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

[Stefan88]

Time lapsed video.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by potto

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]

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]

Originally Posted by oliviersa

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]

Originally Posted by the spliff fairy

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.

The legacy is the most important thing for London, especially the east which is one of the most deprived communities in Europe. London doesn't need any more monuments. Leave that to cities such as Beijing and Dubai - it's their turn. What London needs is to house its people properly and decent community sports facilities. Paris's case for the Games was based on style; London - practicality, legacy and diversity. That's why it won.

As for culture, I think it needs to build on its strenghs - such as the new Tate extension. It also needs to be a better environment for pedestrians - but I think that's well covered on another thread!

[delores]

Originally Posted by AXISPAW

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]

Originally Posted by delores

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]

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

[oliviersa]

Originally Posted by oliviersa

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

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

Because it already has Wembley

But ... Wembley is not Olympic.

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

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]

Originally Posted by oliviersa

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]

Originally Posted by oliviersa

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]

Originally Posted by Vanguard

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]

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]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

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]

Originally Posted by oliviersa

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.

[Vanguard]

..

[london lad]

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]

Originally Posted by oliviersa

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]

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]

Originally Posted by putney80

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.