LONDON | 2012 Olympics Park Development News

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Avens

I don't know if that's the right attitude. "London doesn't have to prove anything". I mean it doesn't, but we wanted the olympics so we could put on a show and take the responsibility to make it as awesome as possible.

Er, no we didn't. London bid for the Games to regenerate a polluted corridor of east London, increase youth participation in sport throughout the UK and the world, and to leave a legacy of new 21st century sporting facilities that the local population can afford to look after and use.

Nowhere was it mentioned we were bidding for the Games simply to 'make London's the best'.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by somataki

Can u name more than 1-2 stadia from a total of 20 which are not in use after the games??????

They might be in use, but there are rarely full except for a few events a year, and I expect a lot of them cost a hell of lot to maintain.

London doesn't need another 80,000 stadium. What it does need is a smaller more compact stadium that can be used many times throughout the year by the local people and can be maintained to a high standard by the local council, one of the most poverished in the UK. That's why after the Games the stadium is downsized to 25,000 and will become a dedicated athletics centre.

Seeing as it is being downsized mere weeks after the Games are over, it is not worth wasting money on an overt whistles and bells 80,000 seater stadium by an 'iconic' architect, when that money can be better spent on the legacy of the Olympic Park itself, or better seating for the permanent portion of the stadium. And anyway, the stadium is being designed with athletics in mind, as well as atmosphere inside the bowl during the Games. London's stadium will see so many world records broken because it's being designed to make it as easy as possible for that to happen; for example they've made sure (unlike Athens) that no wind can get into the centre of the stadium and cause drag on the runners.

It's not about showing off, it's about practicality, and making sure the local people can afford the upkeep of the Olympic venues after the games have gone.

[Avens]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

Er, no we didn't. London bid for the Games to regenerate a polluted corridor of east London, increase youth participation in sport throughout the UK and the world, and to leave a legacy of new 21st century sporting facilities that the local population can afford to look after and use.

Nowhere was it mentioned we were bidding for the Games simply to 'make London's the best'.

Alright, but it was given to us because people had faith that we would make it so. If we don't make it a great show then OK we'll still have the regeneration but we'd have let down the rest of the world and missed an opportunity to show off a little. Something we don't do enough IMO.

If it is purely to regenerate the area, then why not apply for the Olympics to be held in the areas in Wales or the North East that need help more than East London?

What's wrong with getting a little patriotic for a change?

[somataki]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

They might be in use, but there are rarely full except for a few events a year, and I expect a lot of them cost a hell of lot to maintain.

I dont know any olympic venue in Barcelona or Sydney which was daily in use after the games.

The cost of Athens games is another story, called "Terrorism-hysteria".

By the way, I expected a better Olympic Stadium in London. Olympic stadia use to be symbols for every city, in some way indicate the history of each city. It would be preferable for me, to make some modifications to the new Wembley (an absolut amazing stadium), in order to host the athletics and the ceremonies, than to built a boring stadium, which will dissapear after the games.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Avens

If it is purely to regenerate the area, then why not apply for the Olympics to be held in the areas in Wales or the North East that need help more than East London?

Because the IOC said London was the only city in the UK capable of hosting an Olympics. Birmingham bid twice and Manchester once and won none, mainly because the IOC never took them seriously as bids.

Plus the area the Olympic Park is in borders three London boroughs that are in the top five most impoverished of the UK.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by somataki

By the way, I expected a better Olympic Stadium in London. Olympic stadia use to be symbols for every city, in some way indicate the history of each city. It would be preferable for me, to make some modifications to the new Wembley (an absolut amazing stadium), in order to host the athletics and the ceremonies, than to built a boring stadium, which will dissapear after the games.

So you're saying London should just build an 80,000 iconic stadium which it doesn't need just for two weeks of Olympic Games? What happens after the Games? Do you just 'expect' the locals to pay for its upkeep and it's emptiness for 99% of the year?

And if you think a London games is not going to be as amazing as all the rest because the stadium isn't an architectural wonder then you are mad. London has enough symbols and is hosting enough events in iconic venues (more than Beijing, actually) that the games will be spectacular.

Wembley isn't viable as an Olympic stadium because it is too much hassle to transport the athletes from the Olympic village in Stratford all the way over to West London. Plus it doesn't leave an athletic legacy in east London which is the point of having an Olympics in east London.

