Photo from London 2012

Are they installing uplighters around the outer ring?

Below the third triangle, to the right of the arrow, there's a hint of red and green (though I could be seeing things!)

http://i1044.photobucket.com/albums/b445/digipal2012/London%202012/6548620767_e84b2d28cd_b1.jpg

I notice too that the jumbotron is half installed.

I hate this phrase/word. :bash:

Photo from London 2012

Are they installing uplighters around the outer ring?

Below the third triangle, to the right of the arrow, there's a hint of red and green (though I could be seeing things!)

http://i1044.photobucket.com/albums/b445/digipal2012/London%202012/6548620767_e84b2d28cd_b1.jpg

I'm almost sure that's for illuminate the wrap

Building the wrap :)

Looks far more substantial than what has been speculated about??

I hate this phrase/word. :bash:

? It's just a Sony trademark.

I hate this phrase/word. :bash:

That's a shame. I like it.

It sounds like it's trying to be a Transformer. Much prefer "Big Screen"

It sounds like it's trying to be a Transformer. Much prefer "Big Screen"

call it what you want - i'll be happy as long as i see it play back numerous goals from West Ham in future years, while im standing pitch side on retractable 'safe stands' *prays*

To be a bit 'nitpicky' I would have thought the screens in the Olympic Stadium would be made by Panasonic not Sony, seeing that they are an Olympic Worldwide Sponsor. They certainly provided the ones in the Birds nest.

http://www.globalgiants.com/archives/fotos11/PanaBirdnest-03.jpg

The ones at WHL are real jumbotrons (Sony). These are just big screens ;)

Sony stopped making JumboTrons quite a few years ago. It's just a genericised trademark now, like hoover, and google.

i got a suprise christmas pressy of a ticket for august 7th morning slot athletics! not sure what im more excited about...the athletics (usain bolt etc) or being able to go into the olympic stadium !!! excited non the less!!

Well done you! I've not managed to get into the stadium for the Olympics but will be there for a session of the Paralympics which should be great.

Just so people know btw, there are still lots of Paralympic tickets on sale at london2012.com for most events (I think track cycling and diving might be sold out but everything else is still on sale). So if any SSCers want to see the venues in Olympic mode next year, you can do so for as little as £5 or £10.

^^ There's also the London Prepares Athletics series on the 4th - 7th May. Might be worth putting reminders on your Ticketmaster accounts. The tickets will go like s**t off a shove:)

im going 2 paralympics with family and friends! cant wait for that either!!

The wrap taking shape...

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6031/6330786015_21e3c87626_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15197111@N06/6330786015/)
Olympic Park Afternoon (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15197111@N06/6330786015/) by Nigel Lomas (http://www.flickr.com/people/15197111@N06/), on Flickr

Is that not just the previous test section of the wrap?

^^ Yeah, as those panels have been there for ages now.

It's got the same number of panels as it did beforehand so I don't see any change at all.

It's looking very good though, seeing that many diggers with 6 months to go doesn't look great but i'm sure it's just a small job they're doing.

I thought the wrap had been canned after Dow pulled out?

^^ Pretty sure the stadium wrap is going ahead, and Dow are still the company making it. However, the option for Dow to have their branding on five test panels has indeed been given the boot.

Exactly. Dow decided not to take up the option of advertising on a few panels of the wrap in the weeks leading up to the Games. They have not pulled out. The wrap is still going ahead.

Is there some red pods I see?

http://www.london2012.com/transform/1965129/m700x/stadium-long.jpg

Is there some red pods I see?

http://www.london2012.com/transform/1965129/m700x/stadium-long.jpg

I thought they were lockers for fire fighting equipment.

Is there some red pods I see?

http://www.london2012.com/transform/1965129/m700x/stadium-long.jpg


Utterly appalling English.

Utterly appalling English.
I don't know what your on about.

^^Oh god! It's you're not your!

And I thought the unspoken consensus of not replying to his monthly trolling was going so well!

I don't know what your on about.

:lol:

Is the stadium going to get a name:| not just the London 2012 stadium?

It'll just be called the Olympic Stadium during the Games, as everyone would expect. See the map DarJoLe posted in the other thread. After the Games I've no doubt Naming Rights will be sought to help pay for the ongoing costs.

Utterly appalling English.

Ah, sorry us Devon folk don't meet your standards Sir.

We have action!

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

:banana:

oh wow!
thats nice :D
http://2.s01.flagcounter.com/count/X1h/bg=FFFFFF/txt=FFFFFF/border=FFFFFF/columns=1/maxflags=1/viewers=3/labels=0/pageviews=0
http://flagcounter.com/count/X1h/bg=FFFFFF/txt=FFFFFF/border=FFFFFF/columns=1/maxflags=1/viewers=3/labels=0/pageviews=0
http://flagcounter.com/count/SKY/bg=FFFFFF/txt=FFFFFF/border=FFFFFF/columns=1/maxflags=1/viewers=3/labels=0/pageviews=0

Can't see that anything has changed.

OK, to bring up a subject we've probably covered before and I don't want to open a can of worms but... do we think that this stadium would have been better received if we followed Athens of Sydney? Do we think the partial bad press of the design is because we are following the Bird's Nest? I have to admit, I do like the stadium but sometimes I feel so underwhelmed by it, probably due to its simpleness, and now that it is likely to remain and not turned into legacy mode, feel a missed opportunity. Of course nothing can be done now, when the stadium was proposed the idea of a temporary upper tier with permanent lower bowl was the best option as no one else seemed keen on moving to it post games. So what we have to do now is accept the stadium as it is and improve it in whatever way deemed necessary post games i.e. an improved roof and better exterior cladding, after all the roof and wrap we are getting for the games are supposed to be temporary. I personally love the elegance of the bowl and upper tiers from within, but I think from the exterior it will in future need to look more 'permanent'.

Big screen installed?!

Can't see that anything has changed.

Big screens in and no plastic bags over the seats.

White boxes under all the floodlights.

White boxes under all the floodlights.

Yes what are they.....

Yes what are they.....

Chest freezers. There'll be a lot of catering during the games.

Yes what are they.....

Shelters for the ariel performers for the opening ceremony?

Yes what are they.....

They're the speakers that Muse are going to blow when they perform there after the games :D.

Chest freezers. There'll be a lot of catering during the games.

Wow, if they have people abseiling down from the roof with food orders this will be the best Games ever.

Club could buy Olympic Stadium

MP admits stadium shouldn't always be under public ownership

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

Olympic Stadium: Could be owned by football club in future

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manchester

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

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

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

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

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

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

They're the speakers that Muse are going to blow when they perform there after the games :D.


you quite like Muse, dont you?

me love muse!:):):):)

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/404969_10150548883279444_734774443_8717884_842120580_n.jpg



i know.. dont tell me... i was just playing a little:cheers::cheers:

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/404969_10150548883279444_734774443_8717884_842120580_n.jpg



i know.. dont tell me... i was just playing a little:cheers::cheers:

This got me thinking that if the stadium did not get a football anchor tenant, perhaps it should become londons premier ice skating rink during winter months!

This got me thinking that if the stadium did not get a football anchor tenant, perhaps it should become londons premier ice skating rink during winter months!

Yeah - they'd surely get more people than Lea valley ice rink and Romford combined. About 10.

What if the shards continued into the centre of the stadium?

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/404969_10150548883279444_734774443_8717884_842120580_n.jpg



i know.. dont tell me... i was just playing a little:cheers::cheers:

Okay smarty pants.

Now design one with retractable seating! :o)

Looking good. London is going to make a big impression

is that a real star? i mean, its on the track or was disegned by a software?

is that a real star? i mean, its on the track or was disegned by a software?

Designed by a user here.

got to love those photoshop lens flares :-)

It looks like have started to install the cable rigging that will hold the centre ring up.

It looks like have started to install the cable rigging that will hold the centre ring up.

English please. After all the Games will be in ENgland this year!!

English please. After all the Games will be in ENgland this year!!

Your English isn't very good either. Without any commas it reads as though you will be England after the games, which I presume wasn't your intention.

Your English isn't very good either. Without any commas it reads as though you will be England after the games, which I presume wasn't your intention.

Picky, picky. Sorry, I've already filled that secretary's position. :tongue:

It looks like have started to install the cable rigging that will hold the centre ring up.

What don't we understand by this comment?

It seems quite easy to understand................

Over a fiver for a hambuger with a bit of cheese near the Olympic stadium!
Infact if greed was an Olympic event Britain would win all the medals with ease.
Rip off tube and rail fares (mot expensive in Europe)
Rip off gas/electricity charges (most expensive in Europe)
Rip off property prices and rent (most expensive in Europe)

...and now a rubbish looking "temporarily permanent" stadium belonging to one of the most expensive in the world as well as Europe.

beef is an expensive form of food to produce

Over a fiver for a hambuger with a bit of cheese near the Olympic stadium!
Infact if greed was an Olympic event Britain would win all the medals with ease.
Rip off tube and rail fares (mot expensive in Europe)
Rip off gas/electricity charges (most expensive in Europe)
Rip off property prices and rent (most expensive in Europe)

...and now a rubbish looking "temporarily permanent" stadium belonging to one of the most expensive in the world as well as Europe.

You won't be missed.

Over a fiver for a hambuger with a bit of cheese near the Olympic stadium!
Infact if greed was an Olympic event Britain would win all the medals with ease.
Rip off tube and rail fares (mot expensive in Europe)
Rip off gas/electricity charges (most expensive in Europe)
Rip off property prices and rent (most expensive in Europe)

...and now a rubbish looking "temporarily permanent" stadium belonging to one of the most expensive in the world as well as Europe.

In the greatest and most diverse city in the world!

Rip off gas/electricity charges (most expensive in Europe)

You made that one up. UK's gas and electricity prices are both among the cheapest in Europe: http://www.energy.eu/ . Transport fuel among the most expensive, though.

Perhaps you'd like to deploy your usual Officer Drivel line now?

Over a fiver for a hambuger with a bit of cheese near the Olympic stadium!
Infact if greed was an Olympic event Britain would win all the medals with ease.
Rip off tube and rail fares (mot expensive in Europe)
Rip off gas/electricity charges (most expensive in Europe)
Rip off property prices and rent (most expensive in Europe)

...and now a rubbish looking "temporarily permanent" stadium belonging to one of the most expensive in the world as well as Europe.

