LONDON | 2012 Olympics Park Development News

[Avatar]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

The UK and London doesn't need to show off - everyone all over the globe knows what London is like. It doesn't need to prove anything.

The stadium is designed the way it is because the outer sections of it will be taken apart after the Games, because London doesn't need another 80,000 spectator stadium. London will be the first Olympics where there will be no white elephants after the Games have left London.

What makes you think Sydney has 'white elephants'? The venues are used for all matter of events. These venues are making money so hardly the white elephants you suggest. London will not be the first.

Sydney did develop some temporary structures as is being suggested in the London plan, this can help minimise the white elephant syndrome.

[city_thing]

The only real "white elephant" that I can think of in Sydney is the airport rail link. And that's largely because a private firm constructed it, and now charge an astronomical amount for using it. The stadium is used quite often though, as is the Aquatic centre. Maybe the velodrome and shooting range aren't, I'm not sure, you never really hear about them these days.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

Not really. Sydney, Athens and Beijing were all trying to push themselves further onto the world stage through their Olympic Games. Athens built iconic stadia but now have the problem of them being white elephants. Beijing are building permanent iconic venues because China is using the Olympics as a 'coming out' process to be the new superpower and needs these venues. London is pioneering legacy and building venues for their use after the Games and not during, that's why the aquatic centre and stadium have temporary seats during the Games.

London isn't building an 'iconic' stadium because it's not using its Olympics to push itself on the world stage - it's already there. Also the stadium won't exist as a 80,000 seater after the Games so isn't wasting money on building something flamboyant that is only there for a few weeks.

As has been said before (and which so many people seem to be unable to understand) is that the London Games are not going to be anything to do with patriotism, London or Britain in an overt way, but more returning the Olympic movement to its understated humble beginnings, and not the architectural nationalistic-hijacking that it has become in the last twenty years or so. This games is all about the youth from all over the world and getting them interested in the Olympic movement, which is why the logo and the 2012 brand is the way it is, and why there will be so many kids in the Beijing handover ceremony and at the opening ceremony. London is re-inventing what an Olympic Games is all about.

This is very accurate. Athens and Beijing were cultural powerhouses at one point in time but had, by and then for the better part of the modern era, descended into provincial backwater status in parallel to the countries they represent. Both cities -- especially Beijing -- were awarded the games as a way to announce the transformation that has taken place over the last quarter century. As such, pomp and flourish are essential in promoting the national agenda, the success or failure of which, though hinging on the Games themselves, tends to overshadow their original purpose: celebrating individualism in the context of goodwill and good-natured competition. After Athens, the media focused on how Greece surprised everyone with such a good show. This fall, if everything goes according to plan, it will be how advanced and developed China is.

As far as re-inventing what the Olympics are all about, I'm not so sure. It seems like the Olympic Committee will be favoring other nations on the model of Greece and China in the future, "rewarding" those that have similarly transformed. Rio, Doha and Baku have all garnered significant attention, and Delhi, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur have expressed great interest in hosting the Games in the future.

[somataki]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

This is very accurate. Athens and Beijing were cultural powerhouses at one point in time but had, by and then for the better part of the modern era, descended into provincial backwater status in parallel to the countries they represent. Both cities -- especially Beijing -- were awarded the games as a way to announce the transformation that has taken place over the last quarter century. As such, pomp and flourish are essential in promoting the national agenda, the success or failure of which, though hinging on the Games themselves, tends to overshadow their original purpose: celebrating individualism in the context of goodwill and good-natured competition. After Athens, the media focused on how Greece surprised everyone with such a good show. This fall, if everything goes according to plan, it will be how advanced and developed China is.

As far as re-inventing what the Olympics are all about, I'm not so sure. It seems like the Olympic Committee will be favoring other nations on the model of Greece and China in the future, "rewarding" those that have similarly transformed. Rio, Doha and Baku have all garnered significant attention, and Delhi, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur have expressed great interest in hosting the Games in the future.

