London Olympic Stadium Redevelopment | Stratford | 25-80,000 Capacity

DarJoLe

August 26th, 2008, 02:52 PM

CABE Design review
Main Stadium for the London 2012 Olympic Games
Main venue for the Olympic and Paralympic Games that will seat 80,000 during the Games and will be converted to a 25,000 seat athletics stadium in legacy.

Review date: 28 July 2008
Lead designer: HOK Sport
Client: Olympic Delivery Authority
Local authority: Olympic Delivery Authority
Location: Olympic Park, London
Region: London
Categories: Culture and leisure

We also reviewed this scheme on 18 January 2008.

Summary

We support the simple, elegant and efficient strategy for a temporary Olympic stadium structure with a permanent facility that becomes integrated into the Legacy Park landscape. This narrative has been successfully sustained and clarified both in safeguarding Legacy development options and in the logical resolution of the temporary stadium structure. However, we think there is a risk that the potential clarity and simplicity of the stadium concept could yet be lost in the detailed resolution of those elements which fall outside the scope of the Stage 2 planning application and the responsibility of the stadium design team.

Specifically, we are disappointed that our previous concerns about embracing the potential of the temporary wrap and ‘pod’ kiosks and creating an appropriate landscape setting have not been addressed in the current planning submission. These elements will, in part, determine the quality and character of the public realm during the Games and merit the same clarity of conception and concentrated design thinking as the permanent venues. We are equally concerned that the experience of the stadium's 'dark space' is unresolved at this point. The planning authority will need to assure itself that all of the above issues are resolved to its satisfaction prior to determination of the planning application.

Stage 2 planning application

While we welcome the commitment to joint working between the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) and London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG), we think that urgent decisive action is needed to resolve the design of the temporary elements and the relationship of venues to their landscape setting. Otherwise, in the case of the main stadium, there is a danger that indicative designs will become actual designs by default. We are concerned that submitting a planning application at this stage will fix these key elements of the design before they have been successfully resolved. We therefore think it is essential that the planning authority satisfies itself that a convincing strategy for the design of the wrap is proposed now, rather than deferring the decision to be dealt with as planning conditions.

Superstructure and interior circulation space

We continue to applaud the structural logic of the temporary stadium. The structural solution, including the lighting, holds out the prospect of a memorable experience at night for visitors. We welcome the idea of restringing the roof structure as a memory of the Olympics for the reduced capacity Legacy facility.The design of the west stand pavilion is compositionally well judged and respects the primacy of the main stadium.

We think that further consideration is required on the treatment of the blank interior circulation space. Given the temporary life of this space, it will require a different sort of consideration from a permanent venue. The design team should accurately convey the experience of walking through this space in the planning application material to ensure there is no ambiguity about its character. Based on the illustrations presented, the space appears so constrained by toilet block containers that they may make it uncomfortable for visitors. Furthermore, the area is described as a 'dark space' but there is no indication as to how dark or light it will be. In our view, this internal concourse space must function as an important social space providing retreat and shelter. It is currently unclear whether the space can function in this way. The planning authority should also satisfy itself that the dark treatment of this interior space enhances the visitor experience rather than, at worst, miserably detracts from it.

Wrap

The shift in emphasis from the floating horizontal wrap of the competition winning scheme, to a wall of vertical banners seems to have resulted from a misconceived desire to use figurative images - which continue to appear in the detailed planning application. We warmly welcome the intention to involve an artist in the treatment of the wrap. Through engaging fully with an artist, we believe the project will find the concentration of creative intelligence and design integration with the architecture and engineering that it requires. As the most visible element of the most televised Olympic venue, the wrap has the potential to become a memorable symbol of the Games. Therefore, it is essential that the wrap is treated as an inspiring and evocative artwork rather than a display for Olympic imagery or information signage as shown in the indicative material submitted. The planning authority should assure itself that signage is appropriate for the building as part of a clear way-finding strategy, and not considered as an afterthought.

The detailed execution of the wrap will be essential in achieving a successful outcome; the planning authority should satisfy itself that its technical specifications demonstrate a high level of design quality. It should also be confident that sufficient thought has been devoted to the appearance and performance of the wrap in different conditions over the anticipated two-year lifespan, including the density of the fabric, how it is fixed to attenuate wind noise, its durability and the impact of lighting proposals for it on the quality and character of the public realm at night.

Landscape setting

While we continue to support the legible concept of a stadium island, the clarity and confidence of this original idea is not represented in the indicative landscape proposals, either visually or functionally. It is disappointing at this stage not to see the stadium’s immediate setting resolved. It would be unfortunate if this lack of resolution frustrates the stadium’s integration with the larger Olympic Park setting.

Nonetheless, we welcome the London Development Agency (LDA) and ODA acting as joint clients on the Olympic Park landscape, as we understand it, to address key challenges in the shifting formal requirements of the landscape during Games mode through to Legacy. It is incumbent upon both parties to establish a clear strategy and proposition about how the landscaping of the stadium and its environs will be used and/or adapted in Legacy mode.

Pods

It is incumbent on the ODA together with LOCOG to establish, as soon as is practicable, a clear strategy for the design procurement of the pods which will provide visitors' facilities across the Park and beyond. In our view, this programme should be procured separately through a design competition involving young designers.

Sustainability

We continue to support the principle of a low embodied energy solution that embraces the temporary structure. However, given the scale and cost of the steel, the wrap, and the yet un-designed temporary accommodation, we think that further thought is needed to capture their potential re-use in the long term by ensuring they are specifically designed to be re-located or recycled post Games. For example, we think the temporary accommodation should be designed with a specific location and Legacy function in mind, possibly for community use.

Access

We continue to think that the design ethos for the stadium should positively discriminate in favour of disabled visitors during the Paralympics and to ensure that investment in access is carried forward into Legacy. In balancing the demands of an efficient and sustainable structure with inclusive design, we think it is essential that accessibility and choice for wheelchair users is optimised rather than designed merely to meet minimum standards.

Conclusion

The current challenge of designing individual venues before their wider context is determined requires a careful balance between process, construction, cost, and time in order to achieve the necessary level of architectural and landscape quality. The concerns raised go beyond the responsibility of the stadium design team and will require a co-ordinated and urgent effort from the ODA and LOCOG to resolve, in discussion with the planning authority and the LDA. In particular, we think a clear park-wide attitude towards the relationship of the venues to their setting is required. Greater collaboration is needed amongst Olympic delivery partners based on a clear division of responsibilities. CABE and Design for London would welcome the opportunity to discuss this strategy.

oliviersa

August 26th, 2008, 02:54 PM

they have to, we have to be better than Beijing! I'm saying that with some doubt.

Impossible. The budget of Beijing is 3 times as high.

The olympic stadium comes as a massive disappointment to me.

Sebastian Coe basically said to world medias that it will be useless to compare the facilities in London with Beijing. We know that they will be far below.

The good point is that London 2012 will regenerate an entire deprived area.

london lad

August 26th, 2008, 02:54 PM

Webcam of the stadium

http://www.formanandfield.com/fisheyeview

Tony Resta

August 26th, 2008, 05:26 PM

:ohno::bash: the original stadium design was so much better and imo superior to the birds nest, such a high quality design that was.

http://www.formanandfield.com/includes/templates/ups/images/img_general_view.jpg
http://www.eikongraphia.com/wordpress/wp-content/2%20Olympic%20Stadium%20II%20480.jpg
http://pictures.directnews.co.uk/liveimages/London+2012+Olympic+stadium_1092_18240838_0_0_7000181_300.jpg

DarJoLe

August 26th, 2008, 05:38 PM

It would have looked nothing like those renders in reality. The internal design is actually a technically inferior layout from the point of the athletes and spectators to the one we are getting.

Octoman

August 26th, 2008, 05:43 PM

I think the design we have looks fine actually. In fact the island location gives it a setting that is far more beautiful than the giant bus park the birds nest was it. The stadium itself is far from a disgrace and will look great inside with its bowl shaped design. I was unsure at first but the more I see of this the more I like it.

potto

August 26th, 2008, 06:06 PM

yes the island site fit really enhances the architecture, gives it meaning, a bit like the dome on the peninsular

Manuel

August 26th, 2008, 08:21 PM

The pods will detract from the stadium...I'd better be deaf! detract from what?

ledge88

August 26th, 2008, 09:50 PM

I like the design. Its practical and has simple elegance. London 2012 can bring the Olympics back to what it should be about...sport.

pmun

August 26th, 2008, 10:02 PM

I like the design. Its practical and has simple elegance. London 2012 can bring the Olympics back to what it should be about...sport.

Yes, well said.

Gherkin

August 27th, 2008, 12:15 AM

naff video but nice, moving rendering at 1min15:
HVsdb7FUqxw

It looks awesome at night.

Jamandell (d69)

August 27th, 2008, 12:43 AM

Check out this video, it shows the recent construction progress of the stadium in a time-lapse...it's amazing how quick it's progressing!...

http://www.london2012.com/blog/2008/08/26/time-lapse-video-shows-the-olympic-stadium-coming-out-of.php

Madman

August 27th, 2008, 08:52 AM

Check out this video, it shows the recent construction progress of the stadium in a time-lapse...it's amazing how quick it's progressing!...

Well that would be the benefit of a time-lapse.......;)

fitz44

August 27th, 2008, 11:14 AM

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=284&storycode=3120954&c=3

London's Olympic Stadium starts to take shape
26 August, 2008

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa278/fit3xl/olympic_stadium_2012_2008.jpg

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa278/fit3xl/stadium_2012_aug_site.jpg

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa278/fit3xl/stadium_2012_aug_work.jpg

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa278/fit3xl/stadium_2012_aug_pillars.jpg

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa278/fit3xl/stadium_2012_aug_view.jpg

By Sophie Griffiths

New images reveal latest elements of 2012 stadium to be constructed

Progress on the 2012 Olympic Park was made clearly visible this week in a series of new images revealing the columns of the Olympic Stadium emerging out of the ground.

More than 100 columns, each 5m high, have already been constructed, and act as the support for the podium on the Stadium’s west and south stands.

John Armitt, ODA chairman said: “As these new images show, the Olympic Stadium is already beginning to rise out of the ground and over the coming months, we will begin to see the size and scale of this flagship venue.”

Construction started in May this year, three months earlier than originally planned, and work to create the foundations of the Olympic Stadium is nearing completion, with more than 3500 of the 4000 permanent piles already installed.

“As the eyes of the world turn from Beijing to London, they will see that real progress is being made to create the new venues and infrastructure for the 2012 games,” said Armitt.

Langur

August 27th, 2008, 11:38 AM

So long as they improve the imagery around the outside of the stadium this could end up looking decent.

Octoman

August 27th, 2008, 11:51 AM

Perhaps they could project images onto the outside or use coloured light displays like the water cube?

AXISPAW

August 27th, 2008, 12:45 PM

Perhaps they could project images onto the outside or use coloured light displays like the water cube?

Thats what i was thinking. Like projections of moving atheletes would be far better than still pictures.

ledge88

August 27th, 2008, 09:02 PM

It would be a cheaper way of making the stadium that little more special. I guess the equipment could be contracted for the occaision and after a wrap applied with pictures of the games at the time.

Rachael

August 27th, 2008, 10:44 PM

I like the current design. Nice to see it coming along.

Am i the only one fearing a Wembley?

SELondoner

August 27th, 2008, 11:34 PM

Blimey, thanks for sharing that, I thought they were still on earthworks! Great to see something tangible there

DarJoLe

August 27th, 2008, 11:56 PM

Am i the only one fearing a Wembley?

Yes. This is a completely separate project under different management, contractors and architects.

thanks for sharing that

The thanks should be to me for posting it a day before fitz did.

tonkster

August 28th, 2008, 01:13 AM

moody moody eh!

tuten

August 28th, 2008, 02:09 AM

Oh no he didn't.

DarJoLe

August 28th, 2008, 11:29 AM

According to the latest blog entry on the 2012 website there is a possibility of the venues being 'dressed' with digital canvases which contain photos sent in by the public.

Vanguard

August 28th, 2008, 01:23 PM

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=284&storycode=3120960&c=0

Cabe highlights concern over design for 2012 stadium

26 August, 2008

By Martin Spring

Cabe and Design for London praise overall design but unconvinced about temporary pods and public space around the stadium

The demountable stadium design for the London 2012 Olympics by HOK Sports has been praised by Cabe and Design for London, although they express concerns about some unresolved aspects.

The idea that the larger upper tier of 55,000 seats could be demounted and recycled after the four-week games was praised by them as “simple, elegant and efficient”.

Construction of the £496m stadium in Stratford, east London, started in May, yet the design for external envelope encircling the upper tier has still to be finalised.

The original proposal for a floating membrane “wrap” has now been superseded by a “wall” of vertical banners, on to which live images of the Olympic events could be projected and viewed from outside.

Cabe and Design for London want to ensure that this highly visible element is striking and encourage the Olympic Delivery Authority to involve an artist in its design.

The two authorities expressed serious concerns about the design of the proposed temporary pods and public space around the stadium, as they have not been commissioned from the stadium design team. They stressed that: “The surrounding landscape must not detract from the stadium and visitors enjoyment of it.”

And, while supporting the sustainable principle of recycling upper steel part of the stadium and the temporary pods, they urge the ODA to consider carefully how this will be done.

the spliff fairy

August 28th, 2008, 03:53 PM

Not impressed by the interior. Looks like well... uninspired. It screams cost cutting.

All you need are a few chains and some dripping ceilings

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3243/2533406355_208621b8c7_b.jpg

anyone been shopping in a warehouse?