You now enhance the meaning to the phrase 'Up the Oxo tower'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/16831357

Olympic Stadium wanted by West Ham and 15 other parties

West Ham are believed to be one of the 16 parties to have expressed an interest in moving to the Olympic Stadium after the 2012 Games.

The Championship club had looked set to move into the venue but a deal with Newham Council collapsed in October.

The government opened a tender process on 20 December and bidders have until 23 March to submit full proposals.

The Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) revealed the numbers after the 30 January deadline passed.

A spokesperson for the OPLC said: "There have been 16 registrations from parties interested in bidding to use the stadium after the Games. They now have until 23 March 2012 to submit their full bids.

"The Legacy Company plans to appoint the winning bidders in May 2012 and remains on track to reopen the venue in 2014."

Challenges from Leyton Orient and Tottenham Hotspur, as well as an anonymous complaint to the European Commission, led to fears that the battle for use of the stadium could go on for years.

However, after West Ham's bid collapsed it was decided that a new tender process would be opened in December 2011 for an anchor tenant at the venue and the government revealed the stadium would remain in public ownership.

The OPLC also reiterated that the athletics track remaining in place is a non-negotiable part of the process.

The spokesperson added: "Each successful bidder will add to the athletics legacy already secured for the stadium, including the new national centre for athletics and host of the 2017 World Athletics Championships."

http://i43.tinypic.com/ip5n6h.png

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/405295_10150517025567408_259479457407_9243968_937979382_n.jpg

Just seen this photoshopped stadium island image on the official London 2012 Facebook page.

I think the F.U.C.Ks look better like that.

looks shit where are the pods?

looks shit where are the pods?

Was going to be my question. The pods are the best thing about the stadium design. I hope they're not going to go all boxy on our ass!

Must say, the quiche is looking good though in that photoshop! Complete with fluted sides....

Pods?

Pods?

Yes, pods. You know, the round things in different colours and sizes that were shown in numerous renders. Feigning ignorance about them doesnt mean they didnt exist!

I can't imagine curves were very... economical?

I can't imagine curves were very... economical?


Then why include them in the original plans? It annoys me so much as they haven't even made an official announcement to say that they are no longer planning to use them. The Pods would have looked great. What a shame.

I always thought the pods looked a tad naff.

Then why include them in the original plans? It annoys me so much as they haven't even made an official announcement to say that they are no longer planning to use them. The Pods would have looked great. What a shame.

Well the wrap and lighting have changed since the original plans, why get so worked up over a few hot dog stands?

Those tents could be alot better in design! I liked the pods. Its not got the energy bursts on the tarmac around the stadium either as today.

I can't imagine curves were very... economical?

Are you now referring to the curves in the stadium that have proved uneconomical?

The pods were going to be a saving grace.

I can't imagine curves were very... economical?

Whether they are economical or not is besides the point. We were promised funky pods, and funky pods we shall damn well get! :bash:

Nothing was 'promised'.

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

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

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

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

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

Holy... shit...

What a screw up. The wrap has got to save this.

the pods were the saving grace of the stadium.. so disappointed to see them go.

As everyone has mentioned, this is just terrible. I liked the oddness of the pods and thought they at least added thought and creativity to a pretty bland stadium.

Im a big 2012 fan/follow but i think this is a big shame.

Pod Petition anyone???

SHAME ON THEM!!!

Jesus wept! over reaction much.

It is like Dale Farm has come to the Olympics.. what a sham :(

Now that looks Povo. They have seriously dropped the ball.

More in keeping with the other concession stands though. I never really got why the round pods were proposed when the Games look is so angular, they were only going to be used at the stadium and seemed odd to be only there.

The logistics of the back of house, utilities and storage probably killed off bespoke items; a one design that can be replicated saves time and money. Note how the decking extends to the stadium island edge- I expect this is where power and water cables and pipes are hidden. Not sure how the numerous round pods in random locations would have hidden that- let alone the scale of them compared to the crowds.

Liking the dedicated seating area at the back (or front of stadium island now..?) area which seems more defined than previous attempts. And the band of colour- matches the stadium interior.

Yeah the pods were funky but with what we've seen with how the look of the games is integrated into the Park topography these seem a bit more in keeping with that, plus addressing what I expect are issues with the physical mechanics of powering them!

But corrugated steel boxes? Really?
I suppose it was inevitable that everything was going to get value-engineered. These are the Austerity Games, after all.

But corrugated steel boxes? Really?
I suppose it was inevitable that everything was going to get value-engineered. These are the Austerity Games, after all.

Do you know what corrugated steel is?

Oh my....

They would be better off without them.

They would seriously be better off having the burger vans under those sun shade style canopies (which would at least imitate the stadium roof) I really am genuinely angry with these. As much as I love the Olympics and support 2012 it really is a shame to think we've mastered this notion of sustainability which in general seems to be making cut backs to quality and aesthetic (whilst surprisingly escalating the costs!). The main focal point of the park, the legacy and the coverage for those two weeks and it's going to look like it was thrown together around the outskirts.

I swear I heard there wasn't going to be any pods like 2 years ago.

Yep, it's not the first time this has been talked about at all. I was surprised at the reaction to the picture I posted, I'm sure we've had this discussion before.

It was rumoured and never confirmed. I think not only are people angry about the pods being scrapped but the fact that there has been no announcement. The pods really would have made the stadium come alive. As it is, it is a rather bland Olympic Stadium, especially consdering the immense stucture it follows.

All of this work on a stunning Olympic Park and then they go and throw up those awful food stalls and try to leave the main stadium undressed. It is madness, British madness.

I think the annotation on this image sums it up:

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

'galvanised steel handrail'

'decking ramp'

'fire rated counter'

'corrugated steel envelope'


There is so much restriction on architecture these days... the process is becoming less artistic and more bureaucratic, hence this crap produced. The focus of a building should be the design, not its restrictions. The pods weren't perfect but at least we were talking about shape, colour, orientation... Bureaucracy has left us talking about heights of handrails, widths of access ramps and fire strategies. This tick box stuff needs to be in the background of a design, not the foreground.

What we could have had. :ohno:


http://www.ads.org.uk/resource_files/thumbs/thumb_838_2_approach_to_Olympic_Stadium.jpg

Incredible reaction. I'm totally convinced most just whine for the sake of it. :ohno:

Incredible reaction. I'm totally convinced most just whine for the sake of it. :ohno:

Not really. Britain is a world leader in design and architecture. With 5bn people looking at us for a couple of weeks, the Olympics are an immense opportunity to showcase that in order to win us exports in these services.

When the design elements and architecture appear to be value-engineered at the expense of aesthetics, it is an opportunity lost, maybe even damaging to our reputation.

Not really. Britain is a world leader in design and architecture. With 5bn people looking at us for a couple of weeks, the Olympics are an immense opportunity to showcase that in order to win us exports in these services.

When the design elements and architecture appear to be value-engineered at the expense of aesthetics, it is an opportunity lost, maybe even damaging to our reputation.

Hear bloody hear. Such a shame. Somehow those pods made the island come alive. Perhaps it was their organic shape or something.

Surely, it hasn't saved that much money. Sheesh.

Not really. Britain is a world leader in design and architecture. With 5bn people looking at us for a couple of weeks, the Olympics are an immense opportunity to showcase that in order to win us exports in these services.

When the design elements and architecture appear to be value-engineered at the expense of aesthetics, it is an opportunity lost, maybe even damaging to our reputation.


Very sadly this is now unavoidable.

I can live with some of the cost cutting. I can even live with the shitty wrap compromise. What I can't live with are those awful corrugated boxes as food stalls. Those smartie pods would have really made such a difference to the whole feel of that stadium for every spectator arriving. It would have been our big chance to add a bit of style to the whole park and really make it come alive. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of the park and am overwhelmed by the achievements made. This park will become the greatest Olympic Park of all time, I have no doubt, and I have been to many of them. But I can't help but think we have spent billions of pounds and completed 99% of the hard work and then got lazy at the final hurdle and decided to skimp on the last 1% to save a few million. If you're gonna do it, do it properly. It is bloody damn typical of the way we Brits approach most things.

Well, that's it then. Between Livinstone's insane insistence that the stadium not be designed for top level football after the games and frankly odd money saving plans (that appear not to have saved any money at all), we have a main stadium that both disappoints architecturally while not being fit for purpose in legacy. These boxes are the icing on the (shit) cake.

Not really. Britain is a world leader in design and architecture. With 5bn people looking at us for a couple of weeks, the Olympics are an immense opportunity to showcase that in order to win us exports in these services.

When the design elements and architecture appear to be value-engineered at the expense of aesthetics, it is an opportunity lost, maybe even damaging to our reputation.

Bollocks! It's a sporting event, nobody will even notice the 'value engineered' pods. Even allowing for the fact that this an architecture site most of what's opinioned here is total nonsense.

I apologise if I sound rude.

The wrap going bothered me a huge amount, and thankfully it's back. I just can't get worked up over this though. It really doesn't bother me at all.

I can live with some of the cost cutting. I can even live with the shitty wrap compromise. What I can't live with are those awful corrugated boxes as food stalls. Those smartie pods would have really made such a difference to the whole feel of that stadium for every spectator arriving. It would have been our big chance to add a bit of style to the whole park and really make it come alive. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of the park and am overwhelmed by the achievements made. This park will become the greatest Olympic Park of all time, I have no doubt, and I have been to many of them. But I can't help but think we have spent billions of pounds and completed 99% of the hard work and then got lazy at the final hurdle and decided to skimp on the last 1% to save a few million. If you're gonna do it, do it properly. It is bloody damn typical of the way we Brits approach most things.

Having followed the process intently from day one of the bid itself, and having had that sense of euphoria when we won, I've given up counting down the days.

I looked forward years to the opening ceremony. I'm not sure I will even watch it live now. I might watch it aferwards depending on the reports because my instincts tell me that it is going to be such a disappointment.

The list of which has now become too irritating.

