london olympics 2012

[Paul Clerkin]

Apart from Heneghan Peng, there's a lot of big names doing work for 2012.

Some good - some so-so

Zaha's latest proposal for the aquatic centre is pretty poor - the temporary additions look just that. Obviously little or no thought has gone into incorporating them better.

http://bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=725&storycode=3104840&c=1&encCode=000000000143e04e

[BTH]

Wow, that's absolutely awful looking - so basically they have decided to build a fairly fancy wavey roofed municipal sized swimming pool then shove two enormous scaffold-built stands either side. The paucity of ambition is just shocking. It's the same for the Stadium itself - the most boring looking thing i've seen in a long time. It just makes it worse to see those ugly graphics plastered over every available surface....
London should be using these games to show real design flair and innovation. The chinese games will raise the bar enormously in terms of sports architecture. The London games will bring it all crashing back to earth. Somehow i can't imagine Paris, had their bid been accepted allowing a monstrosity like this Aquatic Centre to go ahead....

[PTB]

Schnooze...

[ATTACH]6853[/ATTACH]

[BTH]

Aggh! It almost makes me angry looking at it... This -



as opposed to this...




Love it or hate it - at least it's ambitious and exciting.

How about this - Note the beautiful marquee-esque structures in the image on the right. Oh wait - they ARE marquees....



compared to this?



Says it all really.

The Chinese olympics are going to be controversial and personally I'm very ambivalent about the fact that they are being held there at all. However you can't deny their architectural ambition and willingness to TRUST architects to innovate and create. In london it appears that everything is being designed by Quantity Surveyors. I wouldnt hold much hope of HP's lovely bridge scheme looking anything like the competition renders by the time it's costed and pared back...

Amazing image - Imagine this at night, the red glow from the stadium, the blue from the aquatics centre....

[Peter Fitz]

Some flan anyone ?

Its piss poor alright.

[paul h]

i think maybe the difference between a place like China holding the olympics and somewhere in the western world is that China has invested everything on this, they are using this event to showcase themselves to rest of the world , China has arrived , on the world stage.
London i would think are building structures that probably make financial sense
China on the other hand are building the most spectacular structures imaginable, fair play to them:D

[PTB]

Another crap McStadium from HOK

[johnlee]

wow!!

[PTB]

What?

Really?

[Highrise]

This looks really poor, Beijing lifted the Bar in terms of design, very surprised these designs have been choosen. Crying out for a Norman Foster tyoe design.

[Global Citizen]

Some flan anyone ?

Its piss poor alright.

Perhaps its a tribute to all the gasometers in this part of London that were demolished to make way for it. Very bland, especially when compared to the ambitious new Wembley Stadium on the other side of town.

[PTB]

Wemby's a fairly dull stadium. Especially if you take away the arch. Which you could because the other side of the roof, the same size as the supported side, supports itself. Will Alsop called it a basket.

[Global Citizen]

Perhaps, but the arch is there so why take it away? It gives Wembley an instantly recognisable iconic status. Something the proposed Olympic Stadium lacks.

[lostexpectation]

urgh iconic status,give me functionality any day, i think being able to reduce the size of these structures is good, prevent them from becoming white elephants like many Olympic buildings.

[Global Citizen]

urgh iconic status,give me functionality any day, i think being able to reduce the size of these structures is good, prevent them from becoming white elephants like many Olympic buildings.

Whats wrong with iconic status AND functionality? I lived near Wembley when the plans for the current stadium were announced. There was uproar locally ( and nationally) when it was realised that the white concrete twin towers that greeted spectators were to be demolished to make way for the new arena. Numerous campaigns were launched in an effort to save them despite the fact that they had no practical function other than supporting a couple of flagposts. Why? Nostalgia yes, but also because they gave the old stadium a status which in turn provided a brand that made Wembley recognisable worldwide. So much so that the towers featured in the old Wembley logo.
Nowadays that giant arch serves the same purpose ( and dare I say "function" ) and it too forms part of the new Wembley logo. It may not have any practical use to the structure of the stadium itself but it has quickly become the symbol of Britain's national stadium and looming 135 metres over north London it almost shouts out that something exciting is happening here. Its a pity the proposed Olympic stadium can't shout back. Functionality does not have to mean bland.

[BTH]

The problem with most of the "de-value engineered" structures being flung up for the London olympics is that they have become remarkably ugly in the process. Never mind that they lack anything remotely resembling a "wow" factor. Say what you like about "icons" but at least the quality of architecture for the Beijing olympics actually gave Architecture a place in the identity of the games. Ordinary people were fascinated by the design of the Birds Nest and the Water Cube. Back in the Athens games Calatrava's additions to the Olympic facilities served a similar function.

