London's Olympic Stadium - A Global Step Forward

Conceptual Plan

Current state of the Stadium as of March 2010

The 2012 Olympic Stadium in London was designed by Peter Cook of HOK Sport and was intended to be environmentally revolutionary, fusing aesthetics and sustainability into a multi-functional stadium. The first light tower of fourteen has recently been lifted into place with a 650-ton crane. Once all fourteen light towers are in place, spectators will see the full 197-foot height of the 92-foot diameter stadium. The plan according to Rod Sheard, an architect at HOK, is a “simple building with a very tight, compelling bowl.”

As a re-sizable stadium, this structure is revolutionary. This circular venue will hold 80,000 spectators for the games and can transform into a 25,000-spectator arena for local events after the Olympics. The designers have incorporated removable seating that allow the seats to be installed in a different arena, similar to the arrangement in 2006 when the football World Cup in Germany shipped 16,000 seats to Barbados to be used in the ICC Cricket World Cup.

To save money and materials, the metal used in construction was melted into steel beams from confiscated guns and knives from London’s Metropolitan Police Department. This recyclable method serves as a sustainable reuse of materials and an anti-weapons measure. Separate from the spectator seating are detached “pods” surrounding the stadium, serving as concession stands, restroom facilities and gift shops. These pods will be installed with water recycling systems to reduce the games’ impact on natural resources.

The focus of the stadium is to allow for the Olympic Village in East London’s Lower Lea Valley to not only be renovated before the games but to be restored to a more natural state after the Olympics. A large public park is planned for the site and is expected to be fully established by 2040. In addition to reclaiming the land after the Olympics, the stadium’s construction has revived a lesser-known part of London. The construction has created 50,000 new jobs in the community and London hopes to continue the area’s economic vitality with 30,000 new homes. These efforts will keep London's structure from turning into an unoccupied “empty shell”, like the 21 out of 22 Olympic structures in Athens, a $14.4 billion project that has been sitting desolate since their 2004 games.

The designers for London's stadium encourage its future use by creating a structure that can be moved and used in various locations. The 10,000 ton steel structure is the lightest Olympic stadium to date and was assembled by interlocking pieces of steel without welding. Bolting the structure gives the stadium the ability to be completely dismantled into a kit-of-parts to be easily transported.

The concept of a re-sizable mobile structure offers several ways for London to make use of the stadium. One option is that the stadium can be sold as a venue. Private buyers can purchase this sustainable building and deploy it in another city. Another option is that the stadium can be shipped to host countries as a temporary structure, lowering the construction costs of Olympic building. This would make it more financially feasible for developing nations to host the games.

The legacy Britain is trying to attain with this stadium may very well put the London games at the forefront of sustainability and change the face of our world’s Olympic games. During Chicago’s unsuccessful bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics, the director of sports and operations at Chicago 2016, Doug Arnott, stated that if London's stadium could be boxed up and shipped to the next games, the stadium will be "something that could benefit the Olympic movement." This demonstrates that future host cities are interested and believe in this concept as an environmental and economical way for future Olympic games to operate.

But the high cost of the stadium is limiting London’s opportunities to recuperate their money. In the last two years the stadium’s budget has nearly doubled to $1 billion. Consequently critics claim that even with the incentives to buy a structure that can be reused and adapted to hold a vast number of spectators, the high price will discourage potential buyers.

Initially, the stadium appealed to the ODA (Olympic Delivery Authority) for its unique design for a structure that represented the muscles of the human body. With the increasing costs, the concept has been altered and is not faithful to London's original proposal. Critics state that the form resembles a gas storage facility, far from the original idea inspired by the human body.

With the preliminary design lost and the rising cost of the structure, Architect Will Aslop highlights that there was no competition for the stadium’s design or to choose the designers. Local architects are claiming that the concept of a traveling stadium could have been represented with more aesthetic appeal. The ODA has been criticized for being more interested in the legacy of a re-usable Olympic structure than the actual design. Architects believe that London is not taking advantage of the opportunity to create an architectural icon of British design.

Unfortunately the design also lacks practicality. For example the seating is not suitable for different climates. Only 67% of the seats will be covered for the Olympic games, leaving over 26,000 seats unprotected from sun or rain. With 33% of the seats uncovered the structure’s adaptability is limited. Additionally, the structure cannot be easily assembled because of the heavy machinery required, such as the 650-ton crane needed to transport the stadium’s lighting. This feat has been described as the greatest engineering challenge on the project thus far.

With this said, the stadium is not as financially sustainable as Peter Cook intended. The assembly requires technologically advanced tools with high operating costs. In addition there are dismantling and shipping costs that have not been factored into the $1 billion price tag.

The original concept of a mobile stadium has the ability to fulfill its potential on projects that have more collaboration and design expertise, but this design was not clearly thought out. Still, although this structure may not alone start a new a strategy of building, it is definitely a model for developers to learn from.