Cheap (and looks it) but expensive temporary but permanent stadium.
Wrapped in flypaper.
Munich-coloured stadium track.
Compromised aquatic centre. Beautiful to tacky wings.
Contemporary pods to Glastonbury burger concession.
Ticket Fiasco.
The Awful Tower.
NHS Nurses.
A garish and child-like 'bridge'.
Shitty Stratford disguised by 'Shoals' ( like it won't be seen anyway and seen to be hidden ).
A patronising environmental lesson during the opening ceremony.

All we need now is the rain and we will have our perfect disaster.

Well according to some on here these are going to be the worst Games ever because the stadium doesn't live up to the Birds Nest so might as well cancel them now eh?

Oh there we go, posted too soon.

What decides what makes a successful Games? Athletes. Not people who visit concession stands.

Oh there we go, posted too soon.

What decides what makes a successful Games? Athletes. Not people who visit concession stands.

The concession stands are clearly costing money, correct?

They are temporary and will not remain after the games, correct?

The stadium cost over £500million and does not have such facilities built in the concourses, correct?

The stadium will have to be retrofitted with these facilities after the games, correct?

This wont save save us money in the future or look at all aesthetically pleasing will it, correct?



Surely this was a bad decision?

Come on... really...??

It wasn't designed as a football stadium because it was supposed to be a dedicated 25,000 athletics facility with the ability to size up for an Olympic Games.

The whole debate has been going on here for years.

Yeah, alright, mistakes have been made. If you think preparing for hosting an Olympics is easy and everything along the way goes smoothly then you're very naive. No Games will ever be perfect, but every Games tries to be the best that they can with the parameters they are given.

London will host the best Games since Sydney, which many consider to be the benchmark to push beyond. I still truly believe that, and believing a stadium design is going to dent that vision then fine. At the end of the day, it's the athletes that need to be taken care of, not spectators, as they are the ones who make or break the headlines.

It wasn't designed as a football stadium because it was supposed to be a dedicated 25,000 athletics facility with the ability to size up for an Olympic Games.

The whole debate has been going on here for years.

Yeah, alright, mistakes have been made. If you think preparing for hosting an Olympics is easy and everything along the way goes smoothly then you're very naive. No Games will ever be perfect, but every Games tries to be the best that they can with the parameters they are given.

London will host the best Games since Sydney, which many consider to be the benchmark to push beyond. I still truly believe that, and believing a stadium design is going to dent that vision then fine. At the end of the day, it's the athletes that need to be taken care of, not spectators, as they are the ones who make or break the headlines.

I agree with everything you have said about the athletes and the spectacle making the games, i dont think you will find many that disagree with that sentiment.

But to be honest, this debate is about the Olympic Stadium and the quality of the development. To be critical of it, is not to be critical of the overall Games.

I cant wait for the games and im sure we will put on the best ever, but for a while i and others have argued that the planning and design of the Olympic Stadium has been poor and ill conceived. RobH and yourself have shot this argument down at every opportunity and i like many others have been made to feel like this opinion is somehow anti-games, which is simply not the case.

Finally it now seems that you maybe slightly, just ever so slightly admitting that we may have got the Stadium wrong, possibly, maybe.

Hallelujah!

It wasn't designed as a football stadium because it was supposed to be a dedicated 25,000 athletics facility with the ability to size up for an Olympic Games.

The whole debate has been going on here for years.

Yeah, alright, mistakes have been made. If you think preparing for hosting an Olympics is easy and everything along the way goes smoothly then you're very naive. No Games will ever be perfect, but every Games tries to be the best that they can with the parameters they are given.

London will host the best Games since Sydney, which many consider to be the benchmark to push beyond. I still truly believe that, and believing a stadium design is going to dent that vision then fine. At the end of the day, it's the athletes that need to be taken care of, not spectators, as they are the ones who make or break the headlines.

I agree. Sydney wasn't famed for it's architecture but many regard it as the best olympic games.

It's only the pods remember, there are still plenty of other spectacular buildings. Am I right in thinking they will go after the games, or could the new tenant choose to keep them

I don't think 'we' got it wrong at all. Others who have not got what was trying to be achieved have shot that vision down in flames and we're left picking up the pieces.

The stadium is still a brilliant piece of sustainable temporary architecture. And the changes made during its construction have been the best decisions made with the parameters available. I still think it is an inspired design that hopefully changes the way we think about utilising structures for short term events, plus creating a fantastic atmosphere and potential for great, open and democratic imagery inside and outside the structure.

I just think its a shame it will never fulfil its full legacy potential. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I don't think 'we' got it wrong at all. Others who have not got what was trying to be achieved have shot that vision down in flames and we're left picking up the pieces.

The stadium is still a brilliant piece of sustainable temporary architecture. And the changes made during its construction have been the best decisions made with the parameters available. I still think it is an inspired design that hopefully changes the way we think about utilising structures for short term events, plus creating a fantastic atmosphere and potential for great, open and democratic imagery inside and outside the structure.

I just think its a shame it will never fulfil its full legacy potential. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I tried...

Oh there we go, posted too soon.

What decides what makes a successful Games? Athletes. Not people who visit concession stands.

What makes a successful games is the whole package. If it was purely about the sport, the international athletics championships would be as big a deal as the Olympics. We could have hosted the games in existing facilities, which would have been perfectly adequate for the athletes.
But it's about a lot more than that. It's about sport, culture, friendship, building international bonds, and yes, about the host city showcasing its capabilities to the world. To deny that's the case is to deny the immense effort and money that has been spent on the games.

London will not be a disaster. I don't think anyone believes that. I should imagine the residents of host cities/countries always puts a lot of pressure on themselves to excel, and for good reason.

We've built some great venues for London 2012, but what the overseas visitor or viewer leaves remembering are the final touches. The embelishments, music, atmosphere, spectacle and design. These things might represent a small amount of the entire budget, but they are the things that are most immediately visible. People don't care about the decontamination process or the building work or the security or the logistics; they care about how good a show the athletes put on foremost, and the reception and environment secondly.
Having to buy their coffees from an Anderson shelter probably won't leave them with a good image of London.

I agree with everything you have said about the athletes and the spectacle making the games, i dont think you will find many that disagree with that sentiment.

But to be honest, this debate is about the Olympic Stadium and the quality of the development. To be critical of it, is not to be critical of the overall Games.

I cant wait for the games and im sure we will put on the best ever, but for a while i and others have argued that the planning and design of the Olympic Stadium has been poor and ill conceived. RobH and yourself have shot this argument down at every opportunity and i like many others have been made to feel like this opinion is somehow anti-games, which is simply not the case.!

If you feel that way you should probably find somewhere else to post. I'm not going to change my posting style, which has served me well hee, unlike your own which has seen you in the sin-bin shortly after you registered.

There are lots of posters in this forum who have been constructively critical of the Games, including yourself at times and including me, and I'm happy to debate with most of them. What I have objected to, and what has lead to briggings because the mods agreed, is trolling by posting consciously provocative negativity in many threads at once (like Englishkevin does), and attacking the motives of other posters (the reason you were brigged).

If you can understand that, then we can debate and discuss. The fact that you brought up my name in this thread when we were simply debating food kiosks suggests you still haven't.

As for all the criticisms of the stadium now are concerned, it really depends a lot on your politics. If you think the original idea of a partially subsidised 25k athletics stadium was stupid, then you may think Boris et al are making the best of of bad initial planning deicisons. If you think, like me, that the 25k athletics stadium should have been given a chance, then you're more likely to think Boris et al are making a hash of things now. The architecture itself was built for one purpose and is being squashed into another, that is unquestionable. We'll never know whether the original solution could've worked, which is sad, let's hope the new tender process sees a good solution arise which doesn't involve selling to a football club on the cheap to get it off Boris' books.

As for the new pods, as I said, they don't bother me at all. I'll probably be more concerned with looking at the stadium in its shiny new wrap than worrying about what the food stalls look like when I'm there during the Paralympics.

Incidentally, when is the wrap going up, it must be pretty soon?

It wasn't designed as a football stadium because it was supposed to be a dedicated 25,000 athletics facility with the ability to size up for an Olympic Games.

The whole debate has been going on here for years.

Yeah, alright, mistakes have been made. If you think preparing for hosting an Olympics is easy and everything along the way goes smoothly then you're very naive. No Games will ever be perfect, but every Games tries to be the best that they can with the parameters they are given.

London will host the best Games since Sydney, which many consider to be the benchmark to push beyond. I still truly believe that, and believing a stadium design is going to dent that vision then fine. At the end of the day, it's the athletes that need to be taken care of, not spectators, as they are the ones who make or break the headlines.

Just the athletes ?


But clearly that isn't so is it ? Look how big and beyond athletics the olympics are. To say it is purely about the athletes is just nonsensical propaganda. Further, I would suggest, given the huge cost to the taxpayers, we are putting on a global sporting and CULTURAL olympiad and the taxpayers have a perfect right to feel as if they are getting full value for money. Succintly , if we must have this expenditure, if we agree to host, if it is to entail all the myriad aspects of it....THEN DO IT PROPERLY OR STOP SPENDING *ANY* OF MY MONEY !

If you feel that way you should probably find somewhere else to post. I'm not going to change my posting style, which has served me well hee, unlike your own which has seen you in the sin-bin shortly after you registered.

There are lots of posters in this forum who have been constructively critical of the Games, including yourself at times and including me, and I'm happy to debate with most of them. What I have objected to, and what has lead to briggings because the mods agreed, is trolling by posting consciously provocative negativity in many threads at once (like Englishkevin does), and attacking the motives of other posters (the reason you were brigged).

If you can understand that, then we can debate and discuss. The fact that you brought up my name in this thread when we were simply debating food kiosks suggests you still haven't.

As for all the criticisms of the stadium now are concerned, it really depends a lot on your politics. If you think the original idea of a partially subsidised 25k athletics stadium was stupid, then you may think Boris et al are making the best of of bad initial planning deicisons. If you think, like me, that the 25k athletics stadium should have been given a chance, then you're more likely to think Boris et al are making a hash of things now. The architecture itself was built for one purpose and is being squashed into another, that is unquestionable. We'll never know whether the original solution could've worked, which is sad, let's hope the new tender process sees a good solution arise.

