner's right; and so is Sotherton. It would save West Ham hundreds of millions of pounds if they play at the Olympic stadium. Given such a saving, the fact that they're seemingly unwilling share this stadium with its intended sport, is to my mind selfish and self-serving beyong belief. If they want to look a gift-horse in the mouth and instead spend the kind of sums Spurs and Arsenal are and have on new builds, that's entirely their prerogative. But they can't be allowed to have their cake and eat ours too. The stadium has been built with taxpayers money with the intention of giving the country who finished 4th in the medal table in Beijing and is hosting the next Games, an athletics stadium worthy of those acheivements. If after all of this, after the third London Olympics, we're left where we were at the beginning of the decade in terms of athletics facilities in London, it'd be appauling. To simply hand it to West Ham and let them rip up the track, as they want to, would be tragic.

I've nothing against West Ham moving in there per se, but the intended tenants are - and have always been - British Athletics.

I wish this stadium has a more unique feel to it but it's still nice.

I just don't understand one thing, why is the roof so short? I mean, it only covers up the 2nd tier.

Why does it even need a roof? Let the sunshine in.

Why does it even need a roof? Let the sunshine in.

Because "real" stadiums Do have a roof!

Actually it is possible for everyone to get what they want. The technology is available to have a system where the running track could be removed and replaced as could the football field depending upon which type of event you want to host. When the running track was out it is possible to install temporary or retractable seating in a similar way to stade de france thus at least enclosing the atmoshere a little closer to the field if not obviously the same effect as a rectangular stadium.

If only they would stop talking! They do not realise everyone can be happy and the stadium could become one of the most utilized in the country hosting all the top level athletics events, a football team, rugby and concerts its possible.Instead we are heading for a white elephant with say 2 large athletics meetings a year and a couple of concerts that destroy everything.

I would not say I am the best stadium expert in the business...but I am in the top one...:lol:

Why does it even need a roof? Let the sunshine in.

What if it rains during the olympics? (Hopefully it won't happen but still just in case)

What if it rains during the olympics? (Hopefully it won't happen but still just in case)

I don't understand the question. Are you a witch? Will you melt if you get wet? If it rains, it rains, what's the big deal? The only sports held in the stadium are outdoor sports, sometimes it rains during outdoor sports.

Because "real" stadiums Do have a roof!

No, they do not.

Because "real" stadiums Do have a roof!

Don't bite.

Have a look at eMKay's sig.

Clearly, he's (legitimately) tired of Europeans and others who persistently criticize / question US stadiums for not having roofs.

So he's taking his little revenge by acting the WUM on this thread.

Because "real" stadiums Do have a roof!

So does your theory make this a fake stadium?

http://www.soccer-training-info.com/images/camp_nou.jpg

I don´t know how the stadium will look after the Olympics, I just know that they will reduce the capacity...so I guess the roof issue have something to do with that.

So does your theory make this a fake stadium?

http://www.soccer-training-info.com/images/camp_nou.jpg

Climate has to be taken into consideration too... You can't compare London to Barcelona! Moreover there are plans to add a roof to the Nou Camp. Anyway the roof is very important for crowd's confort. I'm going to football stadiums every week end and I'm very happy to be covered when it's raining or snowing , I just don't understand why people have to stay two hours outside fully wet!
A retractable roof is even better in some case I think Gelsenkirchen... cities where winter is rude.

2/3rds of this stadium and its roof are temporary. If this was a permanent stadium of course a full roof, and all the expenses entailed in that, would be built. But it isn't.

Why does every thread in this stupid forum have to degenerate into arguments about roofs! It's the only reason I have a sig here, it's childish and stupid.

YOU PEOPLE ARE ARGUING ABOUT A ROOF ON A TEMPORARY STADIUM! Now STFU and contribute something useful.

/rant

Why does every thread in this stupid forum have to degenerate into arguments about roofs! It's the only reason I have a sig here, it's childish and stupid.

YOU PEOPLE ARE ARGUING ABOUT A ROOF ON A TEMPORARY STADIUM! Now STFU and contribute something useful.

/rant

Why does every thread have have to degenerate into arguments about roofs?...

Well, gosh....I dunno about every thread.

But the recent discussion about roofs on this thread was primarily instigated by you when you responded rather tetchily and dismissively to NMAISTER's perfectly legitimate question.