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/004f4Qn53o6dt/610x.jpg

At least paint it imo

DarJoLe

August 28th, 2008, 04:03 PM

It is highlighting the fact the stadium is temporary.

oliviersa

August 28th, 2008, 04:26 PM

It is highlighting the fact the stadium is temporary.

It is a loss of money isn't it. A temporary stadium for ... 1 week that will be scale back to 25,000 seats, nothing. How is it possible London cannot afford a permanent 75,000 olympic stadium?

Stefan88

August 28th, 2008, 04:58 PM

Time lapsed video.

tKOKI7Opt1g

DarJoLe

August 28th, 2008, 06:00 PM

How is it possible London cannot afford a permanent 75,000 olympic stadium?

Because it already has Wembley and a dedicated athletics stadium will never fill more than 25,000 apart from an Olympics. No point paying for the upkeep of seats that will never be filled.

the spliff fairy

August 28th, 2008, 08:37 PM

I think our image in the world can really be given the most amazing boost with this, the opportunity is incalculable. London is the worlds most visited city at the moment, drawing Asians and North Americans for the history and Europeans for the modern culture. This is what London does best, cater to all trades. Its not just geographically in the centre but artistically on the cutting edge, yet steeped in history. The plurality of the city needs to be a selling point.

Imagine a Beijing style publicity and impressiveness, but instead grafted onto what already is a world city. I reckon it would properly propel us into the global capital in the minds of the world (yes we are financially, but culturally most people think: New York still, despite British cultural exports overtaking American ones).

Its rather like the fact Parisians are forced to clean their buildings every year, at great expense. The returns are all unseen and can never be proved, but they are there - reputation bringing in tourism and business, reduced crime rates and higher standards of living, lower suicide rates, increased sociability and even higher fertility. Stuff you wouldnt see as a balance of books on some sheet of paper, that cannot be justified in court, but is hugely beneficial, and hugely money making and saving in unseen social costs.

The problem is if we do spend extravagantly the return can never be linked to these Olympics, it can never be justified despite the long term affects.

The problem with all govts is it is forced to think short term to court the votes and importantly, the media, even if it knows it will be a stupid decision.

We need something that rocks this world.

Assa

August 28th, 2008, 10:58 PM

It is a loss of money isn't it. A temporary stadium for ... 1 week that will be scale back to 25,000 seats, nothing. How is it possible London cannot afford a permanent 75,000 olympic stadium?

Because London already has the best stadium in the world (and most expensive, but that's another debate) plus two others that are world class with a strong possibility of another being built and no need for a large athletics stadium that will sit there unused for years at a time. No football teams in that part of London need a large stadium and if we were to host another major athletics event it wouldn't be a major job to rebuild the larger stands again. That's the whole point of the legacy angle. Have you been to any past games' stadia/villages? It's quite sad how they get so quickly forgotten.

pmun

August 28th, 2008, 11:47 PM

delores

August 28th, 2008, 11:58 PM

Thats what i was thinking. Like projections of moving atheletes would be far better than still pictures.

Thats such a good idea, leave the sails plain without and crappy graphic and at night light it up with animation. Will this happen no, we want the stadium to look as rubbish and temporary as possible!

Assa

August 29th, 2008, 10:11 AM

Thats such a good idea, leave the sails plain without and crappy graphic and at night light it up with animation. Will this happen no, we want the stadium to look as rubbish and temporary as possible!

Actually the latest design for the wrap, or rather 'wall' is for exactly this - media displays of the latest olympic action from all over the games. Sounds like it would be great close up but from a distance I think it will look a mess!

delores

August 29th, 2008, 10:49 AM

really whats the latest design then? the one on the previous pages? or is there something you know?

oliviersa

August 29th, 2008, 01:51 PM

How is it possible London cannot afford a permanent 75,000 olympic stadium?

Because it already has Wembley

But ... Wembley is not Olympic.

a dedicated athletics stadium will never fill more than 25,000 apart from an Olympics. No point paying for the upkeep of seats that will never be filled.

Non-nense. In Brussels for example, which is ridiculously small compared to London, there is the annual "memorial Van Damme" with attendance around 40-50,000.

Vanguard

August 29th, 2008, 02:12 PM

But ... Wembley is not Olympic.

Non-nense. In Brussels for example, which is ridiculously small compared to London, there is the annual "memorial Van Damme" with attendance around 40-50,000.

You're way off the mark.

The Olympic stadium is not about saving money - $1 billion after all would buy a top-notch stadium - it's about the fact that London doesn't need another large stadium. It's the design of the temporary stadium that is the issue, not the cost.

DarJoLe

August 29th, 2008, 02:14 PM

e. In Brussels for example, which is ridiculously small compared to London, there is the annual "memorial Van Damme" with attendance around 40-50,000.

I think the 'annual' might be a slight clue in there.

oliviersa

August 29th, 2008, 02:24 PM

You're way off the mark.

The Olympic stadium is not about saving money - $1 billion after all would buy a top-notch stadium - it's about the fact that London doesn't need another large stadium.

Does it mean that London is happy with its biggest olympic stadium capable of accomodating ... 25,000 people?

All over Europe there are far bigger olympic stadia. Plenty of sport events are organised on a regular basis and those stadia are sell-out.

I am afraid you guys are brain-washed by the propaganda of your authorities and local newspapers. Hopefully, the Zaha Hadid aquatic center will not scaled back as well.

DarJoLe

August 29th, 2008, 02:32 PM

Not to be rude jef but there's a whole load of information in all the 2012 threads as to why 25,000 is a suitable legacy for the stadium. I'm tired of repeating them for the five billionth time.

oliviersa

August 29th, 2008, 02:35 PM

I think the 'annual' might be a slight clue in there.

The memorial Van Damme is annual but other sport events are being organised. That's the way it works all over the world except for London 2012. If you understand foreign languages I would suggest you to read foreign medias and you will find out that Coe et al. does not tell the same story. They basically say they don't have the money. It is a shame.

Vanguard

August 29th, 2008, 02:41 PM

Does it mean that London is happy with its biggest olympic stadium capable of accomodating ... 25,000 people?

All over Europe there are far bigger olympic stadia. Plenty of sport events are organised on a regular basis and those stadia are sell-out.

I am afraid you guys are brain-washed by the propaganda of your authorities and local newspapers. Hopefully, the Zaha Hadid aquatic center will not scaled back as well.

Yeah, the Olympic stadium in Rome is the national stadium. It has two Serie A football teams a tenants, it hosted a world cup final in 1990. The world cup final in 2018 will be held at Wembley.

By 2018 London could have six stadiums over 60,000. Of Rome, Barcelona, Munich, Moscow, etc, etc, how many will have even two 60,000 + stadiums?

Your argument is illogical. :nuts:

Vanguard

August 29th, 2008, 02:43 PM

london lad

August 29th, 2008, 02:58 PM

Jef- London already has many large stadiums . There is no demand for another massive stadium.

Wembley 90,000 . It has numerous events & concerts not to mention club & International Football. It also hosts Rugby League as well as motor sports.

Twickenham -82,000. Again numerous events are held here including large concerts. It obviously holds all major club & International Rugby Union matches.

London also has several other large stadiums with Arsenals Emirates at 60,000 being the largest. Chelsea, Tottenham, West Ham, QPR, Crystal Palace , Charlton etc all have stadiums of between 20-40,000+. Again some of these are used for one of events.

There is also a lower tier of smaller football & rugby clubs between 10-20,000.

In Crystal Palace park there is a dedicated Athletic Stadium that stages national athletic grand prixs as well as being used in the Euopean events such as the Golden leagues( although im not sure it still does now). At around 20,000+ it was more than adequate to hold this once yearly event. Other athletics stadiums across the country, such as Gateshead also hold these events.

These will move to Stratford post 2012 if any international events are staged here on a once a year basis 25,000 is adequate.

Does this answer your question why London does not need an 80,000 stadium that would be used little more than once a year. The whole point of the legacy issue is that there are no white elephants & drains on future resources. The upkeep of an 80,000 stadium would run into many hundred of thousands a year which is a complete waste of money .

putney80

August 29th, 2008, 03:00 PM

I would suggest you to read foreign medias and you will find out that Coe et al. does not tell the same story. They basically say they don't have the money. It is a shame.

I really don't know where people get this idea that london doesn't have any money. Just take 5 of the biggest projects in London at the moment:

Crossrail: £16bn
Olympics: £9bn
London Underground Upgrade: £6bn
Thameslink: £5.5bn
Heathrow Upgrade: £2.5bn

Theres £40bn of spending over the next decade. Not may cities have an investment programme like that. Its not that we couldn't spend more money on the olympics if we wanted to, its that we have chosen an appropriate amount thats required and will leave a suitable legacy for london.

DarJoLe

August 29th, 2008, 03:02 PM

And the answer to the other question I know is going to crop up is: it would have been too much of a logisitcal and security nightmare to transport thousands of athletes from the Village in Stratford to Wembley for the opening and closing ceremonies, and the point of having the Village in the east and not at Wembley was to push forward the regeneration of this toxic swathe which really is a century old gash through the landscape of east London.

DarJoLe

August 29th, 2008, 03:03 PM

I really don't know where people get this idea that london doesn't have any money. Just take the 5 biggest projects in London at the moment:

Well you've answered your own question there. Plus the point is the Olympic is being paid for by tax already on top of existing council tax.

This Olympic tax already caused huge ructions with the public, there would have been zero support for 'backing the bid' in 2004/5 if this had been a ridiculous amount Londoners would be expected to pay.

oliviersa

August 29th, 2008, 03:09 PM

london lad

August 29th, 2008, 06:48 PM

Jef- There are a couple of athletics Stadiums in London but only Crystal Palace is of a national/international standard (although its showing its ages through lack of investment as the local council can't afford the upkeep). Demand for high class athletic meets are around the 25k mark which would suit the legacy Athletics stadium at Stratford just fine.

oliviersa

August 29th, 2008, 08:03 PM

^^ thx for the explanations.

tigerman

August 30th, 2008, 12:26 AM

While all the previous posts about the athletics/other stadia in London have discussed most aspects the fact that the second biggest athletics event in the international calendar The World Championships have never been held in this country because we do not have a stadium big enough has been overlooked.

Countries like Sweden/Finland/ Belgium do have stadiums big enough and do not seem to have any trouble in mantaining/paying for them even though their economies are much smaller than ours. I think its a shame that this opertunity to provide us with a world class facilty has been squandered on the alter of political expediancy - although I see the arguements against why are we one of the few major countries without this facility?

Assa

August 30th, 2008, 09:14 AM

Other countires hae one or or two multi-use super-stadia for holding major events such as European Football finals, concerts, athtletics events etc... London basically has one stadium for each type of sport and any other events are spread out between them. Hence, a new athletics stadium will only get athletics events. The only athletics event that would fill an 80K athletics stadium would be the world championships - like the Olympics it's a once every few generations type of thing, so the rest of the time the stadium would be entirely wasted.

ledge88

August 31st, 2008, 12:16 AM

There is still a long time till the Olympics and it can always be reconsiderd after if to remove the extra seating or not. There are lots of things that were suppose to be temporary and still stand decades later; King's Cross entrance, flyovers like the A127 at Eastern Aveneue and to the extreme, The Eiffel Tower.

jerseyboi

September 2nd, 2008, 11:20 AM

video screen wrap for stadium??

The main stadium at the London Olympics may be wrapped in a kilometre-long video screen in an attempt to create a defining visual image to rival Beijing's architecturally startling Bird's Nest arena.

London 2012 officials will return from China next week to begin detailed consideration of the "look of London", which has so far been defined by a graffiti-style logo which drew as much criticism as praise.

Now, after the Bird's Nest became the identifying image of the 2008 games, attention will shift to how London's centrepiece stadium will appear on billions of television sets around the world.

The stadium's architect, Rod Sheard, is advocating a kilometre-long screen that would establish the London games as the first digital Olympics. Everything from images of main events to Olympic-inspired art could be projected on to the screen and Olympic officials confirmed the idea was to be developed in the coming year.

"Sydney took the opening and closing ceremony into the air with cables, Beijing has demonstrated what is currently possible using lighting and visual imagery," said Sheard, who designed the Sydney Olympic stadium and Wembley. "The London Olympic stadium will be the beginning of digital technology. We see the stadium as the ultimate communication device."

He said records, replays, previews and live events could be projected to create a kind of "Henman Hill of the Olympics".

Lord Coe, who is leading preparations for the London games, said this week: "It is unlikely we will see a games of this scale and stature again. It is unlikely this will be the format for the future. It won't be in London."

Sheard's idea will face intense scrutiny from cost controllers committed to keeping the stadium to its £496m budget.

A digital screen is likely to cost far more than the original idea for a 30-metre-high fabric wrap to conceal scaffolding supporting 55,000 temporary seats in the 80,000-seat venue. Sources at the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) said detailed calculations had yet to be made of what could be achieved within the budget.

Early designs showed the wrap made from a recycled polymer or even hemp and decorated with still images of Olympic athletes made up of pixelated graphics to echo London 2012's graffiti-style logo.

The wrap is essential to animate an otherwise rudimentary stadium that architect Will Alsop described as "disappointing" when it was unveiled. He was among many who complained that the design, dubbed by some the "vol-au-vent", was an anticlimax after plans were ditched that imagined the stadium's exterior like petals of a flower.

Olympic officials said yesterday that an artist or artists could be commissioned to produce ideas for the screen, which will also protect spectators and competitors from cross-winds.

"The idea of using digital technology on the wrap of the stadium is an option that is being discussed," a source at the ODA said. "It is early days. As we look more closely at the creative treatment of this element in 2009 and 2010 we would assess the need for the creative skills of an artist and that would have to fit in with the overall look of the games."