As for the new pods, as I said, they don't bother me at all. I'll probably be more concerned with looking at the stadium in its shiny new wrap than worrying about what the food stalls look like when I'm there during the Paralympics.

Incidentally, when is the wrap going up, it must be pretty soon?


I think some people have been sent to the 'sin bin' because of the hysterical reaction to ANY criticism of London 2012 from the indoctrinated anoraks on here. You will find it is their intolerance,hysteria and angry reaction to criticism that provokes others. It is very childish to behave like a child when someone disagrees or be unable to respond to criticism without insults or sarcasm- as RobH has just blatantly proved on another thread. So one has to ask where the problem really lies doesn't one ?

Perhaps they need it more.

I might remind you - the anoraks that live on here do not have ownership of this site....unless it is an officially sponsored clique. Is it ?

They do not have ownership of London 2012 either. As taxpayers we are ALL entitled to our opinion.

What makes a successful games is the whole package. If it was purely about the sport, the international athletics championships would be as big a deal as the Olympics. We could have hosted the games in existing facilities, which would have been perfectly adequate for the athletes.
But it's about a lot more than that. It's about sport, culture, friendship, building international bonds, and yes, about the host city showcasing its capabilities to the world. To deny that's the case is to deny the immense effort and money that has been spent on the games.

London will not be a disaster. I don't think anyone believes that. I should imagine the residents of host cities/countries always puts a lot of pressure on themselves to excel, and for good reason.

We've built some great venues for London 2012, but what the overseas visitor or viewer leaves remembering are the final touches. The embelishments, music, atmosphere, spectacle and design. These things might represent a small amount of the entire budget, but they are the things that are most immediately visible. People don't care about the decontamination process or the building work or the security or the logistics; they care about how good a show the athletes put on foremost, and the reception and environment secondly.
Having to buy their coffees from an Anderson shelter probably won't leave them with a good image of London.



Quite right Berty and I , as a very proud Englishman, am already too embarrassed by what we've done to hold much hope for our olympics.

It is very childish to behave like a child

Indeed. :lol:

I think some people have been sent to the 'sin bin' because of the hysterical reaction to ANY criticism of London 2012 from the indoctrinated anoraks on here. You will find it is their intolerance,hysteria and angry reaction to criticism that provokes others. It is very childish to behave like a child when someone disagrees or be unable to respond to criticism without insults or sarcasm- as RobH has just blatantly proved on another thread. So one has to ask where the problem really lies doesn't one ?

Perhaps they need it more.

I might remind you - the anoraks that live on here do not have ownership of this site....unless it is an officially sponsored clique. Is it ?

They do not have ownership of London 2012 either. As taxpayers we are ALL entitled to our opinion.

I quite agree, which is why i posted what i thought was a sensible argument about the costs of the Olympic Stadium.

The idea was to create a sustainable, more affordable stadium?

I for one do not believe this has been achieved. The so called 'pods' are good example. By not putting services into the stadium concourses this was to save money. Such facilities are now likely to be retrofitted into the stadium at a later date, at considerable cost!

Surely this would have been cheaper to do from the beginning. This would also mean we wouldn't have to put up with these horrible cheap looking plastic tents around the stadium!

I struggle to understand how the apologists on this forum still cant see the wood for the trees!

By not putting services into the stadium concourses this was to save money. Such facilities are now likely to be retrofitted into the stadium at a later date, at considerable cost!

Only because the stadium legacy plan has been altered so radically though. It would have been extremely wasteful and expensive to build permanant facilities for 80k people into the stadium concourse in the knowledge most of it would be removed afterwrds.

The plan to have external, presumably reusable or recyclable pods was completely sensible based on how the stadium was to be transformed post-2012 i.e. a 25k athletics stadium.

I suppose given that the stadium legacy has now changed, if the Games were 4 years away, we could "retrofit" prior to the Games to save the double-effort. But there isn't the time to do that now.

Only because the stadium legacy plan has been altered so radically though. It would have been extremely wasteful and expensive to build in permanant facilities for 80k people into the stadium concourse in the knowledge most of it would be removed afterwrds.

The plan to have external, presumably reusable or recyclable pods was completely sensible based on how the stadium was to be transformed post-2012 i.e. a 25k athletics stadium.

I suppose, if the Games were 4 years away, we could "retrofit" prior to the Games to save the double-effort. But there isn't the time to do that now.

Yep, yep, yep... but i have always argued against the original plan, which was ill conceived! Spending all of that money on a 25,000 seater athletics stadium was always ridiculous!

Even back then, there many calling the legacy wasteful, there were always going to be lots of potential uses for a large stadium in East London.

Missed opportunities and wasted money.

Yep, yep, yep... but i have always argued against the original plan, which was ill conceived! Spending all of that money on a 25,000 seater athletics stadium was always ridiculous!

Even back then, there many calling the legacy wasteful, there were always going to be lots of potential uses for a large stadium in East London.

Missed opportunities and wasted money.



YOU CAN'T SAY THAT YOU TROLL ! FUCK OFF ! THIS IS MY FORUM NOT YOURS !

LOL !

I thought you said you were here to debate? A tranche of negative posts, personal attacks on me and continued bitching in the Olympic Park thread (which I'm now ignoring and letting the mods deal with) and now this? Proving my point somewhat.

Yep, yep, yep... but i have always argued against the original plan, which was ill conceived! Spending all of that money on a 25,000 seater athletics stadium was always ridiculous!

Even back then, there many calling the legacy wasteful, there were always going to be lots of potential uses for a large stadium in East London.

Missed opportunities and wasted money.

Fair enough that you think a different solution should have been worked out from the start.

But I don't think a lot of money has been wasted.

The stadium itself was £80m. Most of the cash went towards site clean-up and the permanant infrastructure below and around the stadium. How do I know this? Spurs' plan for the area involved demolishing the entire stadium and rebuilding, but they were only going to remove £80m worth of the construction.

They were then going to build a £250m stadium on top.

If we'd built, say, a 70k stadium from the start with retractable seating (quite costly in itself), we'd be talking about a good few hundred million just to get the site ready (same as the current project) plus the cost of a permanant, rather than temporary-then-retrofitted, stadium.

I'm not sure - when you add it all up - that's much different from the costs incurred so far with the current stadium.

And of course, all this ignores the fact that the IOC preferred our dedicated athletics stadium plan to Paris' alternative (Liam Diack has said as much - London's promise for a dedicated athletics facility was hugely important in our bid victory). Fair enough if you think a retractable option would have been better, but had we gone with that we might be in the position where the only Olympic development happening now is across the Channel.

Fair enough that you think a different solution should have been worked out from the start.

But I don't think a lot of money has been wasted.

The stadium itself was £80m. Most of the cash went towards site clean-up and the permanant infrastructure below and around the stadium. How do I know this? Spurs' plan for the area involved demolishing the entire stadium and rebuilding, but they were only going to remove £80m worth of the construction.

They were then going to build a £250m stadium on top.

If we'd built, say, a 70k stadium from the start with retractable seating (quite costly in itself), we'd be talking about a good few hundred million just to get the site ready (same as the current project) plus the cost of a permanant, rather than temporary-then-retrofitted, stadium.

I'm not sure - when you add it all up - that's much different from the costs incurred so far with the current stadium.

And of course, all this ignores the fact that the IOC preferred our dedicated athletics stadium plan to Paris' alternative (Liam Diack has said as much - London's promise for a dedicated athletics facility was hugely important in our bid victory). Fair enough if you think a retractable option would have been better, but had we gone with that we might be in the position where the only Olympic development happening now is across the Channel.

Rob, im sorry but you are way off with your figures! The stadium cost was £500million all in.

This is not good value for money in my book.

The stadium cost was £500million all in.

All in, exactly. The stadium itself, what you'd call the stadium, was £80m of this figure.

Three quarters of that £500m was getting the site ready and building the infrastrcture able to cope with the people. That would have had to have been spent wehther you then build a £250m permanant stadium on top of it, or a £80m temporary solution.

If you look at the Olympic stadium 2 webcam you can see that the cabling is up in the middle...

If you look at the Olympic stadium 2 webcam you can see that the cabling is up in the middle...

Good spot, there seems to be plenty of cabling still to go up though.

All in, exactly. The stadium itself, what you'd call the stadium, was £80m of this figure.

Three quarters of that £500m was getting the site ready and building the infrastrcture able to cope with the people. That would have had to have been spent wehther you then build a £250m permanant stadium on top of it, or a £80m temporary solution.

If £80m is in fact the figure spent on the stadium itself, how can they justify £95m+ to convert it post games?

Seems like daylight robbery!

Quite right Berty and I , as a very proud Englishman, am already too embarrassed by what we've done to hold much hope for our olympics.

lol i am actually embarrased to................... for the fact you call yourself englishkev when theres nothing english about you all i can make out is that you are a sad lonley winging hypocrite. It's not just the stadium and park on show it's the whole city and london is gonna showcase all that is great about Great Britain there is where the focus lies, people won't be coming just for the sport, while they are in london they will get the chance to tour one of the most famous cities on the planet thats where we should proud. our capital not just the park will be the centre of the world for a month. After someone has seen big ben, the houses of parliment, the eye, tower of london, tower bridge and all the other landmarks do you think people visiting london for the games will be talking more about the olympic stadium no i highly doubt it this for some visitors is there once in a life time opportunity to visit and see this great city . It's about showing off this great city do you not get that into your thick skull. if you are a true englishman then show it and stop whinging

All in, exactly. The stadium itself, what you'd call the stadium, was £80m of this figure.

Three quarters of that £500m was getting the site ready and building the infrastrcture able to cope with the people. That would have had to have been spent wehther you then build a £250m permanant stadium on top of it, or a £80m temporary solution.

To put it simply Rob, you are wrong!

The original estimate was £282million during bidding stage.

The budget set aside in Nov 2007 was £496million.

By September 2008 the figure had gone up to £525million.

Structural changes to the roof have added a further £22million.



Where did you get £80million from?

Spurs' response to the claim they were going to demolish £500m worth of instructure with their stadium bid:

“A lot of emotive phrasing has been used regarding the dismantling of the stadium and it is scaremongering and irresponsible,” he [Levy] said.

