London Olympic stadium - do you like it?

[DarJoLe]

I still for the life of me can't understand (and I felt exactly the same about the backlash against the logo) why so many people are getting so high and mighty about a stadium complaining it isn't iconic enough and costing too much, when there will be the most amazing futuristic iconic structure being built next door by Zaha Hadid.

It's a stadium that will be there for a year at the most. It will be used in its full capacity at the most three times. Why spend extra money on frills and whistles when it's going to disappear?

Why is there such a desperation for building something 'iconic'?

[the spliff fairy]

The design is crap. The outside will have ADVERTISING for Chrissakes.

1.Looks like it was designed in 1990

2.Complete utter bollocks value for money. Looks cheap -but with a £500m price tag-criminal too. - (why didnt we just give Brit architect Zaha Hadid/Foster/Rogers the budget and say go forth and design??)

3.No x factor whatsoever, not a shred

4.Looks far too much like every generic stadium designed circa 1988-1998, eg Stade de France (if its cheap looking enough for the favourite Paris bid its cheap looking enough for us!)

5.Minimalism and functionalism is already becoming dated from widespread abuse (think Tesco/Asda/Costco/TKMaxx/ retail parks/shopping malls using form and function as the excuse for its giant sheds). By 2012 it will be painfully so.

6.The only people it will please will be the supersafe aesthetics favoured by vote-happy Middle Englanders. Not even first year architecture students would come up with a design as safe as that, and definitely not as a centrepiece showcase of the country, to the world. In those respects it fails miserably.

7.Sure it may be temporary, but the worst thing is it LOOKS it, it veritably screams it. On that note, isnt tearing down the building's walls and 55,000 seats (read: tearing down the entire building then) the entire opposite of what architectural legacy is meant to be? Even worse than a white elephant.

8. Can one honestly say its an improvement from the original plans?

[LiamF1]

Something simple like adding those pilars that would support a roof over the central 1/3 of visitors would add an awful lot to the visual impact - and add symbolism too - like a crown (it would be the Queen's Diamond Jubilee). But could also symbolise success and sporting excellence. Just a bit more classy I think.

I don't get why the roof wasn't designed to stay in place after the games despite the removal of the seats. I would have planned it so that the space left under the roofing could contain all the associated educational and visitors centres and museums that would feature in a post games stadium. Could be a series of staggered platforms under the roof, and overlooking the track and remaining seating, linked with suspended bridges, with planting below. etc.

[*England*]

i hope it doesn't rain for the whole of olympics and then see what everyone says after.

[leebuk2005]

What happened to this design.

[danz013]

Originally Posted by LiamF1

Something simple like adding those pilars that would support a roof over the central 1/3 of visitors would add an awful lot to the visual impact - and add symbolism too - like a crown (it would be the Queen's Diamond Jubilee). But could also symbolise success and sporting excellence. Just a bit more classy I think.

I don't get why the roof wasn't designed to stay in place after the games despite the removal of the seats. I would have planned it so that the space left under the roofing could contain all the associated educational and visitors centres and museums that would feature in a post games stadium. Could be a series of staggered platforms under the roof, and overlooking the track and remaining seating, linked with suspended bridges, with planting below. etc.

Exactly.. thats a much better idea.

[danz013]

Originally Posted by the spliff fairy

The design is crap. The outside will have ADVERTISING for Chrissakes.

1.Looks like it was designed in 1990

2.Complete utter bollocks value for money. Looks cheap -but with a £500m price tag-criminal too. - (why didnt we just give Brit architect Zaha Hadid/Foster/Rogers the budget and say go forth and design??)

3.No x factor whatsoever, not a shred

4.Looks far too much like every generic stadium designed circa 1988-1998, eg Stade de France (if its cheap looking enough for the favourite Paris bid its cheap looking enough for us!)

5.Minimalism and functionalism is already becoming dated from widespread abuse (think Tesco/Asda/Costco/TKMaxx/ retail parks/shopping malls using form and function as the excuse for its giant sheds). By 2012 it will be painfully so.

6.The only people it will please will be the supersafe aesthetics favoured by vote-happy Middle Englanders. Not even first year architecture students would come up with a design as safe as that, and definitely not as a centrepiece showcase of the country, to the world. In those respects it fails miserably.

7.Sure it may be temporary, but the worst thing is it LOOKS it, it veritably screams it. On that note, isnt tearing down the building's walls and 55,000 seats (read: tearing down the entire building then) the entire opposite of what architectural legacy is meant to be? Even worse than a white elephant.

8. Can one honestly say its an improvement from the original plans?

The sad thing is.. I agree with every word of this!