The design of the stadium will be instrumental in creating a visual identity as it is likely to feature in the backdrop to broadcasts seen on TV around the world.

Olympic officials hope other venues, including the velodrome, by Sir Michael Hopkins, and the £303m aquatics centre, designed by Zaha Hadid, will capture the imagination, as well as the distinctly London backdrops to events such as beach volleyball at Horse Guards Parade and archery at Lord's cricket ground

Jamandell (d69)

September 2nd, 2008, 05:17 PM

^^ Old news, lol

DarJoLe

September 2nd, 2008, 06:43 PM

It will never happen. Why spend money on a video wall for a temporary part of the stadium? Unless a business plan can be put forward or some kind of legacy found for the screen it will never happen.

Tony Resta

September 2nd, 2008, 07:28 PM

This would really make it the best and most high tech stadium out there, hopefully it will happen.

Bob

September 2nd, 2008, 08:42 PM

They could rent a load of screens and stitch them together. I wouldn't write it off, these things are ever more affordable.

A few of these for example
http://i34.tinypic.com/24cvamo.jpg

From ADI
http://www.theadigroup.com/index.php

bazzup

September 2nd, 2008, 09:08 PM

Just a quick point on the stadium in legacy mode. Reducing capacity is not only about cost saving, it's simply that there is nothing worse than holding an event in a half empty stadium - it creates a terrible, dead atmosphere. Far better to have a high-quality, compact venue with good facilities for athletes, media and spectators, that is regularly full, than one which is far too big for the events it would host. Even a world athletics championship would struggle to attract more than 50,000.

London is better served for big venues than any other city in the world, so we don't need another.

And how do the belgians, swedes, etc have big venues for athletics that pay their way? Simple: they play football in them. Resulting in a crap atmosphere and terrible sightlines and a poor experience all round. Fans in this country, brought up in dedicated football stadia, wouldn't put up with watching regular football with a running track in the way. The fact we built proper homes for our clubs is one of the chief historical reasons why football in england is so successful as a spectator sport - not only here but internationally.

I think this result is perfect - we will have dedicated, purpose built venues in london for football (wembley), rugby (twickenham) and athletics (olympic) all built to the appropriate size for the crowds they will attract.

sam-whit-kid

September 2nd, 2008, 10:36 PM

this video screen wrap reminds me of what chicago has proposed for there 2016 olympic stadium bid. i think if our stadium had this screen thing it would beat chicago and tokyos stadium bids flat out!!(even though tokyos is quite different)

Assa

September 2nd, 2008, 11:48 PM

JGG

September 3rd, 2008, 03:07 AM

Isn't this just the same idea as the Bird's Nest had on the inside rim, but on the outside? All you need is a number of projectors all around the wrap and computers to control what the project. I think it's a great idea and don't see why it would be very expensive.

I was thinking about the same. They can keep the fabric wrap but make sure it is sufficiently transparent and with a sufficient amount of projectors controlled by a single computer you could create a fantastic animation.

Such powerful projectors these days are bog standard, you can see them used on many buildings. The difference here would be that they would project from the inside out. You probably get one of the Asian electronics firms to do it for free if they can put their name on it, and what would be wrong with that?

The only downside would be that during a large part of the day, particularly when the sun is out, the canvas would be white, but when the sun shines everything becomes beautiful anyway. And in any case as long as the print contrast is not too great, the canvas could still have some painted stuff on it.

This proposal shows what has been missing in the ODA approach so far... a restricted budget does not mean one cannot be creative or impressive.

Assa

September 4th, 2008, 09:49 AM

Zim Flyer

September 4th, 2008, 10:12 AM

This surely should be what we British are best at, inovation on a shoe-string. Truely fantastic yet inexpensive ideas. It's almost like because the ODA have £9billion to play with they're embarrased to entertain any ideas that might be cheap or (heaven forbid) free.

There is a lot of truth in that. Give someone a budget of a 100 or a day to do a job in and that is exactly how long it will take.

Shoe string budgets (and I should know I run most of my projects on them) bring out some of the most innovative ideas.

delores

September 4th, 2008, 10:41 AM

one would hope, I do think budget can make designs rather radical and interesting, unfortunately leaving it to HOK i don't believe this will happen. They don't think out of the box enough.

henry

September 4th, 2008, 11:03 AM

DarJoLe

September 4th, 2008, 11:14 AM

That building attached at the back is the VIP area.

DarJoLe

September 4th, 2008, 11:15 AM

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/o/u/v/Stadium_39_WEB.jpg

DarJoLe

September 4th, 2008, 02:16 PM

New details emerge for HOK's Olympic Stadium – see images
(http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/dailynews/2008/09/new_details_emerge_about_hoks_olympic_stadium__see_images.html)Published: 04 September 2008

The roof of HOK's 2012 Olympic Stadium will not harvest rainwater and will still only cover two thirds of spectators, it has emerged in a report by the Olympic Delivery Authority's (ODA's) planning committee.

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/images/HOK4_tcm23-1833103.jpg

Despite claims from the chairman of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG), Sebastian Coe, that the Games will set impressive 'green' standards, the temporary roof proposed by HOK for the showpiece venue will not be equipped for rainwater recovery in Olympics mode.

According to documents seen by the ODA's planning committee last week, the polymer-based covering will also only protect around 54,000 of the 80,000-strong crowd from the weather.

However, it is claimed that the roof coverage is the 'appropriate area to minimise potential for field of play wind speeds to exceed maximum criteria'.

And in a change to the original proposals, the blob-like hospitality pavilion, which will be attached to the west side of the stadium, has now become more orthogonal to deal with 'difficult interfaces with the main structure and Wrap', and to tackle potential problems with restricted views 'from the dining area towards the City of London.'

LOCOG also raised concerns about some of the temporary and permanent bridges around the stadium which appeared to 'swap locations in some of the drawings.'

Despite these issues, the planning committee granted second stage reserved matters planning approval for the stadium.

The full committee report can be download from: www.london2012.com/planning/planning-committee-meetings.php

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/images/HOK7_tcm23-1833093.jpg

Jamandell (d69)

September 4th, 2008, 02:34 PM

So it looks like the zig-zaggy roof is going ahead then...good :)

LiamF1

September 4th, 2008, 03:06 PM

I wish there were some more proper renders of the legacy stadium and how it will look. Surely that needs some nice aesthetic properties as it will be there for many years to come. The Munich Stadium looks great for example.

I like the improved lighting scheme coming through from the inside, and hoepfully they'll project live action onto the sails too. The lighting in Beijing was excellent and it stimulated excitement, hopefully London will take this and add it to the festival atmosphere.

I think the added triangles at the top improve it too - it gives it quite an appropriate crown look.

tigerman

September 4th, 2008, 07:39 PM

I was going to ask the same question about renders of the legacy stadium - has anybody seen any?

I am getting a little concerned that as far as I can see all of the Olympic Stadium above ground is going to be removed leaving 25000 seats in a bowl in the ground - I hope we are getting a proper enclosed stadium and not just a couple of stands leaving half the seats in the open.

delores

September 4th, 2008, 11:15 PM

I wonder if any of the designers have been looking on this website? Starting to actually like the design now, they seem to of changed the things that were seriously wrong with the original design and there is some real design development going on. I still believe the pods should be designed by a selection of architects/designers showcasing the skill in this country.

DarJoLe

September 5th, 2008, 11:04 AM

Tottenham and West Ham may consider London Olympic site
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/tottenham/2685035/Tottenham-and-West-Ham-may-consider-London-Olympic-site---Football.html)By Jeremy Wilson
Last Updated: 1:03AM BST 05 Sep 2008

The possibility of Tottenham Hotspur or West Ham moving permanently to the site of London’s Olympic stadium was raised when it emerged that planners are to again investigate the option of building a brand new ground after the 2012 Games.

London officials are understood to be drawing up comparisons to see whether it would be cheaper to demolish the £525 million Olympic stadium and build a new facility in partnership with a football club rather than subsidise its use as a predominantly athletics venue.

“The LDA has left no stone unturned in examining all legacy options for the Olympic venues and is still looking at a range of potential sporting uses including athletics, football and rugby for the Olympic stadium,” a spokesman for the London Development Agency said last night.
The planners are not looking to change the existing design for the Olympic stadium and have also been told that whatever is there afterwards must have the capability to stage major athletics events.

The current plan is to remove 55,000 seats to leave a 25,000-capacity venue for athletics, but there are concerns that it may need financial support for decades afterwards.

London mayor Boris Johnson said last month that he did not think the issue of having a Premier League side playing in the stadium after the Games was definitely settled.

Tottenham and West Ham are both looking at ways of increasing their capacities and would be interested in exploring any sort of option that could work in a similar way to Manchester City’s move to the stadium that hosted the 2002 Commonwealth Games.

A spokesperson for Johnson said the mayor envisaged a long-term future for the stadium. “Expensive facilities should not be built unless they have a viable future. The mayor has no plans, and is not aware of any plans, to demolish the stadium.”

DarJoLe

September 5th, 2008, 11:05 AM

Football club may get rebuilt 2012 Games stadium
(http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g0FmL7zUk_y2NlfH-XCDOUKsf_rQ)10 hours ago

LONDON (AFP) — A top football club could end up with a rebuilt version of the London 2012 Games Olympic stadium, media reports said on Thursday.
Officials overseeing the organisation of the event are considering demolishing the 525 million pounds (950 million dollars) stadium and rebuilding one which could be used by a Premier League football team.
Planners believe that may be a more attractive financial proposition than subsidising future use as an athletics venue.

West Ham would be a club ideally placed to move in and would be interested if they could be given the kind of deal which enabled Manchester City to move into the Commonwealth Games stadium used at those games in 2002, the Press Association (PA) reported.

PA said one top official mulling the stadium's future is Tom Russell, the director of Olympic legacy at the London Development Agency (LDA). He helped push the Man City deal when he worked at Manchester City Council.

Given that several former Olympic host cities have found themselves lumbered with little used but expensively built "white elephant" venues years after the Games much will depend on the conclusions which London major Boris Johnson's Olympic legacy advisory board make in the coming months.

Under the existing plans the Olympic Stadium will have an 80,000-seat capacity and it is supposedly to retain a capability to host major athletics events beyond 2012.

But the likelihood that that would require long-term subsidy is a source of concern for the city authorities.

At the same time, construction of a new post-Games stadium would require major private investment.

London Games officials say the issue of retaining an athletics facility after the event is non-negotiable following a commitment made to the International Olympic Committee to that effect.

The budget for the Games was originally set at 3.4 billion pounds but the projected cost has since almost tripled.

DarJoLe

September 5th, 2008, 12:05 PM

On your marks: Countdown to 2012, London's Olympic stadium
(http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=583&storycode=3121620&c=0)05 September 2008
By Martin Spring

No false starts here. Construction at London’s 80,000-seater Olympic stadium has got off faster than Usain Bolt (well, almost). Martin Spring watches the sprint towards that now famous deadline

http://www.building.co.uk/Pictures/web/s/e/q/IMG_6395.jpg

When Beijing’s mayor, Guo Jinlong, handed the Olympic flag to Boris Johnson on 24 August, the four-year clock started ticking for the London Olympics. But for Ian Crockford, the Olympic Delivery Authority’s project manager for the £496m, 80,000-seater stadium, the starting pistol was fired at the end of 2006, when bids were invited for design and construction teams. The Games’ immutable starting date of 27 July 2012 was deeply engrained on his mind.

“Time is the biggest challenge in building the stadium,” he says. “And we can’t do an FA Cup in another stadium, as happened in May last year,” he adds, referring to England’s other Olympic stadium at Wembley, which caters for football rather than athletics, and which came in more than a year late. In fact, the Stratford project’s actual completion date is due a full year before the start of the Games so that it can host test events.

Yet already time pressure is having a visible impact on the stadium’s 16ha site in Stratford, east London, where a forest of concrete columns, beams and floor slabs is quickly taking shape. In the first in a series of visits to the 40-acre stadium site as we count down to 2012, Building found that, since construction began on 7 May, the Olympic park’s largest venue is also its furthest advanced. To date, a circle of tower cranes has been erected and about 3,500 of the 4,000 permanent piles have been sunk. Even before that, 33 buildings were demolished and 800,000 tonnes of soil – enough to fill the Royal Albert Hall – were removed to make way for the stadium.

As well as an immutable deadline, Crockford and his design and construction team have a few more Olympian challenges to contend with. The first is that the stadium site is tightly hemmed in on all sides by two branches of the River Lea and a 143-year-old embankment containing north London’s main sewage artery. The second is that the stadium will have to be drastically scaled back to just 25,000 permanent seats once the Games have ended. Third, the construction of the stadium has to hold its own as just one component in the Olympic park, which is now the largest construction site in Europe with a government-approved budget of £8bn.

The ODA decided to tackle all these problems together by first appointing an integrated team of consultants and contractors with a track record of delivering top-notch sports venues. “Team Stadium”,

made up of contractor Sir Robert McAlpine, architect HOK Sport and structural engineer Buro Happold, delivered Arsenal’s 60,000-seat Emirates ground on time and to budget in 2006. The same team (without HOK Sport) put together the Millennium Dome in 2000, and converted it to the O2 (with HOK Sport) in 2006. It took over the Olympic stadium on 7 April, and since then all 200 members of staff have been housed together on the site.

Once in place, the team set about devising solutions to the problems of the tightly enclosed site and the eventual scaling back. To prevent the stadium stretching out over the waterways, it was gutted of its public concourses and facilities. Cafes, restaurants, fast-food outlets and shops will all be housed in free-standing pods strewn around the site. On top of that, the underlying slope of the site was built into the design by locating the athletes’ changing rooms and warm-up areas in a semi-basement at the lower end of the slope beyond the bowl.