Hope that goes some way to answering your question.

So does your theory make this a fake stadium?

http://www.soccer-training-info.com/images/camp_nou.jpg

Well, Barça is planning to put a roof and cover the whole stadium...

P.D. I think many people is tired of the debate of roofs in U.S. stadiums... but it's the trend you know, like having stadiums without athletic tracks...

So if you people shout and argue about athletic tracks on stadiums, think yours don't have roofs...:)

2/3rds of this stadium and its roof are temporary. If this was a permanent stadium of course a full roof, and all the expenses entailed in that, would be built. But it isn't.
You mean more than the 550m pounds? :)

In reality, an extra ring of fabric for the lower tier, does not push the costs up much at all. Its a very cheap fabric.

Would be nice if they were able to break the roof up into pieces and distribute it amongst smaller community venues.

In reality, an extra ring of fabric for the lower tier, does not push the costs up much at all. Its a very cheap fabric.

There were engineering problems with the tension ring if they had extended the fabric roof to cover the lower bowl. The outer compression ring wouldn't of been able to hold the extra wide roof because by doing so you're pushing the support further away and adding too much pull to the inner ring from the outer, eventually making the whole inner ring sag in the middle. That's how the tensioned rings work together and can carry the weight of the lighting rigs without pulling the whole structure down. Plus the extended roof would have meant the lighting rigs wouldn't be in the correct position for lighting up the track.

The cost of resolving these issues was deemed too high for a temporary addition.

There were engineering problems with the tension ring if they had extended the fabric roof to cover the lower bowl. The outer compression ring wouldn't of been able to hold the extra wide roof because by doing so you're pushing the support further away and adding too much pull to the inner ring from the outer, eventually making the whole inner ring sag in the middle. That's how the tensioned rings work together and can carry the weight of the lighting rigs without pulling the whole structure down. Plus the extended roof would have meant the lighting rigs wouldn't be in the correct position for lighting up the track.

The cost of resolving these issues was deemed too high for a temporary addition.

I know very well how the inner and outer rings work. We've just finished ours in Cape Town.

I don't buy cost arguments. Yes, costs would definitely be higher, but not to the extent that it would rise drastically....and how much more than the already high cost of 550m pounds?

If they haven't design a structure capable of handling an extra ring of rather lightweight fabric, then have the engineered a strong structure at all? I certainly understand the need to use minimal amounts of steel and the aim to create a lightweight structure.

I hate to make the comparison, but in Cape Town we've placed 72 steel trusses on our cables, along with a lower layer of fabric and and 36,000sqm of glass above that as another weight.

The entire structure, german and american made, and had to be imported, was reasonably cost effective.

Obviously, the type of compression ring for this stadium was not designed for much additional weight. The engineering aspect of the compressing and tension rings are very advanced, really not rocket science.

So, no I don't buy the "it would have cost too much". I suppose it brings me back to the same point, while costs in London are obviously higher than elsewhere, the "costs" for some venues do not justify the product, even with the inflated costs.

That said, I don't mind the roof not covering the entire bowl. I like it that way.

The cynic in me suggests that yes, it wouldn't have cost that much more to put a full roof on the stadium, but then it would have been much harder to argue for a reduced scale legacy athletics stadium. With a full roof there would be a stronger rationale for retaining a large seating capacity, potentially for football usage, which the athletics lobby are dead against.

Well, nobody as of yet knows where the roof or the 55,000 seat top tier is going. Surely, thats at least 250m of the 550m pound cost...

Whcih brings me to the question...Has the venue really been adequately designed for legacy?

I fully support the athletics use post 2012 and the need for a 25,000 seat venue, but if well designed, the upper tier and roof, should, for the major cost, have provided more of a legacy.

As I've stated before, would be great if it was possible to use the upper tier as part of a new football venue elsewhere, or dismantled and spread to various community venues.

At least then we would know where more than half the stadium was going.

:cheers: amazing big!

The cynic in me suggests that yes, it wouldn't have cost that much more to put a full roof on the stadium, but then it would have been much harder to argue for a reduced scale legacy athletics stadium. With a full roof there would be a stronger rationale for retaining a large seating capacity, potentially for football usage, which the athletics lobby are dead against.

http://i45.tinypic.com/15np3it.jpg

two lights..