“The Olympic stadium was never intended to be kept. The original 2012 legacy promised to dismantle all of the stadium above ground, leaving a sunken 25,000-capacity athletics arena. That has proved unviable.

“Our plans involve the same amount of dismantling and this is in no way a loss of £500 million of stadium infrastructure. Given how much of the original groundworks, substructure and podium will remain, around £420 million worth, we are talking about £80 million of above-ground infrastructure.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/8309795/London-Olympics-2012-Tottenham-and-West-Ham-clash-as-Karren-Brady-says-Spurs-bid-is-a-corporate-crime.html

-----

"£80m of above ground infrastucture" is the cost of the London Stadium bowl. A permanant stadium on top of all the necessary instrastrcuture would obviously cost a lot more (Spurs were going to spend £250m on theirs once they'd removed the temporary £80m London Stadium bowl).

You tell me, if you're going to build a permanant stadium from scratch, how do you propose reducing the cost of all the essential gruondworks, infrastructure costs etc that make up the bulk of the £500m? The fact is, whether you build a permanent or temporary stadium on such land, the bulk costs are going to be getting the podium level and associated infrastructure ready.

Simply looking at how much, for example, Arsenal spent on the Emirates and saying "we could have had a permanant stadium for half what this cost" as some have said, is wrong. A permanant stadium would likely cost a fair bit more than this once you add everything in, take into account the state of the land and the non-existent infrastrcuture it had when the build started.

If London had gone for a normal, fully-permanant stadium, I'd be amazed if it came in under £600m.

lol i am actually embarrased to................... for the fact you call yourself englishkev when theres nothing english about you all i can make out is that you are a sad lonley winging hypocrite. It's not just the stadium and park on show it's the whole city and london is gonna showcase all that is great about Great Britain there is where the focus lies, people won't be coming just for the sport, while they are in london they will get the chance to tour one of the most famous cities on the planet thats where we should proud. our capital not just the park will be the centre of the world for a month. After someone has seen big ben, the houses of parliment, the eye, tower of london, tower bridge and all the other landmarks do you think people visiting london for the games will be talking more about the olympic stadium no i highly doubt it this for some visitors is there once in a life time opportunity to visit and see this great city . It's about showing off this great city do you not get that into your thick skull. if you are a true englishman then show it and stop whinging

Yeh, one month of hype and thats it.

Spurs' response to the claim they were going to demolish £500m worth of instructure with their stadium bid:

“A lot of emotive phrasing has been used regarding the dismantling of the stadium and it is scaremongering and irresponsible,” he [Levy] said.

“The Olympic stadium was never intended to be kept. The original 2012 legacy promised to dismantle all of the stadium above ground, leaving a sunken 25,000-capacity athletics arena. That has proved unviable.

“Our plans involve the same amount of dismantling and this is in no way a loss of £500 million of stadium infrastructure. Given how much of the original groundworks, substructure and podium will remain, around £420 million worth, we are talking about £80 million of above-ground infrastructure.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/8309795/London-Olympics-2012-Tottenham-and-West-Ham-clash-as-Karren-Brady-says-Spurs-bid-is-a-corporate-crime.html

-----

"£80m of above ground infrastucture" is the cost of the London Stadium bowl. A permanant stadium on top of all the necessary instrastrcuture would obviously cost a lot more (Spurs were going to spend £250m on theirs once they'd removed the temporary £80m London Stadium bowl).

If London had gone for a normal, fully-permanant stadium, I'd be amazed if it came in under £600m.

I would suggest there was a certain amount of propaganda attached to Spurs bid to dismantle the stadium. The figure of £80m was surely just a smokescreen to minimize the public outrage.

Yeh, one month of hype and thats it.

I would say 6 months of hype prior to the games!

I would suggest there was a certain amount of propaganda attached to Spurs bid to dismantle the stadium. The figure of £80m was surely just a smokescreen to minimize the public outrage.

It sounds about right to me to be honest. When you consider what the stadium bowl consists of just under £100m sounds about right. And why would Spurs need any sort of propaganda considering what they were going to do in terms of demolition was not much different from what London 2012 was going to do? Spurs wouldn't even have mentioned this figure in what was a private tendering process had Brady not been shooting her mouth off, saying Spurs wanted to commit corporate crimes by demolishing £500m worth of infrastructure. And nobody from West Ham or Newham or UKA went on to challenge Levy's figures, probably because they knew he was right (as he normally is with numbers).

Considering the ODA have consistently said 3/4 of the money spent is going on long-term infrastrcuture, I don't see why these figures are fanciful. It was they and their stadium partners, after all, who designed the above ground bowl to be dismantled, not Spurs. It was in their interest to minimise the cost of the temporary portion, so I fully believe the £80m figure for the stadium bowl, £420m for the rest of the substructures, podium, remedial work etc.

Spurs' response to the claim they were going to demolish £500m worth of instructure with their stadium bid:

“A lot of emotive phrasing has been used regarding the dismantling of the stadium and it is scaremongering and irresponsible,” he [Levy] said.

“The Olympic stadium was never intended to be kept. The original 2012 legacy promised to dismantle all of the stadium above ground, leaving a sunken 25,000-capacity athletics arena. That has proved unviable.

“Our plans involve the same amount of dismantling and this is in no way a loss of £500 million of stadium infrastructure. Given how much of the original groundworks, substructure and podium will remain, around £420 million worth, we are talking about £80 million of above-ground infrastructure.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/8309795/London-Olympics-2012-Tottenham-and-West-Ham-clash-as-Karren-Brady-says-Spurs-bid-is-a-corporate-crime.html

-----

"£80m of above ground infrastucture" is the cost of the London Stadium bowl. A permanant stadium on top of all the necessary instrastrcuture would obviously cost a lot more (Spurs were going to spend £250m on theirs once they'd removed the temporary £80m London Stadium bowl).

You tell me, if you're going to build a permanant stadium from scratch, how do you propose reducing the cost of all the essential gruondworks, infrastructure costs etc that make up the bulk of the £500m? The fact is, whether you build a permanent or temporary stadium on such land, the bulk costs are going to be getting the podium level and associated infrastructure ready.

Simply looking at how much, for example, Arsenal spent on the Emirates and saying "we could have had a permanant stadium for half what this cost" as some have said, is wrong. A permanant stadium would likely cost a fair bit more than this once you add everything in, take into account the state of the land and the non-existent infrastrcuture it had when the build started.

If London had gone for a normal, fully-permanant stadium, I'd be amazed if it came in under £600m.

Rob, the total cost of the stadium is around £500million, plus expected retrofit costs of around £95 million. We will end up paying nearly £600million!

There is no way the ground works cost £420million and the stadium £80million, do you really believe this?

This is absolute nonsense!

With everything built under the podium level plus the VIP area being built to a permanent standard then yes.

Rob, the total cost of the stadium is around £500million, plus expected retrofit costs of around £95 million. We will end up paying nearly £600million!

There is no way the ground works cost £420million and the stadium £80million, do you really believe this?

That's not quite what I said now was it?

I said the pure stadium bowl was only £80m. The huge concrete podium level upon which the stadium lies (the main chunk of "stadium island"), something which would likely need to have been built even if the stadium was permanant, ate up a huge wedge of the £500m, so did the groundworks and soil-cleaning obviously, the design process probably a nice big chunk etc.

I can fully believe the very basic stadium bowl is only £80m worth of construction, as Levy says, especially given how "flat-pack" it is (build a ring of girders, plonk conrete on top, stretch fabric roof over whole thing - watch the construction webcam timelapse).

http://www.london2012.com/images/media-manager/2010/3/aerial-view-of-the-olympic-stadium-68267.jpg

With everything built under the podium level plus the VIP area being built to a permanent standard then yes.

Thats part of the stadium isn't it?

Yes, but something similar would be needed if a fully permanant stadium was built. As I said, it's hard to see how a fully permanant stadium wouldn't come out quite a bit more expensive than the temporary+retrofit solution we've now got. It'd be akin to Spurs' plans which would have seen £400m necessary infrastructure improvements plus a £250m stadium.

At the end of the day, the new pods are crap. We should be getting the decent ones. This is an architecture forum remember, of course people are going to be critical.

great, this is the last straw. Ugly, cheap, and destroys all the smooth flows and dynamic shape of the island as viewed from the air.

It now looks like a caravan park, or worse those portakabins that surround building sites.

This is pretty much the cheapest looking stadium Ive ever seen. The only good thing is the seating - but of course noones going to see it on the day as they'll be filled. It's a giant ring of plastic on a wiry frame.

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/405295_10150517025567408_259479457407_9243968_937979382_n.jpg

SO, they've even value-engineered this last apologetic opportunity of flair we had left (not even the track was allowed a different colour). These people have no pride in their work, or the country. I hope all the apologists for this entire debacle, from stadium to haemorrhoid tower will be on hand to give out glowing, explanatory leaflets to every visitor. Yes, that square corrugated box with the OAP ramps really is actually a masterpiece of fiscal budgeting, value engineering and ground decontamination!

There's really so much of the emperor's new clothes you can get away with when the audience is in the billions.

every step of the journey has been a compromise

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/other_sport_london0s_2012_olympic_bid_pictures/img/1.jpg


http://drpop.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/london_olympic_2012_village.jpg



http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/images/778632/stadium-2012-stretch.jpg

http://www.london24.com/polopoly_fs/olympic_delivery_authority_unveils_olympic_stadium_plans_1_999727!image/729858935.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_490/729858935.jpg

Come back to us when the IOC and IPC call London's the best Games ever. Which, at the end of the day, is all the organisers need to do. And are.

^God they say that every time!

Id start printing out those leaflets btw

Anyone remember what the food stalls at Beijing looked like? Anyone notice them at all?


No. Nor will anyone else in the world watching the London Olympics notice what ours look like.. Pods or not, nobody was going to notice them.

Looking back at the old render, I prefer the lights have now and the wrap as well, but the pods definitely look better.

I can understand the argument that the round pods are a waste of space and we need square boxes, but that doesn't mean you can't be innovative or creative somehow. Right now it seems they will all be one colour and one shape, I hope they at least use some decent materials but I doubt it as they are only temporary.