After the Games, the stadium can be reduced in size by simply dismantling the upper tier and roof. For this, the team came up with an innovative hybrid structure, with its permanent lower part made of concrete and the demountable upper levels in lightweight steel. Only about 10,000 tonnes of steel will be used, making it the lightest Olympic stadium to date. The upper demountable steel structure will he held together by a series of ingenious connections, and the semi-demountable design will give the stadium its distinctive appearance.

This leaves the problem of how the stadium will hold its own while the aquatics centre, velodrome, Olympic village and a multiplicity of other facilities take shape all around it. Managing the entire Olympic park site is the responsibility of the ODA and its logistics contractor, CLM, which between them they employ 450 people. At the stadium, Crockford acts as interface between his team and the larger organisation.

For a start, access through the whole site has been limited to a single road, with just one entrance at either end. Along this road, a 10-minute bus service shuttles staff to and from their respective sites, and there is a constant stream in both directions of gargantuan dumper trucks and supply lorries.

“We’ve been very careful to ensure there’s good supply chain management in the project. We’ve made sure the 50-odd subcontractors and suppliers are soundly based financially”
Ian Crockford, ODA
Clearance of the park site was entrusted to Edmund Nuttall and Morrison Construction, which between them demolished 192 buildings and excavated more than 1 million m3 of soil. All of that then went through a “soil factory”, where it was washed and biologically treated, while toxic waste, such as asbestos and heavy metals, were removed and disposed of. The cleaned soil was then dumped in the northern end of the park to create a raised plateau for the athletes’ village.

To further centralise works, the ODA set up a communal concrete batching plant, which serves all the projects. Otherwise, each project is relatively self-contained, with its own site compound, plant and canteen.

With these problems under control, the overriding concern for Team Stadium will be meeting the deadline. Tony Aikenhead, the Sir Robert McAlpine employee who is playing the role of project manager, says this is being done through the use of fast-track design, procurement and construction techniques, much of it borrowed from the Emirates stadium. “That means that we standardise the design with an established grid and a lot of repetitive components and then prefabricate as much as we can,” he says.

Fast-track construction is certainly evident on the site. In the five months since Team Stadium took over, the piles have been driven by Keller GE into the ground up to 20m deep, more than 100 cylindrical concrete columns have been cast in situ to make up the semi-basement changing rooms and much of the first-floor slab has been cast on top. To one side of the site, a precasting plant operated by Byrne Brothers is busy turning out standardised raking beams. Simultaneously, out in Somerset and Peterborough, Tarmac is precasting terrace units, while in Bolton, Watson Steel is prefabricating the steelwork for the upper tier and roof canopy.

The project’s final and most unpredictable challenge may still lie ahead – that is, the looming recession. But Crockford is not fazed. “We’ve already been through price inflation, and now the market has eased a bit,” he says. “Even if it deteriorates again, we’ve been careful in ensuring there’s good supply-chain management in the project. We’ve made sure the 50-odd subcontractors and suppliers are soundly based financially and haven’t taken on too much other work in the Olympic village.”

The confidence of the team seems to suggest there’s little chance of anything going wrong. We’ll have to wait until the handover deadline in summer 2011 to find out whether that confidence is justified.

marshol

September 5th, 2008, 02:26 PM

Hope it will be a great success. Good luck London!

lasdun

September 5th, 2008, 02:34 PM

Design changes are great - it has an exciting Jewel like quality to it now.

J

ben77

September 5th, 2008, 02:52 PM

So basically no ones got a clue whats going on after 2012 and there's a good chance that its going to cost £600million to build a stadium for 2 weeks of atheletics. Not ideal..

Metroguy78

September 5th, 2008, 03:03 PM

DarJoLe

September 5th, 2008, 03:08 PM

As I said in another thread, i think it actually looks better without the wrap and roof.

I really hope they push the fact the top part is all temporary and coming down after the Games, either by having two different coloured seating, possibly the temporary part white to match the steel and the permanent a darker colour. Making this seem like it is one 'whole' stadium sort of ruins the complexity of the design really.

tuten

September 5th, 2008, 03:24 PM

^^ So basically you want it too look like it still being constructed, when its actually finished? No no no.

I REALLY hope we get that video wrap, it will make this stadium the most advanced on the planet.

Mo Rush

September 5th, 2008, 03:37 PM

Saw this image on gamesbid.com done by our South African friend Mo Rush.

Looks ace I think

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/Sketchup/action1.jpg
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/Sketchup/action2.jpg
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/Sketchup/action3.jpg

Cheers Mo Rush :)

It was mainly to indicate how close spectators would be to the action. The roof, lighting, VIP areas, entrances etc. will all be added soon.

I've finally got the facade relatively similar. The facade fabric strips are 2.5m wide, alternating i.e. one strip faces to the left while the next faces to the right etc.

DarJoLe

September 5th, 2008, 03:45 PM

^^ So basically you want it too look like it still being constructed, when its actually finished? No no no.

Er, no.

I just don't think they are pushing the temporary components enough as being separate entities to the permanent bowl. I think this is half the problem why the design hasn't been received very well, because from the renders it's not particularly obvious where one ends and the other begins.

What I would love is to have is the temporary seating looking like it is 'floating' above the permanent bowl, so that when you walk through the podium level into the stadium you really get a feeling that what is above you is only there for the few weeks of the Games, whilst what is below you is staying. It can easily be done with the quality of the materials, the right colour palette and a real sense of beginning and end in the design. CABE sort of tried to push this when they said about making the wrap less, so that people outside the stadium could see the underside of the seating, but I think the ODA got the wrong end of the stick and we're now getting this strange circus bunting look. I would have raised the height of the wrap slightly, so it now covered even the compression rings at the top, and possibly put it on the outside of the steel, sort of giving it a wrap crown, exposing quite a bit of the insides of the stadium and giving everyone outside at a distance quite a hefty view into the stadium, but obviously not the lower pitch level.

Mo Rush

September 5th, 2008, 04:19 PM

Er, no.

I just don't think they are pushing the temporary components enough as being separate entities to the permanent bowl. I think this is half the problem why the design hasn't been received very well, because from the renders it's not particularly obvious where one ends and the other begins.

What I would love is to have is the temporary seating looking like it is 'floating' above the permanent bowl, so that when you walk through the podium level into the stadium you really get a feeling that what is above you is only there for the few weeks of the Games, whilst what is below you is staying. It can easily be done with the quality of the materials, the right colour palette and a real sense of beginning and end in the design. CABE sort of tried to push this when they said about making the wrap less, so that people outside the stadium could see the underside of the seating, but I think the ODA got the wrong end of the stick and we're now getting this strange circus bunting look. I would have raised the height of the wrap slightly, so it now covered even the compression rings at the top, and possibly put it on the outside of the steel, sort of giving it a wrap crown, exposing quite a bit of the insides of the stadium and giving everyone outside at a distance quite a hefty view into the stadium, but obviously not the lower pitch level.

maybe draw a little picture and I can incorporate it into my sketchup version of the stadium.

In Cape Town we are attaching our temporary seats to the facade column but inbetween there are no supporting columns. perhaps that would create a floating effect if those metal truss supports were removed and the temporary seats were instead supported by a steel structure as part of the facade..not sure if its making sense but here is a pic.

http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/2010/gallery/PublishingImages/Stadium%20construction/Aug_19_08_a.jpg

temporary support is the grey and white portion

tigerman

September 5th, 2008, 07:44 PM

I thought the future use of the stadium was agreed by the IOC and was part of the original bid - so can it be changed?

A few other thoughts -

If the athletics track has to remain I do not see any Premiership club being interested.

A lower level football club (Orient have been mentioned ) or rugby club might be possible.

On another thread it has been mentioned about the possibility of other facilities like a school/sports clinic/campus being based there - surely all that would not be possible if a premiership club was based there as they would want the stadium for hospitality/conferences/shop etc for themselves.

El_Greco

September 5th, 2008, 08:12 PM

We already have loads of football stadiums no need for another!

blahblah

September 5th, 2008, 08:16 PM

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3243/2533406355_208621b8c7_b.jpg

What is a "Vomitary Entrance to Seating Bowl?"

Sounds disgusting.

El_Greco

September 5th, 2008, 08:17 PM

:laugh:

tigerman

September 5th, 2008, 08:26 PM

We already have loads of football stadiums no need for another!

Totally agree - the best solution would be to incoporate stuff like the school and campus for day to day use and leave it as the athletics stadium London and the UK needs.

DarJoLe

September 5th, 2008, 10:15 PM

A vomitory is a hole in stadium seating stands which crowds 'vomit' out of towards their seats.

Horizon911

September 5th, 2008, 10:29 PM

I do not agree with a football club moving in, or as a college campus facility either. All those students would just mess the stadium up.

From recollection, the athletic facilities at Crystal Palace are in a poor state, so London needs a first class athletics facility. The Olympic stadium and pool seems the perfect venue to replace the very outdated Crystal Palace facilities.

NothingBetterToDo

September 5th, 2008, 11:16 PM

As I said in another thread, i think it actually looks better without the wrap and roof.

What with the pathetic excuse for a summer we've just had i would say a roof is a must for the Olympic stadium.

Assa

September 5th, 2008, 11:17 PM

We already have loads of football stadiums no need for another!

There wouldn't be 'another' - which ever team moves to the new stadium would redevlop their existing site, probably into new housing a la Highbury.

Does anyone think that if they decided to ditch the legacy mode and redevelop the site as a football stadium without an athletics track after the games that the IOC would take the games off London?

The legacy mode plan is fatally flawed. London has an athletics stadium at Crystal Palace which I think has around the same capacity as the planned legacy stadium. London does not need another, similarly sized stadium competing for the same competitions because in the end we will have two failing athletics stadia instead of one that can just about survive. Meanwhile there are two PL football teams with ageing stadia who would both like to move to new facilities. Seems logical to me to let one move in.

Assa

September 5th, 2008, 11:20 PM

What with the pathetic excuse for a summer we've just had i would say a roof is a must for the Olympic stadium.

Given the summer we've just missed, there's no need for a seperate aquatics centre! Just take the plug out after the first week to let all the water out!

El_Greco

September 5th, 2008, 11:22 PM

There wouldn't be 'another' - which ever team moves to the new stadium would redevlop their existing site, probably into new housing a la Highbury.

Does anyone think that if they decided to ditch the legacy mode and redevelop the site as a football stadium without an athletics track after the games that the IOC would take the games off London?

The legacy mode plan is fatally flawed. London has an athletics stadium at Crystal Palace which I think has around the same capacity as the planned legacy stadium. London does not need another, similarly sized stadium competing for the same competitions because in the end we will have two failing athletics stadia instead of one that can just about survive. Meanwhile there are two PL football teams with ageing stadia who would both like to move to new facilities. Seems logical to me to let one move in.

Still this doesnt change the fact that London has loads of football stadiums but only one athletics which is in a sorry state anyway.
Besides Olympic Stadium would be used mostly by local community who have no time nor will to travel all the way to Crystal Palace.Its always better to have two athletics stadiums than one dont you think?

DarJoLe

September 5th, 2008, 11:47 PM

The legacy mode plan is fatally flawed. London has an athletics stadium at Crystal Palace which I think has around the same capacity as the planned legacy stadium. London does not need another, similarly sized stadium competing for the same competitions because in the end we will have two failing athletics stadia instead of one that can just about survive. Meanwhile there are two PL football teams with ageing stadia who would both like to move to new facilities. Seems logical to me to let one move in.

This is similar to the excuse Mancunians are using to bash 2012 about London building another velodrome when they have the national one in their backyard they feel should be used for the Games.

One of the reasons Crystal Palace is falling apart is the lack of funding because athletics isn't a well participated-in sport in the UK- the point of hosting these Olympics is to increase this participation, so surely if this is successful London will need two athletic stadiums either side of the river.

This whole debacle sounds to me like Boris in his usual Tory ways is unwilling to fund an athletics stadium but sell it off to the highest bidder so it is out of his hands and isn't seen as a white elephant, despite the fact London is crying out for a new modern 21st century athletics stadium to train its future Olympian athletes.

tigerman

September 6th, 2008, 12:07 AM

There wouldn't be 'another' - which ever team moves to the new stadium would redevlop their existing site, probably into new housing a la Highbury.

Does anyone think that if they decided to ditch the legacy mode and redevelop the site as a football stadium without an athletics track after the games that the IOC would take the games off London?

The legacy mode plan is fatally flawed. London has an athletics stadium at Crystal Palace which I think has around the same capacity as the planned legacy stadium. London does not need another, similarly sized stadium competing for the same competitions because in the end we will have two failing athletics stadia instead of one that can just about survive. Meanwhile there are two PL football teams with ageing stadia who would both like to move to new facilities. Seems logical to me to let one move in.

Sorry but you seem to have missed the fact that Crystal Palace is decrepit - so in a few years you will either close it and then have no athletics stadium in London or spend money redeveloping it - the costs then will almost certainly be larger.

Horizon911

September 6th, 2008, 12:38 AM

This whole debacle sounds to me like Boris in his usual Tory ways is unwilling to fund an athletics stadium but sell it off to the highest bidder so it is out of his hands and isn't seen as a white elephant, despite the fact London is crying out for a new modern 21st century athletics stadium to train its future Olympian athletes.I see how this thread will turn out, blame Boris for everything.:) Of course Red Ken would've waved a magic wand and made everything right.:lol:

It is important that post 2012, the Olympic facilities don't turn into a white elephant. I was in Athens last year and although I wasn't allowed to visit their Olympic stadium, I was given the opportunity to visit other former Olympic now totally unused sites. But as it was 110 degrees heat, I declined. We must not allow that to happen to London.

