LONDON - Olympic Stadium (60,000) - Page 497 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas > Completed


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old September 17th, 2015, 04:40 PM   #9921
spyintheskyuk
Stuart Willard
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: London
Posts: 1,054
Likes (Received): 202

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gavrosh View Post
It doesnt in the slightest, and anyone who's even vaguely followed the conversion can tell you that no work has been done to this area and no seats moved out of it. I suggest you take your photographic evidence back to the LLDC to explain themselves.
I think the minor ill-informed mouth piece who was given the responsibility to reply was getting confused, probably through mis-understood hastily given Chinese whispers from above, between the screen area itself and the seats that are being taken out of use in the area above in field mode. Wasn't sure what they were being given as an explanation didn't want to show they didn't, and jumped to a erroneous conclusion instead. Either that or simply made it up on the hoof, confusing legally complying with such a request with actually answering it with accurate information.
spyintheskyuk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old September 17th, 2015, 04:56 PM   #9922
Hammers54
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Stratford, London
Posts: 707
Likes (Received): 204

The documents associated with the information Gavrosh posted above about the school reminded me that the stadium sponsor was going to be finalised by September 2015. In Boris Johnson's response to releasing the FoI information, he said words to the effect, now we have let all the contracts no reason to withold information.

Does this perhaps mean naming rights holders have been secured?

Btw the following is a quote from one of the documents associated to what Gavrosh found above. It gives some background to how the free football tickets and other tickets in the stadium will be distributed

"The intention is that the tickets are used to reward residents for being active and resilient members of the community. Lead Councillors for community neighbourhoods have a central role in managing these rewards, and setting the criteria for distributing tickets to their residents.

1.32 A similar principle for distribution of tickets would be applied to other events secured for Stadium and south park events. The investment would widen the range of World class sport, art and cultural events residents would be able to access, including:
• South Park and Stadium Concerts (to be agreed with operator)
• Over 20,000 residents given free access to the Rugby World Cup Fan Zone
• Minimum of 1,000 tickets for the 2015 Rugby World Cup
• 80,000 tickets for the Paralympic Athletics Championships in 2017
• Diamond League Athletics (indicatively 5,000 per annum)"

Turning to the 100k of tickets West Ham will be giving each year surely the cost of that to the club should be set against 'rent'? At a minimum of £20 each that could be as much as £2.5m a year!

Last edited by Hammers54; September 17th, 2015 at 05:17 PM.
Hammers54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2015, 05:46 PM   #9923
Gavrosh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,042
Likes (Received): 2092

That's a fair point Hammers54. I guess if it comes to the point where after potential expansion there remains demand for tickets from the general public, West Ham might suggest a financial offer to Newham to rescind the part of the deal that gives them 100k free tickets a season.
Gavrosh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old September 17th, 2015, 06:23 PM   #9924
metroranger
Registered User
 
metroranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St Ratford (it's being gentrified)
Posts: 1,932
Likes (Received): 2218

RWC branding going up.







metroranger no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2015, 06:38 PM   #9925
Gavrosh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,042
Likes (Received): 2092

I guess given the time left and cost involved, the only 'wrap' will be on main approaches to the stadium.
Gavrosh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2015, 07:34 PM   #9926
savethedave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 131
Likes (Received): 39

Long time lurker, enjoyed the pics of the stadium.

I had a question, the size of the pitch in rugby mode is 100 x 70m, that's the maximum size specified as far as I can read.
For Premiership matches, the maximum is 105 x 68m.

Has there been a mock up of what a pitch would look like in the absolute final version? I see many of the official renders includes a row of advertising to eat up all that dead space. It almost looks as if at the centre-line, there is about a 20m gap to the nearest touchline, is there an official measurement?

You could almost excuse it for the rugby because you just had to look and you saw it was a running track. But if it's astroturfed over in green, it's just going to look weird.
So much space, if the first couple of rows were elevated a bit that space could have been used (although it probably would have looked bad).