Overall I still like the stadium, it's shape is nothing special but it's better than a great mass of concrete that most stadium are. I also think lighting will have a massive impact on it and it will look amazing at night.

Its the priceless money shot from the air that's the killer (the whole stadium btw was designed to be viewed from the air), as the camera repeatedly pans overhead during the opening. The pods were a last attempt at polishing a turd, and would have worked to some degree - showing off the dynamic and unique shape of the island, and complimenting the sinuous flow of the paths and bridges (like I said, designed to be viewed from above).

now the stadium will look like its surrounded by a caravan park, or that we forgot to take away the portakabins. For Chrissakes I bet a few million viewers will think theyre the feckin toilets, a la portable (in keeping with the susatinability theme of course), laid on by London for the 80,000 people inside, who'll just nip in and out when they need to wee.

yes, London's temporary 2012 stadium (and its portable toilets):

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/405295_10150517025567408_259479457407_9243968_937979382_n.jpg

corrugated iron for fecks sake!

:bash:

Come back to us when the IOC and IPC call London's the best Games ever. Which, at the end of the day, is all the organisers need to do. And are.

We don't know that yet.

^they do it every year. Its become a hollow accolade that's expected nonetheless - the only exception has been Atlanta 1996, which was overrun with shameless commercialism. Since Jacques Rogge took the helm he's refrained from saying it ad nauseum, and finds a new angle each time, in Athens 2004 and Beijing 2008.

There does appear to be an air of... 'like what we tell you to like' on here. This is an architecture forum, form is important to us. If you don't want people to be critical than this is the wrong place.

I don't think the 'pods' matter too much, no one is going to be looking at them in the opening ceremony or at any other time on TV. it's only a shame for people in the park that will not have to look at bland boxes but I'm sure they won't care much either.

I think if they wheeled out a turd certain people would be on hand immediately to say how avant garde and a awesomely ground-decontaminating a turd is, and why we should love it - coz everyone in the world will get it and love it anyway.

I don't think the 'pods' matter too much, no one is going to be looking at them in the opening ceremony or at any other time on TV. it's only a shame for people in the park that will not have to look at bland boxes but I'm sure they won't care much either.

Its the priceless helicopter shots during the opening ceremony, that whole stadium and island was designed for those aerials, and one of the very first criteria from the drawing board.

And even then, nobody will care. Except for you.


And I still can't believe some people are still annoyed we didn't build a stadium to rival the Birds Nest. Such as stadium would have been a waste of tens of millions of pounds.

yeh, sorry just seeing it everytime just makes me want to pee.

So one again, who and what exactly decides whether a games is successful or not? Because I bet it isn't a bunch of armchair critics on an Internet forum, believe me.

neither is it self appointed spokesmen for BOA achiturds.

We are allowed an opinion mate, this is what an architecture forum is about alot of the time. Sorry if that gets in the way of the press statements.

No, but then it's all talk and no action with most here.

yep, gimme a spade I'm gonna head right out there and start digging out those portakabins come July.

So- I need to get down and dirty if I don't actually like something on this forum?

Am, I entitled to an opinion?

Sorry but for me...

good:

http://cdn.ubergizmo.com/photos/2010/2/mercury-house-one_468.jpg

shit:

http://www.cabinlocator.co.uk/UserFiles/Image/Portakabin%20Pacemaker%20PK342.JPG

del

great, this is the last straw. Ugly, cheap, and destroys all the smooth flows and dynamic shape of the island as viewed from the air.

It now looks like a caravan park, or worse those portakabins that surround building sites.

This is pretty much the cheapest looking stadium Ive ever seen. The only good thing is the seating - but of course noones going to see it on the day as they'll be filled. It's a giant ring of plastic on a wiry frame.

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/405295_10150517025567408_259479457407_9243968_937979382_n.jpg

SO, they've even value-engineered this last apologetic opportunity of flair we had left (not even the track was allowed a different colour). These people have no pride in their work, or the country. I hope all the apologists for this entire debacle, from stadium to haemorrhoid tower will be on hand to give out glowing, explanatory leaflets to every visitor. Yes, that square corrugated box with the OAP ramps really is actually a masterpiece of fiscal budgeting, value engineering and ground decontamination!

There's really so much of the emperor's new clothes you can get away with when the audience is in the billions.

Don't worry the huts will make a great mini shanty town after the games, it will only cost 2billion to convert them.

At the end of the day, the new pods are crap. We should be getting the decent ones. This is an architecture forum remember, of course people are going to be critical.

Agreed. But what is the reason for these new pods?

There are portakabins at every venue in the Park. There's a couple of them that have stayed since the ODA handover and becoming Press areas- its all been in the planning applications since the early days...?

There's loads at the outdoor venues- always has been at Olympic Games..?

yep, gimme a spade I'm gonna head right out there and start digging out those portakabins come July.

So- I need to get down and dirty if I don't actually like something on this forum?

Am, I entitled to an opinion?

Sorry but for me...

good:

http://cdn.ubergizmo.com/photos/2010/2/mercury-house-one_468.jpg

shit:

http://www.cabinlocator.co.uk/UserFiles/Image/Portakabin%20Pacemaker%20PK342.JPG

Quality, now you know thats not economical use of space!

Thes are supposed to be the green games, but you know what, SCREW the green brigade and let us have our pods back!

Nice Stadium!

I think the annotation on this image sums it up:

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

'galvanised steel handrail'

'decking ramp'

'fire rated counter'

'corrugated steel envelope'


There is so much restriction on architecture these days... the process is becoming less artistic and more bureaucratic, hence this crap produced. The focus of a building should be the design, not its restrictions. The pods weren't perfect but at least we were talking about shape, colour, orientation... Bureaucracy has left us talking about heights of handrails, widths of access ramps and fire strategies. This tick box stuff needs to be in the background of a design, not the foreground.

it's true a very sad reflection on architecture today, more about management rather than anything to do with design, its certainly not what people go to study it for and look at the result a mean minded off the cuff design that could of been designed by a builder in his lunch break which it probably was.

The colour scheme on the stadium looks about right today!

del

Yep, here with my cup of tea and slippers.

Official London 2012 Game Teaser - Fly Through Olympic Stadium

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6ZT79FNfWQ

So one again, who and what exactly decides whether a games is successful or not? Because I bet it isn't a bunch of armchair critics on an Internet forum, believe me.

It's anyone and everyone who watches it, surely?

http://i43.tinypic.com/15rjpsi.jpg

Quality, now you know thats not economical use of space!

Thes are supposed to be the green games, but you know what, SCREW the green brigade and let us have our pods back!

How on earth does their shape dictate whether they are "green" or not?

How on earth does their shape dictate whether they are "green" or not?

If we're going by the pictures he quoted then you can clearly see you can damn fit a whole lot more into a box.

The stalls are very market like and that's fine by me. If the ones outside Stratford Station that appear every other month are anything to go by then these will look good.

Also, how many times has it actually been 'the last straw' for people on here? I keep hearing it... it bores me.


Originally Posted by DarJoLe View Post
So one again, who and what exactly decides whether a games is successful or not? Because I bet it isn't a bunch of armchair critics on an Internet forum, believe me.
It's anyone and everyone who watches it, surely?

I thought it was how many medals are won by whatever country... 'cause, y'know, this is for a major sporting event than a architectural competition.

So one again, who and what exactly decides whether a games is successful or not? Because I bet it isn't a bunch of armchair critics on an Internet forum, believe me.

I don't see much wrong in discussing the pods, they have become quite functional looking compared to what we saw in the early renders, which is a shame (though as I said, it doesn't bother me much really).

But like a lot of the smaller things that get discussed on this forum, you're right that very little of it will determine the ultimate sucess of the Games themselves (and to be fair, apart from a couple of posters, most haven't claimed otherwise with these pods). It is easy to get bogged down in detail. I would be amazed if anyone even mentions the kiosks during the month of 2012 (unless there are horrendous queues). The Games on this forum are seen through a unique architectural prism that most people watching/attending will not be judging them on, certainly not to the exacting standards some (not wrongly) have here.

New subforum slogan:

http://blog.tmcnet.com/voice-of-ip/images/Dads%20Army%20Frazier%20-%20doomed.png

And, for those wondering, the IOC doesn't say Games are the "best ever" anymore. They haven't done since Rogge took over, that was Samaranch's schtick.

del

Unfortunately your posts are completely pointless. What have you contributed with this post? What is your point? What is your argument? Can you bring yourself to be objective about the development?

It was a one-off tongue in cheek post you little wankstain. And I didn't say there was anything wrong getting bogged down in detail, I was just saying that when everything comes out in the wash, the preoccuptions on this forum won't matter to most attending/watching the Games. Nowhere did I say it was wrong to discuss these things. I mentioned the pods pages back and I was the one who posted the render this debate has lead from as it happens. I haven't seen you post any new information or images in this forum.

I spent a lot of yesterday afternoon discussing the stadium costs with you, something I didn't have to do, especially given that you'd spent the morning bitching about me in the Olympic Park thread.

That's my lesson learned. Tits like you don't change and I won't be wasting any more of my time on you. I don't know why you're so fucking obssesed with getting myself or DarJoLe to "concede" things. It's a bit sad.

You are being reported once again.

del

I am allowed to disagree, it dosnt give you the right to use offensive language.

You were reported because your last post was purely about me, it wasn't the start of a discussion I'm "disagreeing" with. And it's EXACTLTY the kind of thing that got you brigged before.

Say some of the stuff you've said about me to some random person on the street and see if you don't get a similar response. It's like you don't know how to talk to people.

del

You are the only member of this forum who consistently discusses other people rather than the issues.

And for that you are a wankstain.

If you don't like it, don't say things like "unfortunately your posts are completely pointless."

It's really quite easy. Everyone else here manages it.

del

I respond to trolls when I shouldn't (and I feel like I'm doing so now to be honest). Hindustani spent a week going through SSC forums slagging off the UK so I've decided to be a little condescending towards him now, nothing more than that. And I have sworn at members like you who deliberately take conversations off topic by attacking nationalities or individuals. As I said, try speaking like that to someone on the street you don't know and you'll be lucky to get a response as mild as mine back in return.