Yes, Crystal Palace could've done with more funding. But don't forget it is now a very old facility.

I've already said I'm not keen on it being used by a college, but what if the Olympic sites did become national academies for athletics, swimming and other sports. Train all the country's future elite athletics in the same place, funded by lottery money.

El_Greco

September 6th, 2008, 01:21 AM

Youre forgeting one important thing Horizon Ken is no more and Boris is in power and hes not Ken making decisions therefore its a fair game to criticise him.
Besides Ken never said he would like to sell Olympic Stadium to football club it was always intended to be athletics stadium for the local community.

london lad

September 6th, 2008, 11:53 AM

...

london lad

September 6th, 2008, 11:56 AM

Sorry but you seem to have missed the fact that Crystal Palace is decrepit - so in a few years you will either close it and then have no athletics stadium in London or spend money redeveloping it - the costs then will almost certainly be larger.

Theres plan post 2012 to demolish most of the old facilities & rebuild the swimming pool & sports centre on the site of the athletics stadium incorporating a stand into it with the far side stand to be demolished. Money would probably have to come from the LDA & Sports England.

Its part of the masterplan to redevelop Crystal Palace Park but its very much in the air & the estimated £50m to do up the park isn't secured & it would take 15-20 years which is slighlty taking the pee considering the massive amounts of work they are doing in & around in stratford in 4 years.

DarJoLe

September 6th, 2008, 12:51 PM

I see how this thread will turn out, blame Boris for everything.:) Of course Red Ken would've waved a magic wand and made everything right.:lol:

Ken was willing for the LDA to subsidise the post-Games olympic stadium as a much needed athletics stadium, even if it meant the stadium was not used all the time and essentially ran at a loss to the taxpayer. Sometimes you need to have these facilities, even if they aren't making a profit. Boris doesn't believe that. He didn't even know the LDA was responsible for the stadium after the Games are over until Seb Coe told him! It's obvious Boris's new cronies in City hall want to sell this piece of land to get it off their books as soon as possible so they don't have to deal with the possible loss of votes from people realising they are subsidising a loss-making stadium.

marrio415

September 6th, 2008, 11:14 PM

it has to be legacy for athletics not football i will be so disapointed if they back track on this plus the ioc will not be pleased.If a football club wants it then it must cater for the athletics as well.

Cabman

September 7th, 2008, 12:23 PM

Assa

September 7th, 2008, 12:59 PM

You cannot compare athletics and football stadia. The amount of money involved in the sports, the frequency of events and interest from the public are completely different. London will not be able to sustane more than one 'large' athletics stadium, just as it would not be able to sustain more than one 'National' football or rubgy stadium. Private stadia such as the Emirates should not come into the equation. I whole heartedly agree that the Olympic Stadium should be retained after the event in some form, if for no other reason than posterity. London is the first city to host a third games but there are no remaining infrastructure from either of the first two. It would be a shame to lose the main stadium for 2012 so quickly. However, the fact remains that the 'legacy' must be economically viable. No matter what the state of Crystal Palace it is our current national athletics stadium and has some history associated with it. My fear is that current events held there will be lost to Stratford and the site will fall further into decline. Redevelopment of that site will become even more expensive or unecenomical. It might therefore be better to allow a PL team into the Stratford site (at a price) and use the money from that to redevelop Crystal Palace.

Assa

September 7th, 2008, 01:19 PM

This is similar to the excuse Mancunians are using to bash 2012 about London building another velodrome when they have the national one in their backyard they feel should be used for the Games.

Similar, but not the same. These are the London games and as many of the facilities as possbile should be located around the olympic park. TBH I'm surprised the rowing is being located in Eton. Also I would expect that our success in cycling will increase demand for facilities in that sport and therefore another velodrome will not be competition for the one in Manchester. We have very few velodromes across the country but have plenty (not necessarily enough, though) athletics tracks. The question is do we need another large stadium for athletics given the very few events in that sport we have in this country?

Assa

September 7th, 2008, 01:24 PM

Sorry but you seem to have missed the fact that Crystal Palace is decrepit - so in a few years you will either close it and then have no athletics stadium in London or spend money redeveloping it - the costs then will almost certainly be larger.

Why is Crystal Palace so decrepit? Because it doesn't get used, surely! Why will having another athletics stadium in the same city improve things?

tuten

September 7th, 2008, 06:24 PM

Horizon911

September 7th, 2008, 09:02 PM

It's all getting messy, the Crystal Palace scheme is years away. Things could work out if the legacy was transfered to Crystal Palace and that scheme was guaranteed. A football club I would assume West Ham could then move to Stratford. There is of course already a first class athletics facility in the Lea Valley already at picketts lock. My prefered option though, would be a Stratford athletics legacy.

http://www.leevalleypark.org.uk/en/content/cms/leisure/activities_and_sport/athletics_centre/athletics_centre.aspx.Forgot about the Pickett's Lock facilities, is that for elite athletes to use, or anyone?

Can't see there being 3 athletics tracks for elite athletics in London. That would be overkill. Now I've been reminded about the Pickett's Lock facilities, I fear that could be axed in favour of Stratford, or the resources used to bolster Crystal Palace. I guess someone will need to make a decision soon about what stays and what goes post 2012.

Mo Rush

September 7th, 2008, 10:06 PM

Update: temporary support trusses added (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=25045030&postcount=22)

Assa

September 7th, 2008, 11:00 PM

^^ Wrong.

Its decrepit due to lack of funding.

We need another athletics stadium, we DONT need another football stadium.

Anyway I though a condition of us getting the Olympics is that we have a brand new athletics track at the end of it?

I think Spurs and West Ham would beg to differ whether they need a new stadium each! In any case stop talking about football stadia as if they're something paid for out of public money! And as I've said before, there wouldn't be 'another' football stadium. It would replace an existing one that has been outgrown.

If Crystal Palace is decrepit because of lack of funding, why is it under-funded? Because as a facility it is under-used and the sport does not attract the same commercial interest as football or rugby, both of which can afford world class facilities. There is a ton of monmey being pumped into Olympic sports from the lottery so why is none of that being diverted to Crystal Palace? If the cyclists can afford a top notch facility in Manchester, why can't athletes afford one in London? Presumably because they have sufficient training facilities elsewhere and CP's only use is as a competition venue which in itself cannot attract sufficient funding. I don't see why any of thus will change because of the Olympics. So it seems pretty clear that after the Olympics CP's days are numbered or else they'll find another use for Stratford.

london lad

September 7th, 2008, 11:25 PM

Plans for CP park & stadium are here. Whether it gets funding is another matter.

http://www.crystalpalacepark.org/sports_facilities.html

DarJoLe

September 7th, 2008, 11:54 PM

From the other bailey on flickr:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3139/2833052230_939b541abc_b.jpg

tuten

September 8th, 2008, 04:33 AM

I think Spurs and West Ham would beg to differ whether they need a new stadium each! In any case stop talking about football stadia as if they're something paid for out of public money! And as I've said before, there wouldn't be 'another' football stadium. It would replace an existing one that has been outgrown.

If Crystal Palace is decrepit because of lack of funding, why is it under-funded? Because as a facility it is under-used and the sport does not attract the same commercial interest as football or rugby, both of which can afford world class facilities. There is a ton of monmey being pumped into Olympic sports from the lottery so why is none of that being diverted to Crystal Palace? If the cyclists can afford a top notch facility in Manchester, why can't athletes afford one in London? Presumably because they have sufficient training facilities elsewhere and CP's only use is as a competition venue which in itself cannot attract sufficient funding. I don't see why any of thus will change because of the Olympics. So it seems pretty clear that after the Olympics CP's days are numbered or else they'll find another use for Stratford.

The point is not whether this football stadium would replace another, the point is that London needs a new athletics stadium, this takes priority over what any club needs.
The people of London should be catered for before the needs of a shitty football club. And there is not a lack of interest in athletics, just because the media is saturated with that crime of a sport called football, doesn't mean that other sports are ignored.

Im confident that in the end we will get the athletics stadium, the IOC wouldn't have it any other way.

DCKL

September 8th, 2008, 05:11 PM

I just watched the 1st episode of Spooks Code 9 and the olympic stadium is featured in it although it does look larger and different at the base. Here's the clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VfpXVHynqY

sam-whit-kid

September 8th, 2008, 08:17 PM

if thats what the stadium turns out looking like! bring on the nukes! lol

but seriously i find that video disturbing on so many levels!

DarJoLe

September 8th, 2008, 09:09 PM

It's the Emirates with the Olympic stadium render stuck over the top half. Very shoddy.

ismail

September 8th, 2008, 09:19 PM

What a terrifiying thought ( it mean the nuclear attack,not the stadium)

sam-whit-kid

September 8th, 2008, 10:38 PM

^^ exactly what i thought! why would anyone even think that sort of thing up, let alone make it into a crappy tv show. GRRR and the poor stadium mockup made it even more unbearable to watch! :P

dronkula

September 9th, 2008, 03:17 AM

It's the Emirates with the Olympic stadium render stuck over the top half. Very shoddy.

Well it was slightly better than the Olympic stadium shown in Doctor Who which was actually just the City of Manchester stadium - although that was 3 years ago now and back then the 'official' design was the old 'Muscle' stadium.

Pablo323

September 10th, 2008, 02:18 AM

Oh God I Love It!!!

:drool:

Jim856796

September 12th, 2008, 08:33 AM

Is the legacy version of the Olympic stadium gonna look boring? Olympic Stadiums aren't supposed to be boring.

Also, I have looked at the old plans for the Olympic stadium (which involved the "muscle" exterior) and the stadium had three tiers and it's impossible to convert a three-tier stadium to a 25,000 capacity. The old Olympic Legacy Stadium plans looked like they cut the 80,000 capacity in (slightly more than) half. The current and more simplified design of the stadium will involve reducing it capacity to 25,000 for real.

DarJoLe

September 12th, 2008, 11:04 AM

Also, I have looked at the old plans for the Olympic stadium (which involved the "muscle" exterior) and the stadium had three tiers and it's impossible to convert a three-tier stadium to a 25,000 capacity. The old Olympic Legacy Stadium plans looked like they cut the 80,000 capacity in (slightly more than) half.

Yes, that's they weren't plans but mere illustrative concept designs. There was never any intention of building the stadium to that design.

Metroguy78

September 12th, 2008, 11:32 AM

I was at the madonna concert last night and couldnt help but think that the curtain/screen that they use for imagery and videos at these concerts would be awesome going around the stadium as a wrap. I know it's on the cards and being talk about and obviously being the prudent games may make this a non starter but I think it'd look awesome.

I imagined an athlete with the relay torch running around the arena on the screen before the main cauldron is lit.

Assa

September 13th, 2008, 12:08 AM

I imagined an athlete with the relay torch running around the arena on the screen before the main cauldron is lit.

Err... did you not see the opening ceremony of the Beijing games? OK, they used the inside 'lip' of the roof, but the concept was identical.

tuten

September 13th, 2008, 12:10 AM

It would look far more stunning if it was the entire exterior of the stadium though.

Beijing also used fireworks. Does that mean we cant?

DarJoLe

September 13th, 2008, 08:04 PM

The podium level is nearing completion, with the first concrete post being erected which will hold the steel V girders which hold up the temporary stands.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3121/2853925092_757f8022d5_b.jpg

Horizon911

September 13th, 2008, 10:30 PM

^^

Does anyone know if those electricity pylons are staying? They really do ruin the view. And yes I know people of Stratford need power, just would be nice if the pylons could be relocated.

It would look far more stunning if it was the entire exterior of the stadium though.

Beijing also used fireworks. Does that mean we cant?I don't think we should have some bloke run around the outside edge of the stadium. That was unique to Beijing and it was incredible. We should not copy.

I'm sure someone we'll be able to rope in a few hoodies to let off a few fireworks in the streets. It'll give them something to do. Seriously, imagine not just the Olympic Park but all the main areas of London lit up specially for the Olympics with fireworks going off at Big Ben, St Paul's etc. Perhaps the Millennium river of fire could be given another go at.

Beijing did attempt to include its city in the ceremony a bit, with the footprints going across the air. I thought that was rather good. We could do that on a far grander scale, as we don't have to worry about our citizens daring to enjoy themselves...

RobH

September 13th, 2008, 11:18 PM

RE: the pylons

http://www.london2012.com/news/media-releases/2008-05/olympic-park-powerlines-project-surges-ahead-as-cabling-stage-complete.php

Horizon911

September 14th, 2008, 12:07 AM

...thanks for that, good news.

DarJoLe

September 21st, 2008, 11:58 PM

From falling angel on flickr. The bowl seating supports are going in.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3214/2874842209_8c8c78db0c_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3120/2875665930_22ef66d1f3_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3148/2875656776_a35075626c_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/2875667784_fb9c70e84c_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3165/2875653036_f0e0df38c5_b.jpg

DarJoLe

September 23rd, 2008, 05:15 PM

Two photos of the stadium model from the Open House weekend.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3241/2882479410_2210a93416_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3003/2882480022_62d623dc62_b.jpg

DarJoLe

September 23rd, 2008, 05:16 PM

Olympic stadium rises from the dirt
(http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-olympics/article-23558982-details/Olympic%20stadium%20rises%20from%20the%20dirt/article.do?expand=true#StartComments)Ellen Widdup
23.09.08

This is the 40-acre building site that is being transformed into the Olympic stadium.