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by leebuk2005

What happened to this design.

It was a concept design, it was never intended to be built. A bit like a masterplan.

[Pommy]

It reminds me of the M.C.G. It's a simple bowl, but in the renders it looks quite imposing.

[potto]

from building design magazine

.... First, there is nothing sustainable about building a 80,000-seat stadium for less than two months’ use. Apart from the pollution caused by its construction, let alone the time and effort by all involved, the legacy plans are still unclear

As opposed to not building a 80,000 seat stadium?! Or as opposed to building a 80'000 seat stadium to last for 50 years and not use it? Surely the current plan then is the most sustainable solution for the olympics.


...Apart from the pollution caused by its construction, let alone the time and effort by all involved, the legacy plans are still unclear

getting all anxious because of pollution caused by building?! Interesting sudden moment of realisation there. The legacy plans have been made very clear since the beginning, it will be a 25'000 seater athletics stadium, something the media has been bleating on about for decades regarding the UKs most populated city not having substantial facilities for athletics!!!


...reused for... Commonwealth Games, but why would anyone want to buy something that’s been purpose-designed for a totally different event

of course! The Commonwealth games has a completely different take on and set of rules for errr running, jumping and throwing things.


...The much-hyped wrap is what is used for hoardings on posh construction sites in the City — a bit of fabric with pretty pictures on it

if its good enough for St Pauls Cathedral and the thousands of gawping tourists then its good enough for...


...and the stadium will be uncomfortable. Facilities are a huge trek (except for the VIPs) because there is only one concourse

Slight leap of imagination there. Now they are moaning about the sustainable bit! Ha


...probably the least sustainable stadium ever built, and could become an even bigger white elephant than the Dome

Apparantly because it is built to be useable for the required period of time and then dismantled oh and it makes people walk to grab a fizzy drink?! I think they are meaning in their confused wisdom that the olympics is the least sustainable festival every devised, but they failed to notice the bigger picture that this was a small part of a larger plan to do something about it!

With regards to aesthetic then maybe a design competition was a mistake as the design magazine points out, trouble is there is a greater risk involved and this is one project with a real deadline!

[mk61]

Originally Posted by Vanguard

I'm just glad London didn't get something as ugly as Telstra stadium that was used for the Sydney Olympics.

At least that has a bit of character to it. Granted, the views from row ZZ can't have been great though.

[potto]

yeah great, but its got character

[mk61]

Say what you like, but I find this...



...more visually stimulating than this. Even if it does look weird. I like weirdness.

[potto]

sorry i meant if it doesnt work on a practical level, im all for weirdness if it can perform too. I like the look of the Beijing stadium as a visual form but even if both worked as well as each other on practical level for the games the Beijing stadium would not work within the ideology of the London olympics bid. I find the overall ideology and the direction it seems to be heading of the London olympics far more attractive than the Beijing bid or the majority of the bids over the past couple of decades.

If people complain about the proposed olympic venue looking temporary, that telstar one looks like a far far worse naff bolt on job and proves how clever the London design actually is!

[Karate_Kev]

that beijing stadium reminds me of that scene in poltergeist when his braces start spewing out from his mouth and wrap him up.

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by leebuk2005

What happened to this design.

It wasn't so much a design as a concept, which THANKFULLY wasn't turned into an actual design.

[ben77]

Could a permanent stadium similar to this be built for 450mill? I'm pretty sure one could be because wembley didn't cost this much. So unless all of the temporary structure is going to be sold off and recyceld and money recouped then i can't see how this development is going to be "green and sustainable". It seems as its costing just as much if not more to build a temporary structure as oppossed to a permanent structure, which surely defeating the point.

I think the problem is that the people in charge don't want to be accussed of building a "white elephant". But at least having a permanent 80,000 is better than chucking money away. What happens if we want to hold the World Athletic Champs or Commomwealth Games. Do we pay another £200mill to put the seats and the roof back on.

I don't mind the design, i'm not bothered about building a "statement to the world". But at 450mill its a huge waste of money.

[chest]

its clean, modern and simple...I think if IKEA did stadiums then this would be it
though am I right in thinking that its costing double the Bejing bird nest?

[potto]

I think people were hoping something more Paul Smith than Ikea! One thing for sure is I doubt we`ll ever get to know the true cost of the Bird Nest!

[danz013]

Originally Posted by chest

its clean, modern and simple...I think if IKEA did stadiums then this would be it
though am I right in thinking that its costing double the Bejing bird nest?

If this is costing double the birds next... and I lived in London right now.. and I was paying extra tax.. I would be going fucking crazy. I'm not messing around.