[somataki]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

So you're saying London should just build an 80,000 iconic stadium which it doesn't need just for two weeks of Olympic Games? What happens after the Games? Do you just 'expect' the locals to pay for its upkeep and it's emptiness for 99% of the year?

And if you think a London games is not going to be as amazing as all the rest because the stadium isn't an architectural wonder then you are mad. London has enough symbols and is hosting enough events in iconic venues (more than Beijing, actually) that the games will be spectacular.

Wembley isn't viable as an Olympic stadium because it is too much hassle to transport the athletes from the Olympic village in Stratford all the way over to West London. Plus it doesn't leave an athletic legacy in east London which is the point of having an Olympics in east London.

No, I am sure that London will organize an amazing olympics.
I think that London needs to give to the games a new icon, not in order to make city better, but to give its id to the Olympics, as Athens did and Beijing will do.

Athens olympic stadium actually had no need of a roof, or -better- no need of a calatrava roof. This stadium, roofless,hosted succesfully an IAAF world championship at 90's, and noone complained. The same could have been done in olympics, without a roof (Olympic stadium was roofless in candidacy after all) At least, Athens could have constructed a roof for the stadium with cost only 1/10 of the cost of the calatrava roof. But Athens spent money not only to make the stadium iconic, but to also give a symbol for its Olympics.

All i want to say is that London will host a great games, no matter of how the olympic stadium looks like. BUT, Greeks accepted to pay huge amounts just to give a stigma to their games. Why not Londoneers as well? just think how easier is to do so for a country like UK, comparing with the poorer Greece.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by somataki

I think that London needs to give to the games a new icon, not in order to make city better, but to give its id to the Olympics, as Athens did and Beijing will do.

It does - the Aquatic Centre, which is staying as it is after the Games. But it will be giving to the Olympics more than architecture - it will be galvanising the youth of the world, and securing the Olympics future in the 21st century.

Originally Posted by somataki

BUT, Greeks accepted to pay huge amounts just to give a stigma to their games. Why not Londoneers as well.

Because the UK is pretty much secure in itself not to worry about people thinking any less of them because they haven't got a wavy piece of architecture over its Olympic stadium. Who cares anyway? No-one is going to be watching the stadium but what goes on inside it - the actual events themselves. The Olympics has never been about iconic architecture, and yet in the last decade or so (or mainly since Athens) people now consider the architecture of the main stadium more important than the actual records broken or the needs of the athletes competing inside them. Which is totally the wrong way to be thinking about the Olympic Games and what they are trying to achieve. London's games won't be as in your face or flashy as Beijing's, and thank god for that. London's Games will be understated, humble and much more in tune with the original Olympic roots and ideals.

[Sexas]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

It does - the Aquatic Centre, which is staying as it is after the Games. But it will be giving to the Olympics more than architecture - it will be galvanising the youth of the world, and securing the Olympics future in the 21st century.



Because the UK is pretty much secure in itself not to worry about people thinking any less of them because they haven't got a wavy piece of architecture over its Olympic stadium. Who cares anyway? No-one is going to be watching the stadium but what goes on inside it - the actual events themselves. The Olympics has never been about iconic architecture, and yet in the last decade or so (or mainly since Athens) people now consider the architecture of the main stadium more important than the actual records broken or the needs of the athletes competing inside them. Which is totally the wrong way to be thinking about the Olympic Games and what they are trying to achieve. London's games won't be as in your face or flashy as Beijing's, and thank god for that. London's Games will be understated, humble and much more in tune with the original Olympic roots and ideals.

Please don't act you know everything.

At Ancient Olympics:
Myths say Heracles was the creator of the Olympic Games, and built the Olympic stadium and surrounding buildings as an honor to his father Zeus, another word it is a monument to his father.

Fast forward to Modern Olympic:
The very first modern Olympic Games way back in 1896, the Greek government had been unable to fund construction of a stadium, a wealthy Greek architect, Georgios Averoff, donated one million drachmas to restore the Panathenaic Stadium. Because his understand it is a monument to the God.

Olympic is a time to celebrate humanity, do the best you can do. It is what the Olympic motto stand for: Citius, Altius, Fortius (Faster, Higher, Stronger). It stand for do it better that the last one, it is nothing humble about the original Olympic.