I think that Athens, London and Beijing won the bid of the games because they had the best candidacies. Buenos Aires and Cape Town, for example, had bid also for 2004. It would be a good opportunity for IOC to give the games to these cities, just to proove how advanced and developped they are, but I dont think that this is the matter of the games. If u want my opinion, Athens won the bid race not only because had the best candidacy (between Rome, Cape Town etc etc) but also because the IOC owed it to Athens, after the 1996 fiasco of Flatlanta. Beijing also won because had the best bid among the others, but this will not change the fact that the human rights in China are in a medieval condition.

[Sexas]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

especially Beijing -- were awarded the games as a way to announce the transformation that has taken place over the last quarter century. As such, pomp and flourish are essential in promoting the national agenda, the success or failure of which, though hinging on the Games themselves...

I don't agree with you there. Showing off the transformation of a nation and city is part of the benefit it come with hosting the game. But even Beijing fail to host a good game....do we think China and Beijing isn't a power-house and world class city anymore.... Same go for London Olympic. London is London - even it fail to host a good Olympic game, nobody will think anything less about London. Do you think the world will using double standard look at UK and China?

My point is: The outcome of this game sure won't change London on anyway, but Londoner can take this opportunity to show the best of London to the world, somebody in Malawi or middle of Dakota may never see. Do London and UK really care that few million pounds more just for better show and better building, it isn't too late to call Lord Forest for some help??

[Mo Rush]

Originally Posted by Avatar

What makes you think Sydney has 'white elephants'? The venues are used for all matter of events. These venues are making money so hardly the white elephants you suggest. London will not be the first.

Sydney did develop some temporary structures as is being suggested in the London plan, this can help minimise the white elephant syndrome.

Sydney does have some of its minor venues facing issues wrt to its use. BUT apart from an equestrian stadium or a rowing course..the games in sydney still remain IMO the best ever, in a a balance between venues, organization and other factors.

wrt to the olympic stadium concept in the 2005 bid for london 2012. it was just that..a CONCEPT..like the fencing arena and velodrome and temporary halls..they were all just concepts and not designs.

[Mo Rush]

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??????

www.olympicproperties.gr

[Alphaville]

The bid proposals for Olympic Stadiums often never come to light - - and are subject to change.

The original Stadium Australia plan during the Sydney 2000 bid campaign from 1991-1993:


It looks more like the Athens Olympic stadium.


What was actually built for the 2000 Olympics:


And what it looks like now:

[Gutovsky]

It looks simply like a more "economical" version of the same stadium, more realistic. The temporary seats, after removed, gave place to the rest of the covering, which is probably better for the after-use.
England has major sports venues because it participates in almost all of the categories: rugby, football (soccer), tennis, and so on. I don't think an Olympic Stadium ever becomes a white elephant; it could host a sports team of its own, as long as they can draw massive ammounts of people to their games. Also, London could profit from temporary (or even "mobile") structures, such as Sydney's.
Anyhow, the new design may not seem as state-of-the-art as the first, but imagine that stadium for 80K people! Must be a truely amazing sight!
As a comparison: Barcelona's Olympic Stadium is still there, and the park surrounding it is one of the city's main tour spots. I think London will do fine with whatever it does.

[somataki]

Originally Posted by Mo Rush

www.olympicproperties.gr

As you see in the link u posted the sport venues are already in use and some of them are going to change their use in the near future.

[Mo Rush]

Originally Posted by somataki

As you see in the link u posted the sport venues are already in use and some of them are going to change their use in the near future.

My point was that Athens did face a significant challenge with white elephants in comparison to Sydney, or we would not see a list of so many venues, searching for tenants. They were only able to search for tenants/owners for some of the venues after the games, having to accept some proposals for commercial activities at the venues, which impacts on the sporting legacy after the games.

[somataki]

So what's your problem with Athens venues? Most of Athens venues host sport activities, are in continuous use and will remain in sport use for the city of Athens and major athenean teams (Olympic Stadium, Velodrome, Aquatic Center, Athens tennis Academy, Indoor Olympic Arena, Peace and Friendship Stadium, Karaiskaki soccer Stadium, etc.) For the rest of the state of the art venues, which are no more useful as sport venues after the games, there are already tenants for all of them, except 1-2 with minor capacity. Some of them are planned very soon to be commercial centers, museums, some other will be Universities (Nikea Weightlifting Center will be a part of University of Piraeus and Ano Liossia venue will be the Academy of Arts of Athens), another one will be the Athens Metropolitan Conference Center (Tae kwo ndo venue)..
The matter is that all of them will supply the nesessities of Athens in infrastucture (and certainly before Beijing olympics) and no one of them will remain a white elephant.