Three up now:

http://www.london2012.com/webcams/olympic-stadium-camera-3.php

Olympic Stadium reaches full height (http://www.london2012.com/press/media-releases/2010/03/olympic-stadium-reaches-full-height.php)
london2012.com
05 Mar 2010

The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) has today announced that the first of the Olympic Stadium’s lighting towers have been successfully lifted into place, taking the flagship venue to its full height at 60 metres above the field of play.

A 650-tonne crane has been assembled in the middle of the Stadium to lift the 28m-high lighting towers on top of the inner ring of the cable-net roof, one of the toughest engineering challenges on the Stadium project to date.

The lighting towers, which will illuminate the action on the field of play and are necessary for high definition footage, are located high above the Stadium roof to ensure optimum lighting angles which avoid dazzling spectators, photographers and competitors.

ODA Chairman John Armitt said: 'The Olympic Stadium will be at the heart of the action in 2012 and its image will be beamed to billions of people across the world. The team has made impressive progress over the last year and we are on schedule to finish by the summer of 2011 to give a year for Test Events.

'The lifting of the lighting towers is a significant engineering and construction challenge and has taken a huge amount of work and planning, complicated by snow, wind and rain. Once all fourteen towers have been lifted, the Stadium will be at its full height and the venue will be another huge step closer to completion.'

Sebastian Coe, Chairman of the London 2012 Organising Committee, said: 'The Olympic Stadium will be the centrepiece of the London 2012 Games, and it is very exciting to see it taking shape so quickly. There will be some fantastic sporting action taking place there and the eyes of the world will be on us in the summer of 2012. We look forward to welcoming the world’s athletes to the Stadium in 2012.'

Rod Sheard, Senior Principal at Populous said: 'There are few moments on a project as important to a design team as when they reach the highest point on the structure, it is a point in time reflecting the huge effort so many people have contributed to make it happen. The placing of the first lighting tower on the Stadium is just such a moment.'

There will be a total of 14 lighting towers, each weighing 34 tonnes, designed with integrated walkways, access, power supplies and cabling and lighting.

The cable-net roof of the Olympic Stadium was lifted into place at the end of 2009 and will be covered with material once all the lighting towers are in place, providing the correct conditions for athletes on the field of play and covering two-thirds of spectators.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4049/4408136807_382f598346_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4408901672_7efef3212a_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2726/4408900800_fe81c04ff4_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4019/4408134487_1800f3ae78_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4408133859_aa1d18b136_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4053/4408133259_c491bedbdf_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/4408898472_aba8171319_b.jpg

kool

Amazing stadium, and amazing progress...

To be hounest I think this stadium is going to look better in real then I first thought. Nice simple lines.
Sure thing no footballclub will play in it afterwords? Nice 100 000 + stadium:nuts:

Well, nobody as of yet knows where the roof or the 55,000 seat top tier is going. Surely, thats at least 250m of the 550m pound cost...

Whcih brings me to the question...Has the venue really been adequately designed for legacy?

Spot on Mo Rush! Given that they are still debating the legacy strategy it suggests the designs can't have adequately considered legacy. When the bid book was being put together there was talk of designing the upper tier terracing in such a way that it could be broken down into element of 500 seats or less to go to community sports clubs around the country - a really positive idea if it could be made to work. That idea seems to have disappeared along with a number of other bid book promises.

the stadium is ugly, very very ugly, i think so that the atletics shuld be in wmbley

the stadium is ugly, very very ugly, i think so that the atletics shuld be in wmbley

Wembley isn't an athletics stadium.

the stadium is ugly, very very ugly, i think so that the atletics shuld be in wmbley

Is it really that hard to write "should" and "Wembley"? It's two small letters...

i like it.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2426/3724656047_5bcaca2570_b.jpg

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=53100165&postcount=1467

Wembley isn't an athletics stadium.

Look at the wembley thread.....youl find it could be used for athletics

Look at the wembley thread.....youl find it could be used for athletics

I was thinking about the same thing. Not pretanding to ask a original thing but why are they building this stadium then?
(was it to ´re do´ the neighbourhoud or something?)

Wembley isn't an athletics stadium.

What about wmbley? :lol:

Look at the wembley thread.....youl find it could be used for athletics

Look at the Wembley thread properly.