Too used to seeing subs warm up during a match, running up and down the cramped touchline behind the lino, sometimes running just past each other as there is no space. At the OS there could be literally enough space for them to have a kickabout behind the hoardings!
savethedave no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2015, 07:47 PM   #9927
RMB2007
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,663
Likes (Received): 23954

Guess they could use claret or light blue artificial turf with the club's badge on it in order to cover the remaining area of the track, so something like PSG:

Quote:
Originally Posted by parcdesprinces View Post
RMB2007 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2015, 07:53 PM   #9928
Hammers54
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Stratford, London
Posts: 707
Likes (Received): 204

Quote:
Originally Posted by savethedave View Post
Long time lurker, enjoyed the pics of the stadium.

I had a question, the size of the pitch in rugby mode is 100 x 70m, that's the maximum size specified as far as I can read.
For Premiership matches, the maximum is 105 x 68m.

Has there been a mock up of what a pitch would look like in the absolute final version? I see many of the official renders includes a row of advertising to eat up all that dead space. It almost looks as if at the centre-line, there is about a 20m gap to the nearest touchline, is there an official measurement?

You could almost excuse it for the rugby because you just had to look and you saw it was a running track. But if it's astroturfed over in green, it's just going to look weird.
So much space, if the first couple of rows were elevated a bit that space could have been used (although it probably would have looked bad).

Too used to seeing subs warm up during a match, running up and down the cramped touchline behind the lino, sometimes . running just past each other as there is no space. At the OS there could be literally enough space for them to have a kickabout behind the hoardings!
I was told at the reservation centre that the first row of the lower tier is 20m from the touchline on halfway. FWIW my season ticket is in row 9 of the east stand and i sat in my seat before the recent rugby game and the view was fine. My seat at the Boleyn is in a similar position and I thought the rake of the two stands are comparable.
Hammers54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2015, 08:04 PM   #9929
Hammers54
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Stratford, London
Posts: 707
Likes (Received): 204

Double post
Hammers54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2015, 08:16 PM   #9930
savethedave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 131
Likes (Received): 39

Cheers. Actually that PSG solution looks pretty classy, you would hope for something similar. Although it seems that the coloured turf would be covering a far, far greater area (if we assume the pitch stays approximately the same size).

At what point did retractable morph into demountable? I thought it was meant to be a state of the art solution, but it doesn't seem to be that way.

By not having a fully retractable stadium like the Melbourne one we seem to have added up to £1m a year to the running cost (assuming £100,000 costs each way), and the ability to hold an event at short notice (or midweek between West Ham games) is lost.

Appreciate that many events wouldn't fit this profile but was there any reason why the stand could not be properly retractable?
savethedave no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2015, 08:38 PM   #9931
CharlieP
Tax avoider
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 23,933
Likes (Received): 2099

Quote:
Originally Posted by savethedave View Post
Long time lurker, enjoyed the pics of the stadium.

I had a question, the size of the pitch in rugby mode is 100 x 70m, that's the maximum size specified as far as I can read.
Just to clarify, that 100 metre maximum is from goal line to goal line - there's then up to 22 metres at each end before the dead ball line. I don't know what dimension the pitch will be for the Rugby World Cup.
__________________
This signature is socialist and un-American.

parcdesprinces liked this post
CharlieP no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2015, 09:38 PM   #9932
spyintheskyuk
Stuart Willard
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: London
Posts: 1,054
Likes (Received): 202

Quote:
Originally Posted by savethedave View Post
Cheers. Actually that PSG solution looks pretty classy, you would hope for something similar. Although it seems that the coloured turf would be covering a far, far greater area (if we assume the pitch stays approximately the same size).

At what point did retractable morph into demountable? I thought it was meant to be a state of the art solution, but it doesn't seem to be that way.

By not having a fully retractable stadium like the Melbourne one we seem to have added up to £1m a year to the running cost (assuming £100,000 costs each way), and the ability to hold an event at short notice (or midweek between West Ham games) is lost.

