Archinect
anchor

How successful do you think the London Olympic Stadium, Aquatic Centre and Velodrome are as Olympic Venues?

Feb 3 '13 8 Last Comment
Chrispate03
Feb 3, 13 2:59 pm

How effective were the design and functions of the Olympic Stadium, Aquatic Centre and Velodrome in making the London 2012 Olympic Games a success? 

I am writing a dissertation on these 3 Olympic Venues and wanted to include opinions from people in Architecture or interested in architecture. 

Any posts will be greatly appreciated. 

 

Archi49
Feb 3, 13 3:31 pm

Honestly, I believe that the Water Cube and Birdsnest from Beijing 2008 were much more inspiring, creative structures compared to those built for London 2012. 

 

Out of all of London's structures, I believe the Aquatic Centre was most successful. The Olympic Stadium looks too banal and the Velodrome looks disgusting with the cooper shell. Reminds me of the Barclays Center. 

John McWatersJohn McWaters
Feb 3, 13 8:35 pm

@Archi

Are you sure the velodrome had copper paneling   The building I'm thinking about is quite sexy with a wooden facade.  Arguably one of the finer venues of the Olympics.

The aquatics center garnered a lot of attention during the games, but it was also plagued by site-line issues.  The roof draped so low that when you sat towards the top of the temporary bleachers, you could not see the 10m diving platform.  Once the aquatic center is converted and has it wings removed, it will be much prettier.  During the olympics I didn't think it's design really stood out.

Steven WardSteven Ward
Feb 3, 13 8:54 pm

As was discussed at the time, the sightline issue for diving was that they *oversold* tickets. The designers delivered more clear-sightline seats than was contracted, the ticketing agent just sold more!

a mouse
Feb 4, 13 2:35 am

The Velodrome is by far the most elegant and well resolved building of these olympics, if not the most exciting.

The most interesting and i think, the building that best addressed the temporary, re-locatable, adaptable brief (that some of the buildings had) was the Shooting Pavilion.

http://www.dezeen.com/2012/06/12/olympic-shooting-venue-by-magma-architecture/

John McWatersJohn McWaters
Feb 4, 13 10:58 am

I felt the Olympic stadium was pretty bland, but this is okay IMO.  London already had Wembley, which should always be the city's flagship venue, so a smaller, less popular stadium located closer to Olympic Park was necessary.

You could maybe talk about the new idea of installing temporary venues for the Olympics, such as the shooting range, basketball arena, and water polo building.  The basketball arena was elegant and a success from what I heard.

Nick LaddNick Ladd
Feb 4, 13 2:33 pm

The velodrome is beautiful, highly crafted, and innovative. Structure and form are one. The roof is a cable structure that was laid out in advance on the ground and then erected over a period of days. Elegant, efficient, and technically progressive. Considering structures like the bird's nest feature a relatively conventional structure wrapped in a shell containing a perverse amount of tangled steel, I have a hard time accepting it's value outside of the initial wow factor.

aphorismal
Feb 4, 13 4:06 pm

I thought both the Olympic Stadium and the Velodrome were amazingly done.  It's just a shame that the Velodrome is a velodrome, and didn't get much exposure because of it.

Apurimac
Feb 5, 13 10:18 am

^agreed.  Stadiums don't have to be iconic to be good.  I will never get over the droopy ceiling in the aquatic center though even if it will be a pretty building with the temp. stands removed.

  • ×Search in:


Please wait... loading
Please wait... loading