By the way, it turns out that the stadium now under construction in London will probably be the most un-sustainable sporting structure ever constructed. It's costing £500million just to build the basic structure - the permanent bowl and the temporary seating and roofing. This does not include the provision of temporary "pods" in the landscaped area around the stadium to provide spectator facilities which will not be incorporated in the stadium structure itself. Nor does it include the massive cost of dismantling the temporary structures when the games are finished. Unfortunately as it turns out the temporary seating and roof will be so bespoke to the shape and size of the Olympic Stadium that they will be basically useless for other types of venue so the idea of re-use has been all but abandoned. So London will spend about a twice what Beijing did on their stadium when all is said and done (of course differences in labour costs etc mean that actually they will be about equivalent in cost) only to end up with thousands upon thousands of tons of scrap metal, a rather pathetic athletics track with a few thousand uncovered seats and absolutely zero boost to the image of the UK in terms of design, ambition or vision. It seems like a very poor deal...

Hadid's Aquatics centre is a similar story. They are spending SO much on a bespoke temporary structure which will be scrapped after 2 weeks of use. If they were serious about sustainability and re-use then they should have properly embraced the concept, made it the image of the games. Maybe the venues would have appeared somewhat ramshackle- actually LOOKED temporary but then this image should have been completely embraced and turned into a positive design statement. It would sort of fit the rather "quirky" image the games is already developing.

[Inprintimaging]

Perhaps its a tribute to all the gasometers in this part of London that were demolished to make way for it. Very bland, especially when compared to the ambitious new Wembley Stadium on the other side of town.

Funny. Gasometer was my reaction to it as well. Rusty sides and framework included.

[lostexpectation]

new pictures stadium is half built
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/london2012/3531650/London-2012-aerial-pictures-show-Olympic-Parks-changing-skyline.html

[reddy]

Its a beautiful shape from above actually, really elegant, but the ground level view still looks really underwhelming.

[Shove]

Id say that no stadium will compare to the birdsnest, its an incredible iconic structure that showcases modern materials with modern technology. This building exists due to the technology that exists today, In my opinion a building has WOW factor when it has the appeal to draw people to it, to just appreciate the architecture and not the contents..

The London 2012 buildings look as though they are built on a budget, I have no desire to go and spend a day walking around teh structure. I would love to have seen a Herzog version as I believe it would have been as if not more WOW than the Birdsnest..

[reddy]

2012 media centre 'would blight Olympic legacy', says Cabe

27 April, 2009

By Ruth Bloomfield

Cabe has savaged plans for London 2012’s Olympic media centre, saying it is unable to support the current designs.

In a statement released today, Cabe was particularly critical of the RPS Group-designed International Broadcast Centre (IBC) in the Olympic park which will play host to 20,000 journalists during the 2012 games, describing them as “particularly weak” and a potential blight on Olympic legacy.

It said that more work was also needed to improve the “large monolithic block” of the other main media centre building, the Allies & Morrison-designed Main Press Centre (MPC).

Speaking about the broadcast centre, Cabe described the site layout as “awkward and unresolved” and criticised the “extraordinary banality” of the building itself.

“In our view it is simply not good enough,” Cabe said. “We would go so far as to say that its continued presence would blight rather than enhance the Olympic legacy.”

Outline planning permission has already been granted for the media centre, and the independent planning authority set up to rule on 2012 is expected to consider detailed designs within two months.

Cabe’s response is embarrassing for Olympic organisers who have already ordered work on the foundations of the building to begin.

A source at the Olympic Delivery Authority pointed out the building was supposed to be functional and practical, and pointed out that over the last six months its cost – funded from the public purse – had been reduced to £355 million.

Olympic chiefs want the site to be used as a business park after the games, something Cabe does not object to. But it says for the proposal to be successful the layout will have to be rethought along with “more convincing design and landscape proposals”.

“Architecturally one would also expect to see convincing design details relating to cladding, fenestration, roof design and entrances,” the watchdog said.

An ODA spokesman described the media centre as “compact and efficient” and good value for money. “Work on the external appearance of the buildings is ongoing and we look forward to discussing this further with CABE and other partners,” he added.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3139228&channel=783&c=1&encCode=0000000001960414

Looks absolutely terrible alright.

[lostexpectation]

hmm what does cabe expect business parks to look like

[birico]

very nice!