To install a track, they'd have to start laying a temporary platform over the pitch months before, disrupting the FA Cup Final, playoffs etc.

Capacity would be reduced to around 65,000.

They'd have to build a warm-up track outside.

The athletics stadium wouldn't be at the heart of an Olympic Park as it is now.

There'd be no athletics legacy left by the Games (well, maybe a tiny athletics stadium in the Wembley car park).

Look at the wembley thread.....youl find it could be used for athletics
When Wembley was first planned it was specifically designed to host athletics but Wembley didn't own all of the land.The stadium footprint is very tight and the car park is not owned by the stadium. To host an athletics championship (let alone the Olympics) you have to have a warm up track. Wembley could have purchased the adjoining exhibition centre site for a comparatively small sum to enable enough space for a warm up track to be constructed, but the idea was rejected. At the time it was made clear that this would forever rule out Wembley from hosting major athletics events but sadly everyone agreed. That land has now been built on and with it the chance to host major athletics events.

What a fantastic pic up there :shocked:

by ChingfordFlanuer

http://i41.tinypic.com/110agp4.jpg

Really awfull from the outside (it looks like a bathtube on matchsticks..)

It's a waste of money as said before why are the Olympics not on holy ground: Wembley? Wembley was expensive as hell (the most expensive stadium in the world) so throw more money away with another stadium that won't be used that often after the olympics (decreasing the capacity after the olympics will also cost a lot of money).

Jeez,

How many times has the legacy mode been explained?!

Go read.

Jeez,

How many times has the legacy mode been explained?!

Go read.

Please explain to me what will happen to the top tier...where will it disappear to?

What will happen to the roof and roof steel structure since it clearly doesn't cover any part of the lower tier.

Thats the majority of the 550m pounds...with no legacy

Really awfull from the outside (it looks like a bathtube on matchsticks..)

It's a waste of money as said before why are the Olympics not on holy ground: Wembley? Wembley was expensive as hell (the most expensive stadium in the world) so throw more money away with another stadium that won't be used that often after the olympics (decreasing the capacity after the olympics will also cost a lot of money).

Read the Wembley thread and read this thread before asking questions which have been asked 50 times before.

Really awfull from the outside (it looks like a bathtube on matchsticks..)

It's a waste of money as said before why are the Olympics not on holy ground: Wembley? Wembley was expensive as hell (the most expensive stadium in the world) so throw more money away with another stadium that won't be used that often after the olympics (decreasing the capacity after the olympics will also cost a lot of money).

Wembley could not have hosted the Athletics for the Olympics, its just not feasible. One of the reasons would be there would be no space around the damn stadium for an olympic park, the rest has been explained several times over and over again without much luck :bash:

I just don't understand one thing, why is the roof so short? I mean, it only covers up the 2nd tier.

Roof is only there to reduce wind speeds at track level not for protection of the crowd.

Read the Wembley thread and read this thread before asking questions which have been asked 50 times before.

Sorry missed that thread, but the new Olympic stadium still looks ugly (but things can change from a bathttube on matchsticks to a modern jacuzzi )

Oh god, I hate it.
The light structures now going up - the pointy bits - it all looks designed by a 10 year old.

Whatever the merits of this stadium's legacy, and the reasons for not using Wumbley, there is no excuse for such a boring, ugly, unoriginal* structure to host the Olympics.


* Of course this is only my opinion - I appreciate that some people are liking it, I just don't get it.

Not sure if this has been added here yet, but I have yet to see the VIP loung/hospitality suite area up close. Its actually a large structure, which I'm sure will be very spacious. Would have preferred an entirely glass facade but since its temporary it probably makes more sense to use less glass.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2737/4411173136_23f7102987_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/buddyicons/28205996@N00.jpg?1255364360#28205996@N00 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antsnaps/) Uploaded on March 6, 2010 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antsnaps/archives/date-posted/2010/03/06/)
by ant217 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antsnaps/)

http://i40.tinypic.com/kbvom8.jpg

Oh god, I hate it.
The light structures now going up - the pointy bits - it all looks designed by a 10 year old.

Whatever the merits of this stadium's legacy, and the reasons for not using Wumbley, there is no excuse for such a boring, ugly, unoriginal* structure to host the Olympics.