[savas]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

London's Games will be understated, humble and much more in tune with the original Olympic roots and ideals.

... then the London 2012 Logo was a great start!! sorry for that be it had to be

As about how humble the London Olympics will be... ( i dont know why you think those Games wil be so humble): is there something more humble and in tune with the original roots then to stage the olympics in their home country? is there something more symbolic of olympism then the Athens 2004 Logo? Something more humble then to compete in Ancient Olympia and at the original Marathon Root? Something more human-interlinking as the first global torch relay ever? An Opening Ceremony that starts with a heartbeat and ends with an olympic cauldron which moves down to the athlete to get lit as a symbol of respect to athletism and humanity?

Patriotism doesnt excludes decency, pride doesnt excludes humbleness, Olympism doesnt excludes the creation of great architecture.

As for Athens being mainly the first to concider architecture more important then the actual records broken or the needs of the athletes competing inside them:

That shows that you are very young or dont know much about the Olympic Games of the past. Munich and Montreal build 3 decades before iconic Olympic Stadiums for the Games. As for the needs of tzhe Athletes competing inside of them; for this one there are the International Federations which approve the venues. In Athens all Federations were excited about the venues, the proof: we had 54 new world records in Athens.

As for the London Olympics: i am very excited about them. i already volunteered, the Olympic Park will be wonderfull. Even if i hate the Logo (a disgrace in my opinion), even if i dont like the fact that the Olympic Stadium has a "circus tent" charakter i am looking forward to those games.

[Flogging Molly]

Darjole you make to many excuses. Its shite. admit it.

[abskess]

Yaaahhhhhhhhoooo!!

I'll be there in time for the Olympics

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Flogging Molly

Darjole you make to many excuses. Its shite. admit it.

Come back to me in 2013 after the Games when it's hosted the best olympics ever and turned quickly and efficiently into its legacy mode and say that.

And the only reason I defend its design is because people seem to be too stupid to understand the reason it is designed the way it is.

[sam-whit-kid]

r u freekin kiddin me with the new design. its effin appauling. to be honest i would rather paris host the olypics because frankly the already compleded stade de france is better than this expensive heap of shite. people watching this years olympics will think

"wow look at that stadium, next years will be even better aswell! cant imagine it..."

you only need to say to them

"dont bother using your imagination you'll only be let down''

its just so dissapointing. And the whole dismantling it and giving bits to the people who attended. thats the worst thing about this...people will feel privelaged to keep a piece of it to remember forever.

ugh it makes me sick!

[somataki]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

It's not about showing off, it's about practicality, and making sure the local people can afford the upkeep of the Olympic venues after the games have gone.

So why London had bid with an absolut spectacular olympic stadium design? I believe that one of the main reasons that London was the choice of 2012, was the iconic olympic stadium, unlike the so booooooring stade de France of paris. But then when the new design was presented, almost everybody all over the world, was dissapointed.

[BenL]

That's simply not true. The vision of the Olympic Park shown to the IOC in 2005 was nothing more than a rough idea of what a park could look like in London. There hadn't even been a competition for the venues then. Everyone voting knew that.

[ranny fash]

look. london doesn't need another massive iconic stadium. if one was built solely for the olympics it would be an appalling waste of time, effort, and money. the one proposed will be more than adequate. besides, what about the spectacular olympic park surroundings? it will be an incredible experience and atmosphere to be there in 2012. doesn't the rest of the site count? the whole package, including the regeneration of a run down area, is more important than the stadium's exterior design. sort yourselves out, people! the olympics is an event, not a stadium.

perhaps also this is what make the 2012 olympics different from other olympics - less flashiness, more of a pragmatic approach - but still the same human spirit and togetherness that is the olympics. maybe every olympics event should strive to be as suited to the needs of the host city as possible? make each one a bit more unique maybe.

[El_Greco]

Why do you even bother DarJole?This thread is full of angry 13yos and its pointless debating with them.

[Bandit]

Looks like karma is biting someone in the buttocks.

The irony seeing some of the usual suspects that go trolling in other threads getting the same crap they dish out here.

[Avens]

I'm not disappointed with the stadium design, and the olympic park in general looks great. All I'm saying is that it would be great if we, as a country, could be a little more patriotic every now and again. We're a fantastic country and London is a fantastic city, so why can't we use the olympics as a chance to show off a little bit? We never do normally!