[Mo Rush]

Originally Posted by somataki

So what's your problem with Athens venues? Most of Athens venues host sport activities, are in continuous use and will remain in sport use for the city of Athens and major athenean teams (Olympic Stadium, Velodrome, Aquatic Center, Athens tennis Academy, Indoor Olympic Arena, Peace and Friendship Stadium, Karaiskaki soccer Stadium, etc.) For the rest of the state of the art venues, which are no more useful as sport venues after the games, there are already tenants for all of them, except 1-2 with minor capacity. Some of them are planned very soon to be commercial centers, museums, some other will be Universities (Nikea Weightlifting Center will be a part of University of Piraeus and Ano Liossia venue will be the Academy of Arts of Athens), another one will be the Athens Metropolitan Conference Center (Tae kwo ndo venue)..
The matter is that all of them will supply the nesessities of Athens in infrastucture (and certainly before Beijing olympics) and no one of them will remain a white elephant.

I have no problem with the venues. But I do believe that a future use/legacy should be found before the Games rather than after. All of them will eventually find a use, but after the Games many of them were essentially white elephants.

[somataki]

Originally Posted by Mo Rush

I have no problem with the venues. But I do believe that a future use/legacy should be found before the Games rather than after. All of them will eventually find a use, but after the Games many of them were essentially white elephants.

Ok. I agree. Just inform me in how many years after the games, a use/legacy for all the venues of Barcelona and Sydney was found.

[mbuildings]

stunning

[DarJoLe]

The bigger point though is Londoners won't accept any of the newly built Olympic venues becoming white elephants for any length of time. The press will be out for blood if after the Games the permanent venues haven't found a private owner or tenant.

The Labour Government were burned incredibly badly by the fiasco over the Millennium Dome, and it took six years for it to finally be turned into a profit making venue, and there is no-one in the UK who will accept that length of time paying for the upkeep of an Olympic venue.

However the Olympic organisers are looking at spending 2010-2012 to find private investors to take over ownership of the downsized stadium, aquatic centre and velopark. With the other venues temporary, London will hopefully have no white elephants for any length of time after the Games.

[Zenith]

Unfortunatley people don't seem to be getting it Darjole. When the London games come, and have been and gone, people may just realise that London had changed the Olympic movement for the better.

[city_thing]

Originally Posted by mbuildings

stunning

I don't mean to sound rude here, but whenever you comment, you simply write something like 'stunning' or 'beautiful! Amazing!' - why not ask a question, or say that you hate something? You don't have to write the same thing again and again.

And the media in Britain will absolutely slaughter the government if anything, even the slightest thing, goes wrong. There'll be constant comparison between London and some other city that's hosted (probably European continental) with a running commentary about how 'they do it better' because their 'health and education system aren't as 3rd world as Britain's' and 'don't let in as many immigrants'. The story will be published over and over with as many angles to insights as the press can give, until, eventually, no one gives a shit anymore.

It's just the nature of the beast.

[Mo Rush]

amazing

[Sexas]

Originally Posted by city_thing

I don't mean to sound rude here, but whenever you comment, you simply write something like 'stunning' or 'beautiful! Amazing!' - why not ask a question, or say that you hate something? You don't have to write the same thing again and again.

And the media in Britain will absolutely slaughter the government if anything, even the slightest thing, goes wrong. There'll be constant comparison between London and some other city that's hosted (probably European continental) with a running commentary about how 'they do it better' because their 'health and education system aren't as 3rd world as Britain's' and 'don't let in as many immigrants'. The story will be published over and over with as many angles to insights as the press can give, until, eventually, no one gives a shit anymore.

It's just the nature of the beast.

So do French, I can see what do the French thinking if the Brit fail to host a good game