In the past three months, workers and diggers have been doing 12-hour shifts to create the foundations. Now the first curve of the terraces that will seat 80,000 spectators is beginning to take shape.

More than 145 columns, each about five metres high, have been sunk into the soil. Eight cranes tower over the site, laying large diagonal sections that have zig-zag shaped indentations.

These diagonal sections will support 12,000 horizontal blocks - each weighing 10 tonnes - into which the seats will be slotted.

The blocks have been pre-cast and will be delivered in lorries from factories in Lincolnshire and Somerset.

The Olympic Development Authority's stadium project sponsor, Ian Crockford, said: "The Stadium has been designed to be different, with the legacy ambitions driving how we construct the venue.

"The team is rising to the challenge and work is progressing on the ground at an impressive rate." The completed structure will take up an area the size of four football pitches. Construction started in May - three months earlier than originally planned - after 33 buildings were demolished.

The first stage saw the removal of 800,000 tonnes of soil - enough to fill the Royal Albert Hall nine times over. Some 1,300 cubic metres of concrete have been used to create a flat expanse that will eventually form the entrance to the stadium from street level.

A spokesman said: "The total stadium island site will cover five times the size of the Houses of Parliament.

"It will be highly sustainable, containing around 10,000 tonnes of steel - the lightest Olympic stadium to date. When it is finished it will stand 53m high - taller than Nelson's Column."

Reader Views (4)
Here's a sample of the latest views published.
If it's anything like Wembley, it will be overbudget, the seats will be the wrong colour and of course it won't be finished until 2014.
- Adam, Harrow, UK

My partner is a plumber who is trying to find work with 15 other plumbers at the Olympic stadium. When they approached the contractors they were told they had 30,000 Polish builders on their books and no British UK workers were being employed. London Olympics Yeah great.
- Jenny, Birmingham, UK

Nice to see where my hard earned is going.
If the people of Stratford had to fund this wasteful pointless event it would never have got off the ground.
Shame that.
- Steve, Marylebone

Ian Crockford of the ODA says "with the legacy ambitions driving how we construct the venue" - if a solution still hasn't been agreed on who is to use the stadium after the Games, how can anyone be sure that the design will be fit for purpose?

Also "It will be highly sustainable, containing around 10,000 tonnes of steel" - since when has steel been a sustainable commodity? Sustainability implies the use of resources that can be replaced or regenerated.
- R. Goodacre, London SW15

fitz44

September 24th, 2008, 06:03 PM

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3123360

Stands take shape at Olympic Stadium
24 September, 2008

By Sophie Griffiths

Construction of 2012 venue progresses to pouring concrete podium slab and installing terracing units

The Olympic Stadium has moved into the next phase of construction, as the 40-acre site prepares for the installation of seating terraces, and the concrete slab is poured to create the podium level.

Each of the 12,000 pre-cast concrete terracing units can weigh up to 10 tonnes, and contains 20% recycled concrete. 1,300m3 of concrete has been poured to create the podium slab which will serve as the stadium’s concourse.

Construction started on site in May this year, after 33 buildings were demolished. Over 800,000 tonnes of soil has been removed – enough to fill the Albert Hall nine times over.

The ODA’s Olympic Stadium project sponsor, Ian Crockford said: “The Olympic Stadium has been designed to be different with the legacy ambitions driving how we construct the venue.

“To create a stadium with such a temporary element will be a design and engineering first. The team is rising to the challenge and work is progressing on the ground at an impressive rate.”

Eight tower cranes now loom over the 40-acre site – an area five times the size of the Houses of Parliament.

Once completed, the stadium roof will cover an area equivalent to three and a half football pitches.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa278/fit3xl/2012_stadium1_sep_08.jpg

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa278/fit3xl/2012_stadium4_sep08.jpg

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa278/fit3xl/2012_stadium6_sep08.jpg

fitz44

September 24th, 2008, 06:04 PM

Lol just me still having this double post problem?

henry

September 24th, 2008, 07:37 PM

BBC 5 live are reporting that West Ham are once more back in the frame for this, I imagine that will have a pretty big effect on the legacy mode if it comes off. We have heard this before of course.

Horizon911

September 25th, 2008, 10:15 PM

Another part of the Beeb, London tv news, were saying the rugby club the Saracens were interested in it. But as Seb Coe is an athlete, I doubt he would want the stadium to be used for anything other than athletics.

Great pics posted. This is really taking shape now.

DarJoLe

September 25th, 2008, 10:45 PM

Whatever happens, we promised the IOC the stadium will retain its athletics track.

delores

September 25th, 2008, 11:41 PM

sorry but the logo and graphics still scream faddish 80's retro..it's SO two years ago.

Madman

September 25th, 2008, 11:55 PM

Whatever happens, we promised the IOC the stadium will retain its athletics track.

The thing i was wondering though is whether it would be possible to convert the warm up track into a new home for athletics and allow the main stadium to be converted into a football ground. I imagine it would be more sustainable (and cheaper) doing a conversion of use for a team already looking to expand and build a new small stadium, rather than reducing a massive stadium down to only 25,000.

DarJoLe

September 26th, 2008, 10:48 AM

The warm up tracks have been allocated as storage space for the Crossrail project after the Games. And after Crossrail is built will be developed into housing.

Vanguard

September 27th, 2008, 11:45 AM

Tombs

September 28th, 2008, 11:46 AM

I met an old lady in Leyton a while ago, and she said that her son was working as some kind of team leader/manager or something on the Olympics site, and that he was ALWAYS trying to recruit British workers, but just simply couldn't find enough, so they had no choice other than to recruit from Poland and central Europe. At first he wanted to only employ local/British workers, but in the end just had to face the reality of the situation that the work needed to be done by somebody.

london lad

September 28th, 2008, 12:07 PM

Can somebody add these BBC Webcams of the olympic stadium & park to the construction webcam thread.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/webcams/2012_webcam2.shtml

jimbo

September 28th, 2008, 07:15 PM

Smoggie and I did the Open House tour of the site last week (coincidently just before Jason Gardner - the chap in the red checked shirt checking out the model of the Olympic Stadium). Interesting tour - mainly piles of mud and soil cleansing plants, with the Olympic Stadium and Stratford City the only bits of note taking shape. Recommend going back next year as the build will be one year in and most of the main venues will be starting to take shape. Quite a bewildering tour around the site, but informative nonetheless.

DarJoLe

September 30th, 2008, 11:11 AM

Lord Coe: Wembley stadium was a 'cock-up'
(http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=284&storycode=3123734&c=1)30 September, 2008
By Dan Stewart

Chair of 2012 organising committee tells Tory conference that mistakes will not be repeated at Olympic Park

Lord Coe, the Olympic medal-winning athlete and chair of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, has said that the construction of Wembley Stadium was a “cock-up”.

Coe told an audience of delegates at the Conservative Party conference that the construction of the £500m stadium had gone disastrously wrong.
He said: “I don't want to bore you all for three hours on my feelings on the number of mistakes made at Wembley; suffice to say it was a cock-up from beginning to end.”

The Conservative peer added that the team building the Olympic Stadium would not repeat the mistakes made during the construction of the UK's national stadium.

DarJoLe

September 30th, 2008, 11:12 AM

Armitt: Olympic stadium will not be demolished
(http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=284&storycode=3123721&c=1)29 September, 2008
By Dan Stewart

Olympic chairman says replacing stadium to house football club in legacy would "not be sensible"

John Armitt has effectively ruled out the demolition of the Olympic Stadium after the Games finish, saying such an action "would not be sensible".

Responding to reports that HOK Sport's stadium would have to be demolished to make way for a purpose-built Premiership football club, the chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority said it would remain an athletics stadium in legacy.

Speaking during an Olympic event at the Conservative Party Conference, he said: "There is no prospect of it becoming a Premiership club unless we wanted to knock it down, and fail to keep our obligations to the International Olympics Committee."

Armitt said that discussions with Premiership clubs, thought to include West Ham United, were "effectively over." The ODA's intention, he said, was still to build a stadium with a legacy use for British athletes. He added: "The prospect of demolishing something built on such a scale would not be sensible."

Armitt also said the government would hope to reap increased revenue from the Olympic Athletes Village if it was forced to end up paying more for it than originally anticipated – but did not expect to receive it for years after the Games end.

He said: "We will be due to participate in revenue from the sales of the Village's residential units, but of course it depends on when that will be. The more we are helping to fund, the more we would hope to participate in the revenue, but it's important to understand that that might be some years after the Games end."

The ODA chairman admitted last week that the global financial crisis was affecting negotiations with developer Lend Lease on funding for the Athletes Village.

During today's event, he said: "It's a cash flow issue, fundamentally. Banks are unwilling to lend to us, as they are to everyone else. We hope to overcome these issues over the next few months and are confident we will have an agreement by Christmas."

Tony Resta

September 30th, 2008, 05:33 PM

By demolish do they mean the whole thing or just the top bit that was planned to come off after the olympics? I never heard of any proposal to demolish the stadium.

DarJoLe

September 30th, 2008, 05:46 PM

By demolish do they mean the whole thing or just the top bit that was planned to come off after the olympics?

The whole thing, seating, bowl, track and surroundings. Completely flatten the whole of stadium island and let them build something new from scratch.

The removal of the temporary 55,000 seats above the bowl level is still scheduled after the Games are over.

I never heard of any proposal to demolish the stadium.

It was at the bottom of a list of possibilities the LDA drew up, the most severe in terms of its legacy. The LDA is very unwilling under Boris's leadership to spend taxpayers money supporting an athletics stadium that will remain empty for 60% of the year.

annamaria4711

September 30th, 2008, 07:09 PM

The retail developer here has a lot of sway and they don't want to turn their retail outlet into a football mall every other saturday..personally I would agree its a shame but as always the few ruin it for the many.

What's concerning me is the investors and how they are now getting cold feet I fear we may be facing another debacle aka the Dome

DarJoLe

September 30th, 2008, 08:56 PM

I fear we may be facing another debacle aka the Dome

Why do people still see the Dome as a failure? You do realise that without the Dome project, a) we wouldn't have the o2, and b) there would still be a toxic swathe of derelict land nobody would want to touch on Canary Wharf's doorstep.

DarJoLe

September 30th, 2008, 09:47 PM

From the ODA

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2902034605_fcc58d482c_b.jpg

Republica

October 1st, 2008, 05:53 PM

Why do people still see the Dome as a failure? You do realise that without the Dome project, a) we wouldn't have the o2, and b) there would still be a toxic swathe of derelict land nobody would want to touch on Canary Wharf's doorstep.

Spot on. Yes the dome cost a lot, but for the reasons above. People see the dome as a failure because they were told it was. It probably wasnt the greatest idea in term of what they put inside it, but its not a white elephant and is an icon.

RobH

October 1st, 2008, 06:01 PM

The Dome was a much trickier proposal than the devlopment on the Olympic Park. Houses are houses and office space is office space. It won't stand empty for long.

annamaria4711

October 1st, 2008, 06:29 PM

The Dome is not a failure now...BUT it definitely failed in its original concept..why because the concept kept getting chnaged due to the daily mail and standard whinge on building 'somefink for the kids'
I agree with your reasons of its success and its design is fantastic...it does serve us as a reminder that we should not let politicians anywhere near buildings...and that goes for Tower hamlets planning officers too

Why do people still see the Dome as a failure? You do realise that without the Dome project, a) we wouldn't have the o2, and b) there would still be a toxic swathe of derelict land nobody would want to touch on Canary Wharf's doorstep.

DarJoLe

October 1st, 2008, 06:40 PM

The Dome is not a failure now...BUT it definitely failed in its original concept..why because the concept kept getting chnaged due to the daily mail and standard whinge on building 'somefink for the kids'

The Dome didn't fail, it was built on time and to budget. The Millennium Experience inside the Dome failed, yes, because no-one could pin down the concept of what it was about, got too many people involved and the exhibitions went over budget. Having said that it was the most visited attraction of that year I believe.

There's a distinct difference between the two projects and I wish people wouldn't lump them together. The problems the Millennium Experience faced will not happen with the Olympics, because everyone knows what an Aquatic Centre needs to do, what an Olympic stadium needs to do, what a velodrome needs to do, etc.

annamaria4711

October 2nd, 2008, 11:19 AM

OK I'll grant you that one.
The two projects are different as you note and I see your point with the fact that the olympics buildings already have a stated purpose.
I really really want it to work on a full, global scale and I fear meddling hands could ruin a fabulous opportunity

The Dome didn't fail, it was built on time and to budget. The Millennium Experience inside the Dome failed, yes, because no-one could pin down the concept of what it was about, got too many people involved and the exhibitions went over budget. Having said that it was the most visited attraction of that year I believe.

There's a distinct difference between the two projects and I wish people wouldn't lump them together. The problems the Millennium Experience faced will not happen with the Olympics, because everyone knows what an Aquatic Centre needs to do, what an Olympic stadium needs to do, what a velodrome needs to do, etc.

Jizzy

October 2nd, 2008, 08:46 PM

New images of the stadium at BD online (http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3121707&origin=BDbreakingnews).

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/468xAny/b/e/j/Stadium_9_WEB.jpg

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/w/g/s/London_2012_Stadium__16B2A0WEB.jpg

wow, these look great. at first i was very disappointed with the altered bowl design and not going for the futuristic organic one they displayed during the proposals, but seeing these pictures it does make up for it a little bit. i like how flashy and colourful it is, especially during the night. lets hope the real thing is like this in a few years time.

i also like how it almost looks like a crown now..even though the top bit is largely poles holding it together, it'd look wicked if they can incorporate some glass into it somehow, giving it a diamond effect..doesn't need to look like a crown though to avoid looking comic! plus, it'd help act as cover for the rain, which is sure to happen at some point during the olympics.

