LONDON - Olympic Stadium (79,999)

[Mo Rush]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

The usual comments from a bunch of people who don't understand the reason why it is designed the way it is.

IT IS A MINIMAL LOOKING STADIUM BECAUSE IT'S A TEMPORARY STADIUM.

im 1 of the biggest supporters of london 2012 BUT that statement is not true. temporary does not necessarily imply lack of design.
essentially you're saying all those amazing temporary pavillions at world expo events were meant to look minimal too?

again im not questioning the use of the temporary stadium, not even the cost. BUT the BEST design was NOT achieved. I appreciate the current design principles along with CABE but its just not close to what it could have been for that cost and that concept.

Originally Posted by somataki View Post
The previous render of the the London olympic stadium at the bidbook was one of the reasons IMO that London won the 2012 organization..

That is partially true. What cities must do after making the shortlist is to ensure that the IOC members experience and share the vision bid cities have for the Games. The renders, (which included only conceptual designs) played a role that day in July and before July 2005. IOC members don't all vote based on renders, but if they share your vision for the Games they will vote for you.

[Mo Rush]

Originally Posted by shaun

Guys, the stadium doesn't need to look good as it is supposed to be sustainable and eco-friendly. It may not be the prettiest stadium, but London will be remembered for putting on a financially sound games in 2012 and that's all that matters.

That said, I *really* dislike the trusswork on the roof too - it looks tired and reused from the Millenium Dome, the London Eye and Wembley Stadium. Also hate the idea of the 'pods' - so 1999....

The site looks impressive though

Again you're implying a temporary structure CANNOT look good. Modern day solutions to modular structures throws that out the window. Even designs dating back to expo events in the 80's show that design is not necessarily sacrificed with a temporary structure.

[veronika]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

The usual comments from a bunch of people who don't understand the reason why it is designed the way it is.

IT IS A MINIMAL LOOKING STADIUM BECAUSE IT'S A TEMPORARY STADIUM.

Manchester city, stadium Australia both same principal major event then capacity reduction to be economically viable and sustainable and to host a tenant and events where stadium is not empty...but both of those stadia designs are better, in my opinion and it would seem the majority of posters on this thread also think that.

Does temporary mean standard or that the structure cannot have some meaning?

[Mo Rush]

Originally Posted by veronika

Of stadia since 68 (because before that was a different era for comparisons) London comes last in my opinion, purely regarding design elements and ambience rather than functionality.

72 Munich amazing! 1st of the stadiums for the Olympics that said something.

76 Since then we had Montreal it went wrong but amazing nevertheless!

80 Moscow, a stadium that already existed but a very historic and imposing colosieum.

84 La, they didnt exactly do anything did they?

88 Seoul not as radical as Munich and Montreal but certainly a statement that asia was modern.

92 Barcelona has to be the dissapointment of the Olympic century.

96 followed by another dissapointment in Atlanta with its temporary effort.

00 Sydney yes back on track, not radical by a Munich or montreal standards but not a dissapointment either.

04 Athens, yes! Without complete reconstruction managed to create an almost flawless olympic arena almost as good as Munich with those beautiful curved rooves.

08 Beijing, back to Munich and Montreal radical statements amazing stadium that I can tell you when you visit it for first time its difficult to grasp how it was constructed.

12 London OH dear, I know it has to go down to 25 after games but still its just so... standard.

1st Munich 72
2nd Athens 04
3rd Beijing 08
4th Moscow 80
5th Sydney 00
6th Seoul 88
7th Montreal 76
8th Barcelona 92
9th LA 84
10th Atlanta 96
11th London 12

last perhaps...
but ure forgetting that Chicago will prob host the games in a temporary stadium and possibly many hosts after that...is London then not setting a trend? moving the games forward to a place where gigantic white elephants( of which there are enough examples) do NOT simply get built each time the games come around? is it not making the games more accessible to all cities by proving that a temporary structure is perfectly fine to meet IAAF and IOC standards?

[veronika]

Originally Posted by Mo Rush

last perhaps...
but ure forgetting that Chicago will prob host the games in a temporary stadium and possibly many hosts after that...is London then not setting a trend? moving the games forward to a place where gigantic white elephants( of which there are enough examples) do NOT simply get built each time the games come around? is it not making the games more accessible to all cities by proving that a temporary structure is perfectly fine to meet IAAF and IOC standards?

I agree, but my argument is as you also said temporary can still be inspiring, radical anything-temporary does not mean minimal and boring and a design that almost beam for beam is the same as 3 or 4 other stadia out there at the moment.

[MasonicStage™]

I must admit, I'm also kind of disappointed with the final looks of the olympic stadium. The design used for bidding was much better and much more propriate for the year of organization, after all, we are talking about 2012.
Well, this one is not that bad, but it's too ordinary for sure. Anyways, I do not doubt in the quality of the games everything will be great

[Mo Rush]

Originally Posted by veronika

I agree, but my argument is as you also said temporary can still be inspiring, radical anything-temporary does not mean minimal and boring and a design that almost beam for beam is the same as 3 or 4 other stadia out there at the moment.

yip i think ive posted a few of those sister stadia.