* Of course this is only my opinion - I appreciate that some people are liking it, I just don't get it.

go to sleep and please turn the light off

Not sure if this has been added here yet, but I have yet to see the VIP loung/hospitality suite area up close. Its actually a large structure, which I'm sure will be very spacious. Would have preferred an entirely glass facade but since its temporary it probably makes more sense to use less glass.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2737/4411173136_23f7102987_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/buddyicons/28205996@N00.jpg?1255364360#28205996@N00 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antsnaps/) Uploaded on March 6, 2010 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antsnaps/archives/date-posted/2010/03/06/)
by ant217 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antsnaps/)

The stadium looks a lot bigger in close ups. It has quite a big scale. Good pic! :cheers:

by elskapel.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/4438016579_7f105b2ae0_b.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/london2012/7474018/London-2012-Olympic-Park-takes-shape-from-the-dirty-soil-of-Stratford.html

Features a video of the progress to date.

London 2012: Olympic Park takes shape from the dirty soil of Stratford
The figures are so incredibly big, they are overwhelming: £3.5 billion has been spent on the Olympic park precinct at Stratford so far, another £1.6 billion will be injected this year alone.

^^I didn't imagine how big the stadium looks from ground level. Everything seems to be going on schedule.

London 2012: West Ham's Karren Brady to meet Ed Warner to discuss Olympic Stadium

West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady will meet UK Athletics chairman Ed Warner on Wednesday to discuss ways in which the Olympic Stadium could be turned into a Premier League football ground while retaining a permanent running track.

The meeting, which was requested by Brady, comes just days before the Olympic Park Legacy Company is due to publish a document inviting expressions of interest in the stadium post-2012.

The document will make it clear that organisations interested in bidding must accept the track cannot be removed, as stipulated in the host-city contract between London and the International Olympic Committee.

UK Athletics has also received cast-iron assurances that it will remain an athletics stadium and has launched a bid to host the World Athletics Championships there in 2015, pitting London against Beijing and the Polish city of Chorzow.

A decision will be taken by the International Association of Athletics Federations in November.

It is understood that West Ham now accept the track is there to stay, despite calls by co-owner David Gold for it to be used exclusively for football with athletics relocating elsewhere.

Wednesday's meeting raises the prospects of a solution being found that would enable the £537 million stadium to be shared by the two sports – a scenario that has been gaining support among politicians and local councillors of all persuasions. Not only would it keep London's promise to the IOC, it would safeguard the stadium's long-term commercial viability.

A West Ham spokesman said: "Our position is that we want to talk and see if a way forward can be found that can retain the athletics legacy and also allow us to make sure we get the most out of the stadium.

"It's about finding a solution that suits everybody, and that is Karren's goal."

Supporters of dual usage argue that the compactness of the stadium means the old argument about a running track being incompatible with football because the pitch is too far away from the spectators does not apply.

The most distant seat from the pitch is said to be closer than the most distant seat at Wembley Stadium.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/westham/7458480/London-2012-West-Hams-Karren-Brady-to-meet-Ed-Warner-to-discuss-Olympic-Stadium.html

by DarJoLe.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2719/4451068113_3ebe5527e9_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/4451072177_546c37e223_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4451844592_7ca3186f14_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2789/4451843272_415f87a932_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4033/4451814000_6efecd18ba_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4066/4451043957_ac82bfd5e6_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4044/4451807214_8829af7aa5_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/4451797574_934242b16c_b.jpg

Great photos, thanks^^. It's starting to look more and more imposing.

Love how the light towers integrate into the design, in so many stadiums they are an afterthought.

I thought that was shot down long time ago?

West Ham are in talks with Newham Council over a joint bid to occupy the Olympic Stadium after the 2012 Games.

The Olympic Park Legacy Company on Tuesday formally invited would-be tenants at the £537m stadium to lodge expressions of interest.

The Hammers and their east London council said they hope the Stratford venue, also in Newham borough, will feature "both football and athletics".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/8583608.stm

New owners at West Ham have reignited the idea.

Sorry, *flame warning*!

Passed it the other day on the train to Essex. Surprised just how small it looks in comparison to something like Twickenham when viewed from the same distance.

