In an architectural "hail Mary" move, Zaha Hadid Architects put out a 23-minute video stating their case for Japan to keep their embroiled design for the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Stadium. When Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe announced approximately five weeks ago that ZHA's design was being dropped, citing concerns over an inflated ¥252 billion price-tag since the initial competition-winning submission, ZHA denied that the design was to blame for the increased cost, and instead placed the responsibility on the less-than-competitive Japanese contractor market.
In the slick, info-laden 23-minute video, Dame Hadid herself makes the case for the stadium: "it was a very serious team of people, of engineers, of architects, who looked at this project for two to three years, so it was an enormous investment. I think it’s a very important project because it has a lot beyond the Olympics, it has a legacy life.” That legacy life is the core justification for every design element that may, at first glance, seem simply like an added cost.
The video makes two imperatives clear: sticking with ZHA's design is the only way to achieve the project on-time and trust that it will give the best return on the taxpayer's investment. And the only way to achieve these two objectives is to re-open the contractor bidding process. Starting "from scratch" with a new international competition, as Abe is proposing, will not fulfill these imperatives.
“There is limited competition available, and this is the underlying issue to be tackled," the video's peculiarly intoning narrator explains. "We think the new process should concentrate on achieving competitive bids based on the existing design, with the option to provide cost savings to achieve the project on time and on budget. This way the design isn’t wasted and the risk of failure to get value for money is avoided.”
The video also refers to the design team's collective experience with stadiums (which includes Arup, who worked on Beijing's Olympic "Birds Nest" stadium, and ZHA's prior work on the London Aquatic Center for their 2012 games), to make the case that every element in the design was meant to maximize options for post-Olympic uses – athletic, cultural, public – and to learn from past projects. The "legacy life" that Hadid referred to. Careful attention is paid to pedestrian perspectives and uses, the experience within the stadium, its connection to the site: all fine-tuned to maximize use, post-Olympics.
Considering the argumentative style of the video, it is neither defensive nor combative towards the Olympic Committee's decision. It is a mammoth marketing effort to essentially re-pitch the entire project to Japan and the world, and paints ZHA as a firm that sticks to their guns and keep control of the story. Similar efforts were laid out directly after Abe's decision to cut the stadium loose, but only through a statement on ZHA's website.
So separate from whether this will impact the Olympic stadium's future, the implications for such a video are critical in the world of practicing architects. ZHA may already have uncontested clout in the cult of starchitectural personality, but pushing back against a prime minister's decision, on perhaps one of the most high-profile institutional projects the world-over? And placing blame on a noncompetitive contractor market? There is even a mouthful of a hashtag, #retaintokyostadiumzha, to keep the rally going. The architect's agency in such a necessarily collaborative endeavor, further complicated by market factors, culture and aesthetics, is being fought out on the battlegrounds of Tokyo's stadium.
You can catch up on the whole story behind the Tokyo Olympic Stadium here, and watch the complete video below:
5 Comments
Hm.
Well, they definitely good arguments on several points. Many have counterarguments, but at some point, as in many construction projects, when you change things to save money the effect on schedule and long-term operation mean the savings are an illusion.
I got a little uncomfortable at their skewering of the London Olympic stadium - by Populous, right? - to make their point. I guess our clients expect us to be experts, and being an expert means you know when something was *not* done well, but it still made me feel a bit like being a kid watching my parents fight.
Argument and plea make sense at this point. Why wasn't the client proactive at the design stage is another question. Weren't they getting cost estimates as they were still finalizing DD's and CD's?They can ask foreign bidders but... For example, a Turkish contractor did a pretty good job at Aliyev Center. But then again, the national pride of Japan and all that stuff. Well, so what, the architect is not Japanese either. I think most of the issues are fueled with that situation... I really think few billion dollars is not the issue here in the light of stock markets capable of losing 2-3trillion on a bad day. Japan is not the neediest country in the world you know. They should just go for it. The design have a lot of merit as a stadium and obviously a lot of talent went into it.
Excellent video.
My initial impression is this stadium simply looks bad, and out of place. The justification of the form by referencing traditional Japanese bridges makes no sense because those bridges exist in a physical context that doesn't exist at the project site. All the other things about how well it works are great, but there is a reason why we have architects design buildings and not engineers. I don't think they can save this project unless they start from scratch. Embedding cultural symbols into a project doesn't make it good.
Actually, I like the new scheme they inadvertently proposed around 19 minutes into the video. Very simple and reminiscent of the red sun of the Japanese flag. If you want symbolism, make it easy to read the symbols.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.