Danger Mouse

October 2nd, 2008, 11:54 PM

^^I'm warming to this-although I do think a digital facade, whether through LEDs or projection onto an ETFE skin, would give it a wow-factor and uniquen character. Don't know how feasible that is financially but I can hope...

DarJoLe

October 7th, 2008, 05:39 PM

Boris: Olympic Stadium won't host a top-flight football club
(http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-olympics/article-23565510-details/Boris%3A+Olympic+Stadium+won%27t+host+a+top-flight+football+club/article.do)Matthew Beard, Sports News Correspondent
07.10.08

Boris Johnson today ruled out a Premiership football club moving to the Olympic Stadium in 2013.

The Mayor said the cost of converting the 80,000-seat venue was too much to bear during the financial crisis.

He told MPs it was too late to reverse plans to reduce the stadium in Stratford to a 25,000-capacity athletics venue.

With the owners of West Ham United - the most likely top-flight club to move there - likely to be caught up in the economic turmoil in their native Iceland, his words appeared to seal the £500 million venue's fate.

In his first appearance as mayor before the Commons culture, media and sports committee, Mr Johnson said the state of the financial markets meant Games organisers were having to "cut their coat according to their cloth".

He said: "We are spending large sums of money on the stadium and we would like to see a proper legacy use to get permanent benefits. But no single deal has emerged although we have to have athletics in the mix.

"The issue is how can we make that happen while satisfying the needs of a Premiership football club. That is extremely difficult and we have not solved it yet. In theory you could do a massive excavation so both [football and athletics] could be viewed but it's extremely expensive and probably more than the budget can bear in the current economic conditions."

The mayor signalled a new era of austerity in planning for 2012: "The whole thing about the Games has changed in the sense that market conditions have changed and we have to cut our clothes to suit our cloth."

He said that economic turmoil meant he could not be bound by the rules of the International Olympic Committee or the commitments of his predecessor Ken Livingstone. Asked if he would scale down the Games, he responded: "I have a desire for the Games to succeed but I have to balance that against cost. Every argument is about how to save the taxpayer costs without jeopardising the Games.

"To be honest I am not so fussed about the strictures of the IOC. My issue is not with previous undertakings. I want a wonderful Games but one that is not too expensive." Mr Johnson also came under pressure over the athletes' village and media centre in the Olympic Park, the two venues reliant upon private sector investment.

He admitted it was "astonishing" the media centre cost £380 million, of which £160 million had been expected from developer Carillion Igloo prior to the credit crunch. He pledged to investigate ways of building a more cost-effective venue for 20,000 journalists. But he warned: "It's got to deliver a centre which is useful because otherwise they [the media] will attack the London Games as they did in Atlanta."

On the cash crisis affecting the £1 billion athletes' village, he said he would try to delay a raid on the contingency fund within the existing £9.3billion Games budget. Ministers could move to help village developer Lendlease next week, when Games chiefs are expected to request a 250million bail-out.

Horizon911

October 7th, 2008, 06:04 PM

Manuel

October 7th, 2008, 06:04 PM

OMG...he should have been accountant in a company not mayor.

Bob

October 7th, 2008, 06:18 PM

Boris should do a total break down of costs, brick by brick, man by man. These construction companies are just taking the proverbial. Other countries stadia have not cost the same as ours - excluding China.

I too would love to know why a media centre will cost £380 million. What's it made of gold and platinum?Find me a building in London for 20,000 office workers for less please. 8,000 HSBC staff sit in an office worth £1bn and all they got was measley glass and steel.

DarJoLe

October 7th, 2008, 06:24 PM

Boris should do a total break down of costs, brick by brick, man by man.

I believe he already has, and found nothing incomplete or incorrect in what the costings were. This is simply how much these things cost in this country when you have a fixed deadline and a legacy to build to.

DarJoLe

October 7th, 2008, 06:24 PM

Find me a building in London for 20,000 office workers for less please.

Indeed. People tend to forget this building is the size of One Canada Square, just laid on its side.

Jizzy

October 7th, 2008, 10:30 PM

The Mayor said the cost of converting the 80,000-seat venue was too much to bear during the financial crisis.

Does this mean they'd keep the stadium to 80k capacity post-2012? If so, that'd be a pretty good stadium to keep. Just use it for athletics or all sports, maybe live gigs too, etc. Don't reduce it to 25k! That's a teeny-weeny size of a stadium.

If they're planning on keeping the size, they might as well do soemthing about all those poles on the exterior of the stadium as the whole thing would look like a construction site even after it's done.

Any news yet about this 'video wrapping' they were thinking of putting around the stadium outside?

(still wish we'd gone for the organic futuristic one, oh well)

DarJoLe

October 7th, 2008, 10:39 PM

Does this mean they'd keep the stadium to 80k capacity post-2012?

No.

Jizzy

October 7th, 2008, 11:18 PM

Ok.

DarJoLe

October 9th, 2008, 04:50 PM

As seen on the stadium webcam:

http://www.london2012.com/plans/olympic-park/parkcams/images/medium/stadium-long.jpg

The first temporary seating stand has been moved into position.

Jizzy

October 9th, 2008, 07:26 PM

Already? Impressive. Any news yet about this 'video wrapping' idea they were thinking of doing?

Jamandell (d69)

October 9th, 2008, 08:04 PM

Holy funk! This is really shooting up! (If that is an appropriate term for a stadium)

Mo Rush

October 9th, 2008, 08:33 PM

jeez how early do they want this stadium complete..2010?

Jizzy

October 9th, 2008, 10:17 PM

If it's so easy to construct this stadium and they manage to build it by then, I think they should make an effort after to make it look better. Or, perhaps, make the capacity bigger, up to 100000 say.

I still think the stupid airheads should have gone for the original organic futuristic stadium if they can construct this one in no time.

DarJoLe

October 9th, 2008, 10:48 PM

Stupid airheads eh. Hmm.

Jizzy

October 9th, 2008, 10:50 PM

Stupid airheads eh. Hmm.

what happened to 'Fucks sake'. Edited, eh?

NothingBetterToDo

October 9th, 2008, 10:52 PM

jeez how early do they want this stadium complete..2010?

Anything to get the media off their back, but you can guarantee that even if it does finish way ahead of schedule the media will still find something to moan about...."Olympic Stadium stands empty for months, costing YOU, the taxpayer X millions" :blahblah: :|

DarJoLe

October 9th, 2008, 11:27 PM

what happened to 'Fucks sake'. Edited, eh?

Yes. I'm not the only one getting annoyed with your comments on some threads.

Jizzy

October 10th, 2008, 12:37 AM

Oh really? Who else is then? And what's so wrong with my comments and my right to speak my views?

Above all, what makes you so high and mighty? Don't patronise me, nobody is perfect.

Rachael

October 10th, 2008, 09:00 PM

Find me a building in London for 20,000 office workers for less please. 8,000 HSBC staff sit in an office worth £1bn and all they got was measley glass and steel.

and lots of grey inside.

Bloody good view in there of the construction site too.

rob_right

October 11th, 2008, 11:43 AM

I think you make good comments.

DarJoLe

October 11th, 2008, 11:59 AM

Don't let the self appointed thought police on here prevent you from expressing your views - shows how desparate many of them are to keep quiet negative opinion on what is a very underwheming effort from London2012 and is quite frankly embarassing.

It's nothing to do with 'negative opinion', more to do with ridiculous immature comments calling the Olympic organisers 'stupid airheads' and then saying that because they've managed to keep ahead of schedule building this stadium they should add another 20,000 seats to it or made an effort 'to make it look better'. First of all they can't just 'add' 20,000 seats to a stadium design that has been two years in the making, financing and organising. Secondly why on earth would they? It would throw off all their transport, ticketing and spectator movement plans, completely change the site layout and security plans and be a completely unnecessary financial addition. So why on earth do you need to say it? The undertaking would be completely pointless.

I think some people on here have their head in the clouds when it comes to the real world on these forums having no clue what goes on behind the scenes on these projects. Either that or they're just kids.

And this stadium doesn't need effort to make it look better. Architecture is not just about how much wow a structure gives off, but how it works as a place for what it is being built for- and this stadium does just that and more. The organic futuristic concept design may look wow but from the design that was shown it was a flawed and incoherent Olympic stadium design that simply wouldn't of worked as a place for athletics.

RobH

October 11th, 2008, 12:32 PM

I think you make good comments Jizzy and bring some much needed balance to the debate. Don't let the self appointed thought police on here prevent you from expressing your views - shows how desparate many of them are to keep quiet negative opinion on what is a very underwheming effort from London2012 and is quite frankly embarassing.

Rob right, you've proven yourself to be nothing more than a troll since you've been here. I hardly think you are the person to be offering advice on these forums.

marrio415

October 11th, 2008, 01:13 PM

I think you make good comments Jizzy and bring some much needed balance to the debate. Don't let the self appointed thought police on here prevent you from expressing your views - shows how desparate many of them are to keep quiet negative opinion on what is a very underwheming effort from London2012 and is quite frankly embarassing.

Good old rob right(but most definitly wrong)still mad brum can't get a major event.Dude you are a funny guy i'll give you that.You should've played the part of Private Joker in Full Metal Jacket

DarJoLe

October 12th, 2008, 08:06 PM

Dubai-Toluca

October 13th, 2008, 01:57 AM

Hi guys!!!!

Well, I live in Mexico, i have planned to go to the Olympic Games; a friend of mine told me that some travel agencies start to sell the packets for this kind of events 4 years before, actually he bought his packet to go to Beijing in 2004, so he bought it 4 years before

I was thinking that maybe some travel agencies in UK are selling now this kind of packets. Please, if you know something about it, or related with that, tell me and let me know, I really want to go. Please

Cheers

Edgar

jerseyboi

October 13th, 2008, 11:53 AM

DarJoLe ^^brilliant images of the stadium thanks!

.Adam

October 13th, 2008, 12:00 PM

Really is Amazing to see the stadium starting to take shape Already!
Those pictures give you an idea of the scale of the stadium.. looks impressive!

jerseyboi

October 13th, 2008, 12:19 PM

Fabricator Watson Steel has this week been delivering the steelwork from its factory in Bolton to the London 2012 site in Stratford with a view to beginning erection before the end of the week.

The steel will largely be used for the temporary element of the structure, which will seat 80,000 during the Games before its roof and top tier of seating is dismantled to leave a 25,000-seat concrete bowl venue post-Olympics.

The permanent lower tier of seating will be precast concrete rakers with precast concrete terrace units, while the temporary upper tier seating will be supported by steel rakers, also with precast concrete terrace units. Byrne Bros is the concrete frame subcontractor and Tarmac is the terrace unit subcontractor.

Team Stadium - the consortium responsible for designing and building the stadium and comprising main contractor Sir Robert McAlpine, structural engineer Buro Happold, architect HOK, landscape architect HED and planning consultant Savills Hepher Dixon - is working closely with Watson Steel to ensure the steel is light and easily demountable.

A pre-cast concrete batching plant has been set up on the south part of the Olympic Stadium site to cast the 200 rakers that will support the seating units for the lower 25,000 permanent seats and the driving of 4,000 piles is complete. Over 100 columns, each 5m tall, have been built to provide the support for the podium of the Stadium's west and south stands and eight tower cranes, each between 48m and 60m high, have been erected in the Stadium bowl for the concrete work and steel and roof erection.

metroranger

October 13th, 2008, 12:23 PM

The temporary stand is actually quite huge.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3180/2935384766_ea2af1eaf7_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3064/2935355906_62f33d5465_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3014/2935328084_17a93e0ed5_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3171/2935401788_915bcacd75_b.jpg

Great pics DarJoLe, didn't have my camera this weekend.
Did you get any of the power lines coming down, the tunnel lines must be active now. Not much longer for the pylons.
I also spotted a tower crane being erected on the Aquatics Center site.
I'll try and get some today.

DarJoLe

October 16th, 2008, 11:42 AM

Official news has been published about the stands going up. Incredible to think how far this has come in the last year.

Steel framework goes up at Olympic stadium
(http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=284&storycode=3125150&c=1)16 October, 2008
By Muireann Bolger

Cranes hoist into place 35 tonnes of steel terracing for south stand this week

The steel structure to support the upper tiers of the south stand of the Olympic Stadium are being lifted into position by crane this week.

http://www.building.co.uk/Pictures/436xAny/b/n/e/2012_olympic_stadium_oct08_5.jpg

The steel terracing supports weigh 35 tonnes and will support 55,000 seats.

Last month, work began on 12,000 concrete terracing units, which will hold 25,000 seats in the lower bowl of the stadium

By the end of the year, the podium slab around the west and south stands will join up with the raised ground level on the north and east stands, creating a concourse around the entire stadium.

John Armitt, chair of the Olympic Delivery Authority, said: “We are not complacent about the challenges we will face in this complex project over the coming months and years, but we have made a strong start, thanks to the hard work of the team on the ground.”

http://www.building.co.uk/Pictures/web/a/p/y/2012_olympic_stadium_oct08_3.jpg

http://www.building.co.uk/Pictures/web/g/v/k/2012_olympic_stadium_oct08_7.jpg

http://www.building.co.uk/Pictures/web/f/a/q/2012_olympic_stadium_oct08_4.jpg

http://www.building.co.uk/Pictures/web/v/d/k/2012_olympic_stadium_oct08_1.jpg

http://www.building.co.uk/Pictures/web/r/m/i/2012_olympic_stadium_oct08_2.jpg

gorgu

October 16th, 2008, 11:55 AM

Holy shit they are throwing that up

DarJoLe

October 16th, 2008, 11:59 AM

News reports are saying that they expect to be "fitting the roof by this time next year". I think though when they say roof they mean the white steel ring structure rather than the fabric.