Im impressed with the advice from CABE though. they were a bit anal with the liverpool anfield design but understood the dynamics of the temporary olympic structure. they suggested the wrap be raised to show the trusses and not hide the temporary concept. as a truss loving person i couldn't agree more.

[masterpaul]

Top Olympic stadiums:

1st Athens 04
2nd Beijing 08 (the roof from inside is just too "enclosing")
3th Sydney 00
4th Moscow 80
5th Munich 72
6th Seoul 88
7th Montreal 76
8th Barcelona 92
9th LA 84
10th Atlanta 96
11th London 12

[veronika]

Originally Posted by masterpaul

Top Olympic stadiums:

1st Athens 04
2nd Beijing 08 (the roof from inside is just too "enclosing")
3th Sydney 00
4th Moscow 80
5th Munich 72
6th Seoul 88
7th Montreal 76
8th Barcelona 92
9th LA 84
10th Atlanta 96
11th London 12

MP our lists are similar so it would seem that we have similar taste so I dont understand how Munich is 5th? Fair enough athens beijing but Moscow in front of Munich please explain?

[DarJoLe]

It's not just the fact it's temporary; it's more to do with the horrendous rising cost of steel and the fact money spent on temporary frills is better spent on permanent frills.

The stadium will sit in one of the most extensively landscaped parks, the biggest of which haven't been seen in Europe for 150 years, and be surrounded by a piece of artwork that will celebrate the history and future of the Olympic movement. Pretty spectacular if you ask me.

[Mo Rush]

Originally Posted by masterpaul

Top Olympic stadiums:

1st Athens 04
2nd Beijing 08 (the roof from inside is just too "enclosing")
3th Sydney 00
4th Moscow 80
5th Munich 72
6th Seoul 88
7th Montreal 76
8th Barcelona 92
9th LA 84
10th Atlanta 96
11th London 12

i loved munich. for its time it was breakthrough and still is quite an icon.
not a fan of the birds nest that much!! montreal is awful. athens was a great roof and quite iconic. moscow is ok and so was seoul. barcelona just had a great feel!

LA bleh
atlanta --shoot me now

the monstrosities in montreal and atlanta pushes london up that list.

[masterpaul]

lol sorry... mistake... i ment this:

1st Athens 04
2nd Beijing 08 (the roof from inside is just too "enclosing")
3th Sydney 00 (movable stands which moved upwards, the design is very pleasing)
4th Munich 72 (originality to the max, but the tent like roof was overdone)
5th Seoul 88
6th Moscow 80
7th London 12
8th Barcelona 92
9th LA 84
10th Atlanta 96
11th Montreal 76

[veronika]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

It's not just the fact it's temporary; it's more to do with the horrendous rising cost of steel and the fact money spent on temporary frills is better spent on permanent frills.

The stadium will sit in one of the most extensively landscaped parks, the biggest of which haven't been seen in Europe for 150 years, and be surrounded by a piece of artwork that will celebrate the history and future of the Olympic movement. Pretty spectacular if you ask me.

I guess we agree to disagree because regardless of media spin for most people the games is about the two weeks its on and not the legacy. If the government really cared about long term rejuvination of east london believe me they have the money to have made decent basic sports facilities there without an Olympic games. Afterall didnt they spend about 10 Olympic games money on a certain recent and pointless war and ongoing occupation of a country that has got absolutely nothing to do with England?

[Mo Rush]

Originally Posted by veronika

I guess we agree to disagree because regardless of media spin for most people the games is about the two weeks its on and not the legacy. If the government really cared about long term rejuvination of east london believe me they have the money to have made decent basic sports facilities there without an Olympic games. Afterall didnt they spend about 10 Olympic games money on a certain recent and pointless war and ongoing occupation of a country that has got absolutely nothing to do with England?

look thats not what happens in the real world.

governments dont spend this kind of money unless its accelerated by a mega-event. we are only getting major transport upgrades in cape town due to 2010, without it would have taken 10 years more. in the real world mega and not so mega events play a vital role in projects that in some cases have been proposed decades back.

[hoosier]

The Olympic Stadium in Atlanta later became the home of the local professional baseball franchise, the Atlanta Braves. Also, the 71,000+ seat Georgia Dome was completed 4 years before the games.

[bing222]

sydney 2000 stadium was the best ever stadium for the olympics

[AATAATAATAAT]

Shall we open a new thread to compare all these olympic stadiums?

[bing222]

when will they start construction on the stadium ? ? ? ?

[TallBox]

middle of this year

[jerseyboi]

Originally Posted by shaun

middle of this year

No its next month May! hence the start of the thread..by me!
everything has moved forward by 3 months........