Main Stadium for the London 2012 Olympic Games

Olympic Delivery Authority

Main Olympic and Paralympic Games 80,000-seat venue in east London's Olympic Park, which will be converted to a 25,000 seat athletics stadium in legacy. Designed by HOK Sport.

We also reviewed this scheme on 18 January 2008.

Summary

We support the simple, elegant and efficient strategy for a temporary Olympic stadium structure with a permanent facility that becomes integrated into the Legacy Park landscape. This narrative has been successfully sustained and clarified both in safeguarding Legacy development options and in the logical resolution of the temporary stadium structure. However, we think there is a risk that the potential clarity and simplicity of the stadium concept could yet be lost in the detailed resolution of those elements which fall outside the scope of the Stage 2 planning application and the responsibility of the stadium design team.

Specifically, we are disappointed that our previous concerns about embracing the potential of the temporary wrap and 'pod' kiosks and creating an appropriate landscape setting have not been addressed in the current planning submission. These elements will, in part, determine the quality and character of the public realm during the Games and merit the same clarity of conception and concentrated design thinking as the permanent venues. We are equally concerned that the experience of the stadium's 'dark space' is unresolved at this point. The planning authority will need to assure itself that all of the above issues are resolved to its satisfaction prior to determination of the planning application.

Stage 2 planning application

While we welcome the commitment to joint working between the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) and London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG), we think that urgent decisive action is needed to resolve the design of the temporary elements and the relationship of venues to their landscape setting. Otherwise, in the case of the main stadium, there is a danger that indicative designs will become actual designs by default. We are concerned that submitting a planning application at this stage will fix these key elements of the design before they have been successfully resolved. We therefore think it is essential that the planning authority satisfies itself that a convincing strategy for the design of the wrap is proposed now, rather than deferring the decision to be dealt with as planning conditions.

Superstructure and interior circulation space

We continue to applaud the structural logic of the temporary stadium. The structural solution, including the lighting, holds out the prospect of a memorable experience at night for visitors. We welcome the idea of restringing the roof structure as a memory of the Olympics for the reduced capacity Legacy facility.The design of the west stand pavilion is compositionally well judged and respects the primacy of the main stadium.

We think that further consideration is required on the treatment of the blank interior circulation space. Given the temporary life of this space, it will require a different sort of consideration from a permanent venue. The design team should accurately convey the experience of walking through this space in the planning application material to ensure there is no ambiguity about its character. Based on the illustrations presented, the space appears so constrained by toilet block containers that they may make it uncomfortable for visitors. Furthermore, the area is described as a 'dark space' but there is no indication as to how dark or light it will be. In our view, this internal concourse space must function as an important social space providing retreat and shelter. It is currently unclear whether the space can function in this way. The planning authority should also satisfy itself that the dark treatment of this interior space enhances the visitor experience rather than, at worst, miserably detracts from it.

Wrap

The shift in emphasis from the floating horizontal wrap of the competition winning scheme, to a wall of vertical banners seems to have resulted from a misconceived desire to use figurative images - which continue to appear in the detailed planning application. We warmly welcome the intention to involve an artist in the treatment of the wrap. Through engaging fully with an artist, we believe the project will find the concentration of creative intelligence and design integration with the architecture and engineering that it requires. As the most visible element of the most televised Olympic venue, the wrap has the potential to become a memorable symbol of the Games. Therefore, it is essential that the wrap is treated as an inspiring and evocative artwork rather than a display for Olympic imagery or information signage as shown in the indicative material submitted. The planning authority should assure itself that signage is appropriate for the building as part of a clear way-finding strategy, and not considered as an afterthought.

The detailed execution of the wrap will be essential in achieving a successful outcome; the planning authority should satisfy itself that its technical specifications demonstrate a high level of design quality. It should also be confident that sufficient thought has been devoted to the appearance and performance of the wrap in different conditions over the anticipated two-year lifespan, including the density of the fabric, how it is fixed to attenuate wind noise, its durability and the impact of lighting proposals for it on the quality and character of the public realm at night.

Landscape setting

While we continue to support the legible concept of a stadium island, the clarity and confidence of this original idea is not represented in the indicative landscape proposals, either visually or functionally. It is disappointing at this stage not to see the stadium's immediate setting resolved. It would be unfortunate if this lack of resolution frustrates the stadium's integration with the larger Olympic Park setting.

Nonetheless, we welcome the London Development Agency (LDA) and ODA acting as joint clients on the Olympic Park landscape, as we understand it, to address key challenges in the shifting formal requirements of the landscape during Games mode through to Legacy. It is incumbent upon both parties to establish a clear strategy and proposition about how the landscaping of the stadium and its environs will be used and/or adapted in Legacy mode.

Pods

It is incumbent on the ODA together with LOCOG to establish, as soon as is practicable, a clear strategy for the design procurement of the pods which will provide visitors' facilities across the Park and beyond. In our view, this programme should be procured separately through a design competition involving young designers.

Sustainability

We continue to support the principle of a low embodied energy solution that embraces the temporary structure. However, given the scale and cost of the steel,  the wrap, and the yet un-designed temporary accommodation, we think that further thought is needed to capture their potential re-use in the long term by ensuring they are specifically designed to be re-located or recycled post Games. For example, we think the temporary accommodation should be designed with a specific location and Legacy function in mind, possibly for community use.

Access

We continue to think that the design ethos for the stadium should positively discriminate in favour of disabled visitors during the Paralympics and to ensure that investment in access is carried forward into Legacy. In balancing the demands of an efficient and sustainable structure with inclusive design, we think it is essential that accessibility and choice for wheelchair users is optimised rather than designed merely to meet minimum standards.

Conclusion

The current challenge of designing individual venues before their wider context is determined requires a careful balance between process, construction, cost, and time in order to achieve the necessary level of architectural and landscape quality. The concerns raised go beyond the responsibility of the stadium design team and will require a co-ordinated and urgent effort from the ODA and LOCOG to resolve, in discussion with the planning authority and the LDA. In particular, we think a clear park-wide attitude towards the relationship of the venues to their setting is required. Greater collaboration is needed amongst Olympic delivery partners based on a clear division of responsibilities. CABE and Design for London would welcome the opportunity to discuss this strategy.