It will have to be very carefully dressed up for the games otherwise this is going to be a very disappointing structure. Perhaps by pointing hundreds of 20kw floodlights outwards at any potential viewers is cheapness will be obfuscated as a cheaper alternative to a good design.

The early designs were a million years ahead of this, and even if this is, by no choice of the ODA, an austerity games, I'm sure that the same base elements could be organised in a way which avoids looking like a second rate out of town Asda. (and yes, we've all seen Asdas and Tescos better designed with more quality to them than this)

Such a shame that if they invested half the time and design they put into making the scheme recyclable as a smaller stadium into a better design they could have had a large stadium dedicated to large international athletics events which was bound to attract more attention for future generations of athletes and left a genuine "legacy", rather than what I'm sure will be the equivalent of buying a GU (fancy chocolate desert) for the ramekin included to be used as a small glass ashtray.

Nil points from me.
I just SOOOO hope I'm proved wrong!!

Sorry, *flame warning*!

Passed it the other day on the train to Essex. Surprised just how small it looks in comparison to something like Twickenham when viewed from the same distance.

It will have to be very carefully dressed up for the games otherwise this is going to be a very disappointing structure. Perhaps by pointing hundreds of 20kw floodlights outwards at any potential viewers is cheapness will be obfuscated as a cheaper alternative to a good design.

The early designs were a million years ahead of this, and even if this is, by no choice of the ODA, an austerity games, I'm sure that the same base elements could be organised in a way which avoids looking like a second rate out of town Asda. (and yes, we've all seen Asdas and Tescos better designed with more quality to them than this)

Such a shame that if they invested half the time and design they put into making the scheme recyclable as a smaller stadium into a better design they could have had a large stadium dedicated to large international athletics events which was bound to attract more attention for future generations of athletes and left a genuine "legacy", rather than what I'm sure will be the equivalent of buying a GU (fancy chocolate desert) for the ramekin included to be used as a small glass ashtray.

Nil points from me.
I just SOOOO hope I'm proved wrong!!

it looks smaller because half the stadium is under ground level. so the external views that we are seeing are just the structure of the top tier, the rest is below that.

So this may be old news, but wasn't there some idea or plan for this stadium to revert to the other team in East London, Leyton Orient? I'm sure a stadium of 25'000 would be more than suitable for the team in League 1.

Olympic Stadium lights up progress (http://www.london2012.com/press/media-releases/2010/03/olympic-stadium-lights-up-progress.php)
26 Mar 2010
london2012.com

New aerial images released by the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) today show the Olympic Stadium’s lighting towers have all been lifted into place 60 metres above the field of play, taking the flagship venue to its full height and another step closer to completion by the summer of 2011.

A total of 14 lighting towers, each weighing 34 tonnes and designed with integrated walkways, access, power supplies and cabling and lighting, were lifted by a 650-tonne crane over a three week period.

The cable net roof will now start to be covered with a fabric material, providing the correct conditions for athletes on the field of play and covering two-thirds of spectators.

ODA Chairman John Armitt said: 'The successful lift of the lighting towers takes the Olympic Stadium to its full height and makes it even more visible across east London’s skyline.

'We still have big challenges over the coming year but hitting this important milestone ensures we remain on track to complete construction a year before the London 2012 Games begin.'

Sebastian Coe, Chairman of the London 2012 Organising Committee, said: 'The Olympic Stadium will be the centrepiece of the London 2012 Games, and it is exciting to see it taking shape so quickly. There will be fantastic sport taking place there and the towers will light up all the action. We look forward to welcoming the world’s athletes to the Stadium in 2012.'

Tessa Jowell, Olympics Minister, said: 'The Olympic Stadium continues to evolve at a staggering pace with the addition of the 14 lighting towers completing its silhouette. The light emitted will ensure that not a moment of action is missed by spectators and TV audiences.'

Janet Parskeva, Chair of the Olympic Lottery Distributor said: 'This is a
landmark moment in the development of the Olympic Park and we are pleased to see such progress. National Lottery players are making a significant contribution to funding the venues and infrastructure of London 2012 and it is important they can see what National Lottery funding is helping to achieve.'

The lighting towers, which will illuminate the action on the field of play and are necessary for high definition footage, are located high above the Stadium roof to ensure optimum lighting angles which avoid dazzling spectators, photographers and competitors.