Appreciate that many events wouldn't fit this profile but was there any reason why the stand could not be properly retractable?
Well Melbourne just leaves the gaps otherwise pretty similar in method I think. The stands will only move twice a year at the OS so events will have to be moulded around each of the two states accordingly as a rule. The reason that the stands couldn't be properly retractable is because the stadium wasn't designed to incorporate them at the design stage. If it had I suspect the arc of the stands would have been flatter to cut that 20m in field mode and certainly the upper tiers would have been at least 6 to 8 ft higher to allow the lower tiers to move out from underneath them and get closer to the pitch without obscuring views. Too many inherent compromises to be able to call it a state of the art solution but to be honest they have done a very good job considering those limitations, just a shame those compromises were inherent to the original design creating considerable extra cost no doubt.
spyintheskyuk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 17th, 2015, 10:15 PM   #9933
savethedave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 131
Likes (Received): 39

Don't doubt it doesn't look good but surely that is not right about the seating. The word 'demountable' didn't enter descriptions until this year, I am sure about that.

Check out this article here:
(Guardian link, google the quote as I can't post links)

That's 18 July. The key quote:
Neale Coleman, deputy chairman of the LLDC, has led work on the Olympics at the Greater London Authority since 2000. He is blunt about why the final bill is so high. “The big decision was to go for full retractable seats. You either do it properly or you don’t do it at all.

Even Karren Brady says in the video an 'automated' system using 'drive motors'.

If demountable was decided at the design stage how can this quote be true? Even West Ham's own site quotes the word 'ground-breaking retractable'.

The stadium looks nice, no doubt about that, but Coleman was wrong, and Brady was also wrong as well, surely? And yet most of the public seem to have swallowed it.
savethedave no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2015, 01:09 AM   #9934
Gavrosh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,042
Likes (Received): 2092

Retractable seating is the permanent moveable seating that makes up the lower tier.

Demountable seating is the seating the infills the gaps between the east stand in football mode.

Hope that helps.
Gavrosh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2015, 01:59 AM   #9935
savethedave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 131
Likes (Received): 39

Search this thread for the word 'retractable': people were under the impression until recently that the stands would be 'fully' retractable, that is, they could be moved at will to accommodate different events easily, not take 2 weeks to bring forward then bring back. At least, that was the reality that was painted.

What is state of the art about a system that has to be dismantled manually and moved over such a long timescale? Is that really doing it properly, like Coleman implies? You'd have to think while the retraction is in progress the stadium would be out of commission for any event. If the process is done twice a year that's 1 month a year where the stadium is a non-earner due to construction work inside.

Just wondering why that aspect seems to have slipped through without challenge, it's appears to me to be neither 'fully' retractable, motor powed, or state of the art as various people have claimed. Of course, in retrospect people may now use the word 'fully' to mean that it goes right the way back, but I read the implied context of fully as being a system like the one in Melbourne.

Don't have a issue with the looks, I think it looks as good as it can be. But it seems to me that the quotes just don't marry up with the reality.

Of course as a West Ham fan I don't expect you to be bothered. Doesn't matter to you guys if the seats don't retract or not or even how they do, the main issue is that they are close(r) to the pitch.

Having read through the thread, no-one talked about the 7-day moving time until a guy working there said it. That's a bad downside for stadium utilisation considering 2 of the 'down' weeks will be in the summer period when other rentals are most likely to want to rent the stadium.
savethedave no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2015, 02:46 AM   #9936
Gavrosh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,042
Likes (Received): 2092

I believe the point made at the time is that the seating as is isn't in final 'retractable' mode with rollers and motors to be added to speed things up. Still, with the filler to be put in between lower and upper tiers, it'll take seven days to convert from football to athletics mode and vice versa. That's actually down from 8 days set out in the planning documents.

Blame the OPLC board that quashed the idea of a proper multipurpose venue at the outset for that. The Singapore Sports Hub, which was planned as such, can make the switch over in about half an hour.
Gavrosh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2015, 11:07 AM   #9937
savethedave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 131
Likes (Received): 39

That's what I mean, with proper retractable seating, we could have had a football/cricket double header on Saturday with a 20/20 match taking place in the floodlights or something. I don't believe cricket is high impact to damage the pitch enough.