Given what I contribute to this forum, I will not take kindly to a noob like you saying things like "unfortunately your posts are completely pointless." I know for a fact my contributions would be missed on this forum if I left, as would DarJoLe's, spliff fairy's, bertyboy's, eddyk's, all the long time posters, some of whom are quite criticical of 2012 but don't indulge in talking about other members without provocation. Your posts? Nobody would care if you fucked off somewhere else. I honestly can't remeber the last time you contributed a photo, a new article, anything of any interest here.

As I said, I posted the image that started the debate about the pods. You attacked me for then writing a tongue in cheek response. This is the SECOND DAY IN A ROW your hatefulness has angered me when logging onto this forum so a few swear words in response is hardly unexpected, and I've asked the mods in no uncertain terms to do something about you. That will be the second time you've brigged, and for the same thing you were last time.

It was a one-off tongue in cheek post you little wankstain. And I didn't say there was anything wrong getting bogged down in detail, I was just saying that when everything comes out in the wash, the preoccuptions on this forum won't matter to most attending/watching the Games. Nowhere did I say it was wrong to discuss these things. I mentioned the pods pages back and I was the one who posted the render this debate has lead from as it happens. I haven't seen you post any new information or images in this forum.

I spent a lot of yesterday afternoon discussing the stadium costs with you, something I didn't have to do, especially given that you'd spent the morning bitching about me in the Olympic Park thread.

That's my lesson learned. Tits like you don't change and I won't be wasting any more of my time on you. I don't know why you're so fucking obssesed with getting myself or DarJoLe to "concede" things. It's a bit sad.

You are being reported once again.

If you are going to go around reporting people for being abusive, probably wise not be abusive yourself. That, sir, is called hypocrisy.

ALRIGHT ALREADY!!!!!

Enough macho posturing and headbutting here guys. Getting quite boring to read both of your petty arguments.

Why don't you just exchange email addresses or something and carry it on elsewhere, i.e. not on a public architecture forum.

I report people for being abusive but I also defend myself and give back as good as I get. I shouldn't have to though because people shouldn't be abusive in the first place. It's really rather simple.

Do you think I like coming here first thing in the morning and reading the bullshit pouring from this guy? No, which is why I've got angry, and also why I've asked the mods to deal with it.

del

ALRIGHT ALREADY!!!!!

Enough macho posturing and headbutting here guys. Getting quite boring to read both of your petty arguments.

Why don't you just exchange email addresses or something and carry it on elsewhere, i.e. not on a public architecture forum.

Quite. On another forum I use, there is a strict rule that if you feel that someone else is baiting or being abusive, that you ignore it, and if it is persistent then quietly report it to the moderators and leave it at that.
It's a rule that we would do quite well to implement here.

Anyway, back to the pods-cum-portakabins.....

Indeed....

So one again, who and what exactly decides whether a games is successful or not? Because I bet it isn't a bunch of armchair critics on an Internet forum, believe me.

I don't see much wrong in discussing the pods, they have become quite functional looking compared to what we saw in the early renders, which is a shame (though as I said, it doesn't bother me much really).

But like a lot of the smaller things that get discussed on this forum, you're right that very little of it will determine the ultimate sucess of the Games themselves (and to be fair, apart from a couple of posters, most haven't claimed otherwise with these pods). It is easy to get bogged down in detail. I would be amazed if anyone even mentions the kiosks during the month of 2012 (unless there are horrendous queues). The Games on this forum are seen through a unique architectural prism that most people watching/attending will not be judging them on, certainly not to the exacting standards some (not wrongly) have here.

New subforum slogan:

http://blog.tmcnet.com/voice-of-ip/images/Dads%20Army%20Frazier%20-%20doomed.png

And, for those wondering, the IOC doesn't say Games are the "best ever" anymore. They haven't done since Rogge took over, that was Samaranch's schtick.

Official London 2012 Game Teaser - Fly Through Olympic Stadium

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6ZT79FNfWQ

I don't know about you guys but I am liking this video and how the stadium shapes up. Only criticism is that the wrigging / spiders web is missing.

Only criticism is that the wrigging / spiders web is missing.

That gets taken down as its for the ceremonies.

How much work will they need to do at the stadium during the first week of the Games, between the ceremony and the start of the track and field? And same question for the end of the Games (though obviously they've only got a day)?

Quite a bit, getting all the ceremonies equipment out and sporting equipment in is a challenge in itself, let alone removing the ceremonies guidewires and putting the bell in the Park. And all that with a flame burning away on the doorstep, it's going to be quite a logistical operation. In some ways the Park will still be a construction site throughout the Games!

Interesting, I wonder where it'll end up. My photo of the bell from the '36 Games which is now just by the perimeter of the stadium itself. You can see the bell tower in the background.

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/3903/img0591fc.jpg

Is this really going to be the London Olympic stadium in 2012? Looks completely crap!

Is this really going to be the London Olympic stadium in 2012? Looks completely crap!

No, that ^^ is a bell.

^^^ HA

The bell at least has a bit of design flair, unlike the 2012 stadium.

Truly poor effort for an Olympics.

Dread to think what you'll say about Rio's then.

The bell at least has a bit of design flair, unlike the 2012 stadium.

Truly poor effort for an Olympics.

After Beijing yes, Athens perhaps, but compare it to other Olympic stadiums of the past it pretty much sits within the 'design flair' of the majority of them. This is normal for the Olympics.

Berlin 1936
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R82532%2C_Berlin%2C_Olympia-Stadion_%28Luftaufnahme%29.jpg

Munich 1972
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Olympiastadion_Muenchen.jpg

Barcelona 1992
http://www.siegerschau2010.es/img/noticias/Olimpic.jpg

Atlanta 1996
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/Atlantaolympicstadium.JPG

Hehe, not the best examples to back up your argument in my very humble opinion! Two of those four I would put above London's namely Munich and Berlin. The former being a pretty groundbreaking design for the early 70s which still looks fresh, and the latter being an incredible piece of Nazi architecture (probably the closest equivilent to Beijing's Bid Nest in what it was trying to do and say to be honest). Hearing how that was built, and modernised for 2006 was very interesting - as I've said before if you can get on one of the tours of the stadium it's well worth it.

Atlanta's is definitely the most "ugly" staduim that's hosted an Olympics but it is the ultimate expression of function and good legacy thinking over form so I'm not going to criticise it as vociferously as many do. Barcelona's stadium was alright, it suited their Games, and to be fair that isn't the most flattering angle to show its architecture. Looking forward, Rio's athletics stadium is really nothing special at all, but it'll do a fine job I'm sure.

London's stadium has its own qualities; a lightness of touch (aesthetically and environmentally), an intimate interior which I believe is better than Beijing's and promises a fantastic atmosphere, and nice symmetry and simplicity. It's definitely worthy of the Greatest show on Earth, but there have been better Olympic Stadiums from a purely aesthetic standpoint (and plenty worse also).

CABEs response to the new Stadium Island concession outlets -

'We applaud the concision and economy of the design thinking of this proposal. The temporary modular units are a fitting response to the site, their size and shape are appropriate to the scale of the Olympic Stadium and the geometry of their arrangement correlates with the geometry of the Stadium and the existing service structures on the Stadium Island. We think this scheme will create a comfortable environment around the Stadium podium for the spectators.

Hehe, not the best examples to back up your argument in my very humble opinion! Two of those four I would put above London's namely Munich and Berlin. The former being a pretty groundbreaking design for the early 70s which still looks fresh, and the latter being an incredible piece of Nazi architecture (probably the closest equivilent to Beijing's Bid Nest in what it was trying to do and say to be honest). Hearing how that was built, and modernised for 2006 was very interesting - as I've said before if you can get on one of the tours of the stadium it's well worth it.

Atlanta's is definitely the most "ugly" staduim that's hosted an Olympics but it is the ultimate expression of function and good legacy thinking over form so I'm not going to criticise it as vociferously as many do. Barcelona's stadium was alright, it suited their Games, and to be fair that isn't the most flattering angle to show its architecture. Looking forward, Rio's athletics stadium is really nothing special at all, but it'll do a fine job I'm sure.

London's stadium has its own qualities; a lightness of touch (aesthetically and environmentally), an intimate interior which I believe is better than Beijing's and promises a fantastic atmosphere, and nice symmetry and simplicity. It's definitely worthy of the Greatest show on Earth, but there have been better Olympic Stadiums from a purely aesthetic standpoint (and plenty worse also).

I chose Berlin as its simplicity is what reminds me of London, however the scale is more imposing like the bird's nest as you say. And I chose Munich as I believe it is pretty similar in idea to London, simple bowl in the ground with a simple roof, their's is just a little fancier, probably because they designed it to be permanent. I chose the other two because to me they are just damn ugly, far worse that London. Of course London's stadium is not the best ever, but for the conditions of the time it is perfect. In hindsight they could have designed a multi purposed stadium, but that wasn't a possibility at the start as no one wanted to move there.

I chose Berlin as its simplicity is what reminds me of London, however the scale is more imposing like the bird's nest as you say. And I chose Munich as I believe it is pretty similar in idea to London, simple bowl in the ground with a simple roof, their's is just a little fancier, probably because they designed it to be permanent. I chose the other two because to me they are just damn ugly, far worse that London. Of course London's stadium is not the best ever, but for the conditions of the time it is perfect. In hindsight they could have designed a multi purposed stadium, but that wasn't a possibility at the start as no one wanted to move there.

Wasn't it a case of the organising committees didn't want anyone else to move in there after the games.

Wasn't it a case of the organising committees didn't want anyone else to move in there after the games.

Yes, nor the complications of building a multi-sports venue. They wanted an easy to the build stadium with the lowest risk of delays and not another Wembley.

The arguments about legacy are fair enough, but the fact that all the venues have been completed months before the Games, meeting high safety standards of construction, and without major problems along the way, has certainly gone some way to eradicating the international feeling of Britain's failings in terms of construction delays and budget overruns.

eradicating the international feeling of Britain's failings in terms of construction delays and budget overruns.


Oh quite, the Olympics is well within original budget.....