Each tower can house up to 44 floodlights and a team of electricians installed and tested each light on the ground before the towers were lifted 60 metres on to the inner tension ring of the roof structure.

Over the coming months, the power supply and control cables will be installed and a series of tests will be carried out to ensure that every individual bulb is positioned correctly.

Facts and figures:

- 80,000 seats in Games mode and flexible design allows venue to be scaled back to 25,000 seats after the Games.

- The Stadium will host the athletics events and the Opening and Closing Ceremonies during the London 2012 Games.

- 33 buildings had to be demolished and over 800,000 tonnes of soil was taken away to help create the construction platform for the Olympic Stadium - enough to fill the Royal Albert Hall nine times over.

- The total Stadium site covers an area of 40 acres.

- The Stadium has a total floor area of 108,500m2 in Games-time.

- At 53m above ground level, the Olympic Stadium is taller than Nelson’s Column (50m).

- The Stadium will contain around 10,000 tonnes of steel - it will be the lightest Olympic Stadium constructed to date.

- Over 4,500 reinforced concrete columns were installed to act as the foundations

- The Stadium is surrounded by water on three sides so five new bridges and their abutments are now in place, connecting the Stadium island to the rest of the Park.

- There will be around 700 rooms and spaces within the Stadium, including changing rooms and toilets.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4463871721_23a752cdeb_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2699/4463871339_6f5b4bdb39_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4041/4464645288_f07bfd3f5e_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2777/4464645284_8a0c6330c8_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4009/4464645278_f5b74a903d_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4025/4464645274_cf0f49de77_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4464645270_4549472e2b_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2784/4464645264_c56d1dce95_b.jpg

Very nice. :)

it looks smaller because half the stadium is under ground level. so the external views that we are seeing are just the structure of the top tier, the rest is below that.

Thanks. I wonder whether that makes it the lowest venue for athletics in the world because, on this basis, it must be around 20m below sea level!:nuts: (if my memory serves me correctly that East London's ordnance datum is 12m)

I also wonder how that will affect the sports. I know "throwing" sports benefit from high altitude, so might be negatively affected, but clearly for stamina based
sports that would be reversed. Whether 20 meters either way would make any difference is another matter! ;)

Great aerial shots there, i never noticed how large the whole construction was!!!

I like those floodlights.I think the interior looks very good so far.

[wet dream mode on] Why not put a system like the one in Stade de France for both footbal and athletics?

That could attract clubs like Blackburn, West Ham and even Chelsea, and woud please UK athletics also... [wet dream mode off]

[wet dream mode on] Why not put a system like the one in Stade de France for both footbal and athletics?

That could attract clubs like Blackburn, West Ham and even Chelsea, and woud please UK athletics also... [wet dream mode off]

Blackburn???

Wrong post code, fella....................by about 250 miles!

As to the Stade de France idea, too late for that now. The stadium isn't designed to be able to accomodate retractable seating.

Blackburn???

Wrong post code, fella....................by about 250 miles!

As to the Stade de France idea, too late for that now. The stadium isn't designed to be able to accomodate retractable seating.

Sorry, my mental GPS is xxxked off... I meant Fulham and Crystal Palace...:nuts:

Would it be London or Paris to take place a big event like this, is it not very nice becoming touristy? :)

Amazing stadium and photos

How many workers working on? :)

Sorry, my mental GPS is xxxked off... I meant Fulham and Crystal Palace...:nuts:

To be honest, West Ham are the only club in the running. The Olympic stadium is deep into east / north east London. Fulham and Chelsea (in west central London) and Palace (in south London) are too far away.

The only other possibility, if the stadium is reduced to 25K, is the other east London club, Leyton Orient.

How many workers working on? :)

About 10,000 in the entire Olympic park.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2777/4464645284_8a0c6330c8_b.jpg


The waterways surrounding this stadium look absolutely brilliant and will be an amazing backdrop during the olympics, especially from the air as demonstrated in this pic.

Yep, just need to replace all that brown with green, plant a few thousand trees, wetlands, flowers, insert the pods and wrap and roof on the stadium, install some uplighting and fill the area with tens of thousands of people.

It's becoming easier to visualise.

The "brown to green" process is the easy part. Just needs a few months.
At this pace..should the Games be moved to August 2011! haha