Or if not cricket, maybe an athletics double-header. For sure athletics is not viable now commercially, but that doesn't mean it cannot be in the future. Several other sports have been rejuvenated in the past 20 years, no reason why athletics may not be in the future. The over-riding attitude I read is that athletics will never be viable. But having a 1-week preparation time rules out huge swarthes of the calendar when an event could take place.

There is little point in having motors if it still takes 7 days. That's like someone selling a Ferrari yet neglecting to mention it doesn't go higher than second gear.

As a neutral I'm surprised. The retractable stands were meant to increase asset utilisation but we have created something relatively inflexible. At best, every athletic event will have to be crammed into the summer months.

Satisfy my curiosity: I searched for '8 days' and 'eight days' in this thread and found very little. If this really had been part of the planning process why wasn't it discussed on here? I can imagine that a retractable stand that took 8 days to fully retract would have been met with some derision.
savethedave no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2015, 12:24 PM   #9938
jts1882
Registered User
 
jts1882's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: London
Posts: 7,636
Likes (Received): 17842

The long turnaround also rather challenges the argument that West Ham only have use of the stadium on 25 match days and a bit of time around them. The requirement for football mode means the stadium is tailored to West Ham for most of the year.

I don't have a major problem with that, but I do find spurious arguments about West Ham only using the stadium for 25 days dishonest and annoying (assuming the seven day turnaround is true*). I'd prefer them to come clean and say if the stadium had to remain in pitch mode during the football season and other uses must be compatible with that. Alternatively, if that is not the case, an explanation of how this is compatible with the seven-day turnaround would be nice (again, assuming this is true*).

P.S. Do we actually know from official sources if the seven day turnaround is true? The source for this claimed it took 16 thousand man-hours to move the seats, although later backtracked on this. Perhaps the slow reconfiguration now is just because it is not the final configuration.
__________________
BBcode for displaying and resizing images: [resize=800][IMG]https://i.imgur.com/KILJFGB.jpg[/IMG][/resize]
jts1882 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2015, 12:46 PM   #9939
@westhamfootball
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 411
Likes (Received): 178

Quote:
Originally Posted by jts1882 View Post
The long turnaround also rather challenges the argument that West Ham only have use of the stadium on 25 match days and a bit of time around them. The requirement for football mode means the stadium is tailored to West Ham for most of the year.

I don't have a major problem with that, but I do find spurious arguments about West Ham only using the stadium for 25 days dishonest and annoying (assuming the seven day turnaround is true*). I'd prefer them to come clean and say if the stadium had to remain in pitch mode during the football season and other uses must be compatible with that. Alternatively, if that is not the case, an explanation of how this is compatible with the seven-day turnaround would be nice (again, assuming this is true*).

P.S. Do we actually know from official sources if the seven day turnaround is true? The source for this claimed it took 16 thousand man-hours to move the seats, although later backtracked on this. Perhaps the slow reconfiguration now is just because it is not the final configuration.
The LLDC Press Office confirmed the seven day turnaround figure to me. It is the same figure Karen Brady used when she faced the House of Lords in 2013. The press office did say they hoped that 7 day turnaround could be improved with practice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RmdC8cLwXk

As for the tailored for West Ham comment. The sports pitch mode could still cater for Rugby, Cricket, Music Concerts, Cricket, American football and Baseball I would imagine. It is only athletics that need the seats fully retracted and that is a set four weeks of the year. Last Friday in June to final week of July is the set dates UK Athletics take ownership.
@westhamfootball no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2015, 01:38 PM   #9940
Gavrosh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,042
Likes (Received): 2092

Cricket and baseball would require athletics mode configuration. There's a window between the end of the football season and the last week in June that would allow for either or both of these. Hopefully the rumoured Home Counties T20 cup happens, plus some T20 internationals. I'd imagine an India v Pakistan T20 game would be a sellout, though it may cause a few complications with regards to stewarding and policing.

Winters sports (well let's be frank rugby, be it Union or League) would work with the football mode anyway, so there's just the requirement of putting the posts up and re lining the pitch.
Gavrosh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Tags
britain, england, london, olympics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
KYIV - Olympic Stadium (70,050) VelesHomais Completed 2321 December 10th, 2019 06:47 PM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us