Well the games are within their original budget (as announced to Parliament in 2007). Although that budget was up substantially from the estimate at the time of the bid in 2005.

You just can't say the "pods" design don't matter. They do. The entire concept of this stadium was based on it being comprised of various parts of which the facade, intimate nature, temporary upper tier, pods, bridges, island are all part and parcel of the broader picture.

You just can't say the "pods" design don't matter. They do. The entire concept of this stadium was based on it being comprised of various parts of which the facade, intimate nature, temporary upper tier, pods, bridges, island are all part and parcel of the broader picture.

Agreed. It's a bit like buying your sports car without the rear spoiler or compromising on the low profile alloy wheels. The minor points do make a big difference, however practical or impractical they may be.

Agreed. It's a bit like buying your sports car without the rear spoiler or compromising on the low profile alloy wheels. The minor points do make a big difference, however practical or impractical they may be.

The pods did play a big part in the presentation when they announced how the stadium was actually going to look and not the render we saw in the original bid

Come on people, it must be very hard hosting the Olympics in the worst recession since the 1930's, London was already committed before everything went t***s up. Remember that there is still the branding and finishing touches to add to the park and the stadium and I'm sure it will all look fine once its all finished. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that's sure but give the ODA a break, I'm sure that they are doing the best that they can with what they have.

del

It was put out to tender. Only HOK met the ODA's requirements. This may well be why the cost is so high but at the time there was plenty of work for these companies and post-Wembley few wanted to get involved with a high profile publicly funded stadium project. They saw Multiplex's experience and the ODA were left with not much interest. It is certainly arguable it cost more because of this. Of course, this would have been no different had we opted for a permanent stadium solution. It was a seller's market and too high profile at the same time. A perfect storm.

del

lol i am actually embarrased to................... for the fact you call yourself englishkev when theres nothing english about you all i can make out is that you are a sad lonley winging hypocrite. It's not just the stadium and park on show it's the whole city and london is gonna showcase all that is great about Great Britain there is where the focus lies, people won't be coming just for the sport, while they are in london they will get the chance to tour one of the most famous cities on the planet thats where we should proud. our capital not just the park will be the centre of the world for a month. After someone has seen big ben, the houses of parliment, the eye, tower of london, tower bridge and all the other landmarks do you think people visiting london for the games will be talking more about the olympic stadium no i highly doubt it this for some visitors is there once in a life time opportunity to visit and see this great city . It's about showing off this great city do you not get that into your thick skull. if you are a true englishman then show it and stop whinging

REPORTED


Appalling grammar.

I report people for being abusive but I also defend myself and give back as good as I get. I shouldn't have to though because people shouldn't be abusive in the first place. It's really rather simple.

Do you think I like coming here first thing in the morning and reading the bullshit pouring from this guy? No, which is why I've got angry, and also why I've asked the mods to deal with it.



Him too RobH ? Are you actually abusing EVERYONE that has the temerity to say something you don't agree with ?

Was it not *YOU* that hurled abuse at me and another person merely because we criticised The Awful Tower/Orbit ? And you say 'people shouldn't be abusive in the first place ? It's all in public. I'm surprised you don't have the goods ense to not contradict publicly, but then I've seen you say entirely different things on Gamesbids compared to what you've said on here.

If you don't like a different opinion don't come here least of all first thing in the morning.

You do a lot of reporting don't you Robh ? What is that about exactly ? Bullied at school ? Living with your Mum ? What's at play ? I think you need a break or a sex life to be honest.


Oh and it's GOTTEN angry. WHICH IS WHY I'VE GOTTEN ANGRY.

I have no problem with people having different opinions. What is annoying me is people who can't seem to listen to FACTS.

Reported again

great, this is the last straw. Ugly, cheap, and destroys all the smooth flows and dynamic shape of the island as viewed from the air.

It now looks like a caravan park, or worse those portakabins that surround building sites.

This is pretty much the cheapest looking stadium Ive ever seen. The only good thing is the seating - but of course noones going to see it on the day as they'll be filled. It's a giant ring of plastic on a wiry frame.

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/405295_10150517025567408_259479457407_9243968_937979382_n.jpg

SO, they've even value-engineered this last apologetic opportunity of flair we had left (not even the track was allowed a different colour). These people have no pride in their work, or the country. I hope all the apologists for this entire debacle, from stadium to haemorrhoid tower will be on hand to give out glowing, explanatory leaflets to every visitor. Yes, that square corrugated box with the OAP ramps really is actually a masterpiece of fiscal budgeting, value engineering and ground decontamination!

There's really so much of the emperor's new clothes you can get away with when the audience is in the billions.



I wholeheartedly agree and absolutely well said.


Do you think LOCOG/ODA et al became lost in a self-fulfilling prophecy of their own infallibity ?

Come on people, it must be very hard hosting the Olympics in the worst recession since the 1930's, London was already committed before everything went t***s up. Remember that there is still the branding and finishing touches to add to the park and the stadium and I'm sure it will all look fine once its all finished. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that's sure but give the ODA a break, I'm sure that they are doing the best that they can with what they have.


Strange then that we still have spare cash enough to give aid to India and had it for Russia and China too. This of course without the cost of military intervention in Libya and the monumental cost of Afghanistan. Then there are the multi-billion pound bailouts etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.

Arguing your post was pointless hardly justifies being called a 'wankstain' or a 'tit' does it?

I dont agree with your points Rob. But has this led me to verbally assault you with a plethora of offensive swear words and offensive language? No.

Your reaction is a complete over reaction. I disagree with your posts, is this provocation that warrants a deluge of offensive language? No.

Completely unnecessary and outrageous behaviour.



Well said . The man is an illuminated hypocritical cry baby.

I respond to trolls when I shouldn't (and I feel like I'm doing so now to be honest). Hindustani spent a week going through SSC forums slagging off the UK so I've decided to be a little condescending towards him now, nothing more than that. And I have sworn at members like you who deliberately take conversations off topic by attacking nationalities or individuals. As I said, try speaking like that to someone on the street you don't know and you'll be lucky to get a response as mild as mine back in return.

Given what I contribute to this forum, I will not take kindly to a noob like you saying things like "unfortunately your posts are completely pointless." I know for a fact my contributions would be missed on this forum if I left, as would DarJoLe's, spliff fairy's, bertyboy's, eddyk's, all the long time posters, some of whom are quite criticical of 2012 but don't indulge in talking about other members without provocation. Your posts? Nobody would care if you fucked off somewhere else. I honestly can't remeber the last time you contributed a photo, a new article, anything of any interest here.

As I said, I posted the image that started the debate about the pods. You attacked me for then writing a tongue in cheek response. This is the SECOND DAY IN A ROW your hatefulness has angered me when logging onto this forum so a few swear words in response is hardly unexpected, and I've asked the mods in no uncertain terms to do something about you. That will be the second time you've brigged, and for the same thing you were last time.


MEANING :

*I LIVE HERE AND THEREFORE AFFORD MYSELF PRIVILEGED STATUS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHTS HOWEVER ABUSIVE,HYPOCRITICAL AND SELF-SERVING I MAY BE.*

And again...

Boys....it's tedious having to wade through your whinging at each other. It's really very simple - do not respond to each other's posts and you'll be both happy as pigs in muck, and so will the rest of us.

Just block the ones you don\t agree with.

I'm beginning to think they enjoy the "Banter" though!

-del-

Monté

Jeez. What's happening to this forum lately? If it's not EnglishKevin, it's Oxo or some other lonely idiot.

Can we just stick to posting constructive comments/images in a civil manner?

Don't subject everyone else to your 'banter'. It's so boooooooooooring!!!

:bash:

@ whinging kev ...YAWN.....

Can someone explain what the rigging above the stadium is actually for? Is this to suspend the aerial cameras?

The rigging is for cameras and also for the acrobats in the opening ceremony, apparently it is to support very heavy items so expect things to be lifted and flying????

The rigging is for cameras and also for the acrobats in the opening ceremony, apparently it is to support very heavy items so expect things to be lifted and flying????

Dont want to curse it, but that sounds like a potential recipe for disaster.

The rigging is for cameras and also for the acrobats in the opening ceremony, apparently it is to support very heavy items so expect things to be lifted and flying????

I don't know they will have as many flying elements as Beijing, Athens or Vancouver. All of those had sturdier, more solid roofs (including the inflatable one at BC Place) than this one of London which is already laden with lighting (remember the telecasts are going to be in 3D and/or HDTV), speakers and what-else-have-you. Not to mention there will probably be some rigging for the cauldron-lighting moment as well. It would be extremely embarrassing if they didn't calculate stress/weight load factors precisely.

Worth reposting this:

The original Populous design had lights much lower, but it was found they wouldn't produce enough light for HD quality broadcasts, so where heightened and redesigned above the steel 'crown' to flood the track and pitch to meet this. Around the same time, it was decided to create a mesh network of guidewires across the top of the stadium similar to what Beijing did to allow robotic cameras to move along them to produce above ground shots of the pitch. As the design progressed, it was looked at the possibility of using these guidewires for the ceremonies, which had never been done before, and the triangular pylons where strengthened where they met the steel crown to allow for greater weight to be used on the guidewires.

Hmmm, maybe it'll be something like they did when the Millennium Dome opened:

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/3513/dome26web.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/834/dome26web.jpg/)

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/5494/dome25web.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/210/dome25web.jpg/)

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/9786/631675675220d9b3076b.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/24/631675675220d9b3076b.jpg/)

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/6605/5184390649471836fe22o.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/708/5184390649471836fe22o.jpg/)

It was put out to tender. Only HOK met the ODA's requirements. This may well be why the cost is so high but at the time there was plenty of work for these companies and post-Wembley few wanted to get involved with a high profile publicly funded stadium project. They saw Multiplex's experience and the ODA were left with not much interest. It is certainly arguable it cost more because of this. Of course, this would have been no different had we opted for a permanent stadium solution. It was a seller's market and too high profile at the same time. A perfect storm.

:? HOK are the designers not the contractor.

So those original/early renders of the stadium and its surrounding area -- all that lovely green, landscaped land -- is that just gone now? Erased? Because currently it looks like a grey, ugly, concrete mess. Which is a real shame.