Completion by 2011 looks to be very much on track. Having test events over the year will allow for several ceremony run throughs, live testing of camera angles and generally a lot more 'on ground' preparation for events than other host cities.

Adam2707

October 16th, 2008, 02:46 PM

Official Olympic Stadium tour as steel seating is installed

cRWuIlpwVeU

TallBox

October 18th, 2008, 02:22 PM

This is racing ahead! Well done London!!

mulattokid

October 19th, 2008, 01:45 PM

Assa

October 20th, 2008, 09:47 PM

As far as I know, tehre are no tickets availabel yet, bukeep checking these threads as I am sure it will be announced here.

Tickets for the events go on sale in 2011 but I'm sure plenty of tour operators will have packages for overseas tourists available already.

Will Mann

October 27th, 2008, 06:23 PM

Official Olympic Stadium tour as steel seating is installed

cRWuIlpwVeU

What is a project sponsor?

Why can't they use a normal job title like project manager.

Bob

October 28th, 2008, 03:44 PM

A project sponsor is the person that has overal accountability for a project being a success. The project sponsor appoints a project manager. The project manager does the day to day planning, issuing of work packages, monitoriing etc. etc.. If your interested (and you'd be insane to be!) look up project management methodology such as PRINCE2 (which incidentally calls the sponsor an executive, just to add confusion).

Will Mann

October 29th, 2008, 03:42 PM

jerseyboi

October 30th, 2008, 09:42 PM

Olympics boss Jacques Rogge has told the BBC that London 2012's main stadium does not need an athletics legacy.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) chief said the main concern for London 2012's organisers should be to avoid leaving behind "white elephants".

"If the best solution is to transform the track into something else then we would be in favour of that," he said.

This would seem to mark a shift in IOC policy and open the door for a football club moving to the Stratford venue.

"We had the same situation in Atlanta where the Olympic Stadium was changed into a baseball stadium, which kept an interest for sport," added Rogge, who also confirmed he would be standing for a second term as IOC president next year.

"We don't have problems with that. I don't want to enter into specifics but we don't want to leave white elephants."

We have always said we want the stadium to be a multi-sport venue for elite and community use, with athletics an important part of that mix

London 2012 statement
It had previously been believed the Lausanne-based organisation wanted London 2012's organising committee (Locog) to keep its bid promise about having athletics at the heart of its post-Games plans for the stadium.

But concerns about the implications of such a promise have grown since 2005 and negotiations with potential "anchor tenants" - professional teams who would make the venue financially viable - have failed to find a solution.

Talks with a number of different London-based football and rugby clubs have been dragging on for some time and the BBC understands the issue of keeping an athletics presence at the stadium is the main sticking point.

Spurs were one of the clubs frequently suggested as a potential tenant but the Premier League outfit's interest in a move east petered out long before they announced their intention to build a new ground next to their existing home.

The depth of opposition from football clubs to having an athletics track at the stadium presents a major headache for London 2012's organisers, specifically the London Development Agency, which takes control of the Olympic site the moment the Paralympics finish.

John Armitt, the chairman of Olympic Development Agency (ODA), the body responsible for building the Games, has already admitted it is very unlikely a Premier League club will move to the stadium.

Rogge is correct - why should the IOC stipulate the stadium must have an athletics legacy?

The contrast between the situation following the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester could not be more marked. Then, Manchester City were lined up as tenants right from the outset and the running track was removed immediately after the Games.

City moved to the Eastlands site on a 250-year lease in 2003 and are now believed to be interested in buying the ground outright from Manchester City Council.

Armitt maintains a Football League or rugby team (with union team Saracens or a new Super League franchise being the usual suspects) could use the venue as long as it kept its athletics track.

"We had a legacy commitment to ensure the stadium was to be used for athletes and athletics," Armitt told BBC Sport.

"You then have to say, is it possible to mix a Premier League club with an athletics stadium? That's not easy. I think the likelihood of those two things coming together was always slim because we have this commitment to athletics.

"The plan is to reduce it in scale from an 80,000 to a 25,000-seat stadium. That's how it is being designed, that's how it is being built.

"If you wanted to use it for a Premier League club you would have to completely redesign it and I think we have gone past that point."

Rogge on London 2012's plans to reduce costs and secure a tenant for the stadium
League One side Leyton Orient, the closest professional sports team to the site, are known to be in talks with London 2012 but their chairman Barry Hearn told BBC London last month they too were unhappy with the athletics legacy commitment.

"Leyton Orient will not be going to the Olympic Stadium that has got an athletics track around the middle," said Hearn.

Rogge's comments will please London Mayor Boris Johnson, who has voiced concerns about the long-term viability of the 2012 venues, but disappoint Locog chairman Sebastian Coe and UK Athletics (UKA), who both wanted the Stratford site to become a focal point for British athletics.

Lord Coe has previously said the £525m complex would be a "stadium with track and field as its primary legacy".

And UKA, the sport's national governing body, is keen to stage leading international events at the venue and use it as a community athletics centre that could also stage national meets.

A Locog spokesperson told BBC Sport it agreed with Rogge's concerns about viability and avoiding "white elephants".

"We have always said we want the stadium to be a multi-sport venue for elite and community use, with athletics an important part of that mix, and that's what everyone is working towards," they said.

"We have never said the stadium would be used solely for athletics in legacy."

Building work on the 2012 site's centrepiece is ahead of schedule
The 66-year-old Rogge, who has led the Olympic movement since 2001, is expected to be unopposed for a four-year term when the IOC holds its next congress in Copenhagen next October.

Speaking at a press conference in Brussels, the Belgian told reporters he is determined to build on the progress the organisation has made in recent years, particularly in the areas of tackling doping and promoting youth participation in sport.

He also said the IOC's finances were in good order despite the gloomy state of the global economy and dismissed fears about the downsizing of London's Olympic Village.

Rogge said the "quality of the Village was a bottom line for the success of a Games" but was confident media reports of athletes being crammed three-to-a-room were wide of the mark.

He joked it was "six to a room in Mexico City and Montreal", pointed out the key factor was the ratio between people and floor space and concluded by saying he was certain Sebastian Coe ("who used to be an athlete himself") would meet the accommodation specifications laid out in London's Olympic contract.

DarJoLe

October 30th, 2008, 10:22 PM

Bit bloody late now!

Horizon911

October 31st, 2008, 12:37 AM

....indeed. This was just mentioned on the local BBC news too.

I guess its getting to a point that as long as the stadium is used for something, anything post 2012, that is better than nothing at all.

Just goes to show how these things are never thought of properly before hand.

RobH

October 31st, 2008, 12:40 PM

I'm not sure that's entirely true Horizon.

Ken Livingstone, as a left-wing, high-tax, big-spending mayor was willing to significantly subsidise the stadium post-games for the community's benifit. Since Boris Johnson has been elected he's been making noises to suggest he's not willing to do that.

I think the change of mayor - and a swing from one of the most left-wing characters in British politics to one of the most conservative - could be behind a lot of this.

I'm only speculating of course. But if I'm right, isn't it ironic that Tory peer Seb Coe could have his athletics legacy destroyed by his own party when it would have flourished under a more left-wing mayor?

Sheppard Fidler

October 31st, 2008, 02:27 PM

HOK's blog has started putting updates as well on what has been going on down at the Stratford site. They seem to be flying along now, it is really starting to take shape!

http://www.architectureforthemasses.com/?p=198#more-198

Bob

October 31st, 2008, 02:38 PM

Jees if a city the size of London can't even find the cash to manage a running track! It's tarmac with a few seats around it for fecks sake. How embarassing that would be? This would not be a lack of left wing politics it would be pure spite by the right wing against the general public. It's not the cost of managing it. Someone half decent to make a profit out of it. It's that they want to sell it to make money and shift the chance of failing away from themselves.

RobH

October 31st, 2008, 03:05 PM

I tend to agree Bob.

Assa

October 31st, 2008, 03:18 PM

Mo Rush

October 31st, 2008, 03:26 PM

Bob

October 31st, 2008, 07:04 PM

Currently Crystal Palace Stadium manages to hold a couple of concerts a year, Disney on Ice was there a while back, so were Cold Play despite the fact there are other venues.

It also holds pay-for sports events, notably the London Althletics Grand Prix. American football has been played there.

It is home to dozens of sports clubs which pay for access. Amateur's pay to train there too. Sports events such as the Nike 100m trials were based there. Nike paid for access.

Sports injury, physio therapy a gym and a junior gym generate money and are based under a stand.

A few commercial units are also rented out which are also under a stand.

I think a lot more could be made of it too but it has restrictions which the Olympic stadium does not such as lack of hotels, lack of local high commerce, no local universities.

The Olympic stadium should be linked with the sports science department of a local university.

It could hold corporate events.

It could be linked with a few local schools. If a private school such as Dulwich College can have it's own running track, why couldn't 2 or 3 local comps (acadamies) chip in / be an associate of the Olympic Stadium.

It's not that it wont make money, it's just some think more could be made doing something else. All I'm asking for is acepting a lower profit so we have something a bit more noble or lets say moraly sound rather than yet another over commercial sports business.

If it's sold and the track is retained then fine, but that is not what it being suggested.

RobH

October 31st, 2008, 07:43 PM

:applause::applause::applause:

Completely agree with all of that.

jerseyboi

November 23rd, 2008, 11:39 AM

spoonsbeatfish

November 24th, 2008, 03:19 AM

London is virtually unique in that it has not just one or two but four stadia with capacity over 40K with quite probably a fifth by 2012 quite apart from the Olympic stadium. The only differentiator is the athletics use... only Wembley has been designed to accomodate a running track but there is a cost for converting it each time. This means that the usual 'other' uses for a large stadium such as concerts or field sports are not in the equation for the Olympic stadium. Even at reduced capacity it will sit unused for the majority of the time and will require major subsidisation to keep. It's not just about the track.. the whole structure and local environs will require maintenance and it will cost a fair bit for little return. Therefore they do need a tennant who can use the stadium alongside the athletics use i.e. a rugby club.

Hey sorry if this has been explained already I haven't read through all the threads but if Wembley can be converted to house a running track, why not just convert Wembley for the Olympics convert it back and then if necessary build a 25,000 capacity stadium then rather than build a much larger stadium and then take most of it down?

Surely that would be cheaper and Wembley would also provide a larger stadium than this one. I'm guessing this has been looked at and discarded for some valid reason, can someone please tell me what this is?

Also, when the stadium is reduced in size, what is happening with the bits to be recycled? Will that be bringing in much money or has that already been taken into account or will it not be bringing in much, and its only the savings in maintenance?

Gherkin

November 24th, 2008, 03:22 AM

Because Wembley has crap transport links and would have less than 70,000 seats once a running track has been fitted. You're basically covering up the first tier of Wembley (which is huge) in athletics facilites... It's convenient that the Olympic Stadium is going to be near all the other Olympic facilities too.

spoonsbeatfish

November 24th, 2008, 03:47 AM

DarJoLe

November 24th, 2008, 11:09 AM

I'm guessing this has been looked at and discarded for some valid reason, can someone please tell me what this is?

Security problems of transporting the athletes between the village in East London and the opening and closing ceremonies at Wembley, a lack of leaving London with an athletics legacy, woefully under-capacity and long transport links to Central London, lack of tangible benefits or regeneration for local community after games have gone.

Mo Rush

November 24th, 2008, 12:10 PM

Rod Sheard, would prefer the wrap to take the form of a continuous video screen, although no costing for this has been given

Taken from Wikipedia

Would be good to have video screens as part of the stadium plan.

PLEASE SOMEONE CONTACT HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

just use a cheap fabric and get huge projectors.
buy it outside of EU though, and you will prob get a good price, unlike the cost you guys are paying for structures that cost half everywhere else.

DarJoLe

November 24th, 2008, 01:33 PM

No football club in 2012 stadium, says shops developer
(http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23591294-details/No+football+club+in+2012+stadium%2C+says+shops+developer/article.do)Matthew Beard, Sports News Correspondent
24.11.08

THE owners of the Stratford City shopping centre next to the Olympic Park are opposed to the main stadium becoming home to a Premier League football team, according to sources.

They have said that Westfield, the developer of the £1.4billion retail complex, considers a top-flight team moving in after the Games would be bad for business.

Stratford City is adjacent to the Olympic Park and up to 60,000 fans would pass through the shopping centre en route to the stadium from Stratford Regional station.

The prospect of the main stadium being home to a football club as part of the Games legacy was raised again last month when Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, said an athletics track could make way for a dedicated football stadium to stop the site becoming a white elephant.

West Ham had a bid for the stadium rejected two years ago but remain the most likely club to become a tenant. Mr Rogge is in London today to give a lecture at the beginning of a week-long debriefing from the organisers of the Beijing Games.

Stratford City will be home to flagship stores from John Lewis, Waitrose and Marks&Spencer and these leading retailers are thought to oppose having football as a neighbour. A Westfield spokesman said: "Our understanding is that the ODA [Olympic Delivery Authority] is reducing the stadium to 25,000 and they have not much encouraged it [a Premier League football club].

"I don't think we have made a public view on it although we are keen observers. I am sure it is something our planners would want to have a look at." The ODA is building an 80,000-capacity stadium that will shrink to a mixed use 25,000-seat venue after the Games.

Olympics chiefs are committed to an athletics track and have been in talks with rugby clubs and championship football team Leyton Orient about moving in after the Games.