HOK's 2012 Olympic stadium design revealed - images and slideshow - Comments

Ah well, will make a great container for gas after the games are over!

Reminds me of a half buried, cheap whisky tumbler from the '70's, the type given away by petrol stations What are the smarties for?

2012 Olympic Stadium Design Why is it that we have world class Architects who manage to produce such uninspiring designs for our most important home grown projects? Perhaps I expect too much.

Ernst Happel Stadium anyone? Its incredibly dull, its looks like it was designed by a team of accountants. Where is the fun? What makes this British? except for the obvious risk aversion and architecture by numbers which characterises our major cities these days. The original designs were far more interesting, what a surprise that this has been so drastically watered down, a real missed opportunity.

I can see Peter Cook's brain working on this design. A no frills architecture . The new stadium design looks a little like a gassometer. Perhaps in keeping with the old image of East London. hmmmmmmm

This is a first for recent times: a proposal for a large-scale structure in a major UK city with an apparent integrity which suggests a mature response by the design team , a response which seems to deftly skip over all the banal rhetoric of iconographic intention. I, for one, am so bored of it all! Any structure conceived with the teleology of producing 'an icon' is destined to fail. What makes architecture iconic isn't straightforward, but surely begins with a process which places at its heart not only integrity, but a clear response to context (beyond merely the physical) and exudes both delight and accopmplishment in demonstrating its worth. What would I change of the proposal revealed? The naff imagery to the raked cladding. Why not make the most of the opportunity of designing a demountable structure and be wilful about the use of a cladding material which wouldn't last on the exterior of a building with, say, a 60 year lifespan..? Anything but images... Doesn't their presence smack of a team lacking in the confidence of their own design as the centrepiece to the Olympics under the scrutiy of all the icono-philes..?

Disappointing! The Innovative and Ground Breaking design can not be seen in any of the images. So, you can take the seats out, that's not exactly innovative or flexible. A mixture of temporary seating and a giant gas cylinder - does it rise up & down as it fills up? Now that would be truly innovative - must copyright that design before HOK or PC get wind of it.

I knew the old Gasometers would come in handy!!!!!!!!!!Perfect for the new Olympic Stadium.

How disappointing, it does indeed look like a gas storage cylinder. I can't believe how far they have deviated from the stunning 'insect wing' concept design, this new design is bland and embarrassing.

Demonstration of what happens when something is designed by a committee of bean-counters.

how about folding 25,000 seats and keeping 55,000. to me, it just makes sense that way. these drunkards have spent our monies and should be sent to iraq to defend and fight for the nation

So we're lumbered with an 'Archigram Coolhouse Colander' meets a Klaus Oldenberg waste paper bin: and how much were they paid?????? Should have had a competition EXCLUDING all starchitects!!! So no Foster, Rogers, Hadid, Gehry, Grimshaw, HOK, KPF etc etc. Give the kids a break!!!!!!! Some bloody heritage??

A giant bottle cap left over by some inebriated megafauna. I hope these designer guys don't come to my town.....

What is wrong with icons? Gettimg tired of Big Ben and the London Eye? Lots of demountable seating might be practical and certainly a little pessimistic, but it's not realy exciting. And when after the games the temporary remains permament, like the Eiffel tower, you will have to look at this for quite a while. Poor Londonites...

An unmitigated disaster!

in the spirit of the innovative design i am going to re use the comments of Andy Korn: disappointing, bland, embarassing. This is an insult to architecture.

Who would want to use this when the games are over? Too bad they cant just use the new wembley. It has the iconic look of a olympic stadium.

This is going to have to be rethought and if we're not careful we'll be late for the start. The word 'embarrassing', used several times above, couldn't be more fitting.

THE FRUIT BASKET! I remember these fold flat wire fruit baskets that Woolworths used to sell. The bruise your fruit and dig grooves in the skins.

Does a world class purpose structure deserve a world class design? 2012 should be a world class purpose structure, unfortunatley it will not because it will be created from an uninspiriting, incomplete design.

what's a disappointment! now the ring is celebrated instead of the arch in Wembly. Is it inspired by London eye. When will the British architecture really produce an overwhalming architectury in our contemporary day? Very conservative British style architecture, I think. The stadium will be there for another hundreds year. As the representation let us dishearten, don't ask for how the realisation will bring us immensity of sadness. The world doesnot deserve this as the British have promised the better one.

first impression Peter...I like the blobby bits around the edge. second thoughts....the Hedgehog wins hands down.Sorry.

wel,wel wel.i never thought that 21ist century arcchitects could thinkthis way.how was it awarded in the first place?didn't they have enough designs to choose from?i wonder what hopes are available for us the young architects

this stadium is amazing. it will certainly attract people from around the world.

what were they thinking? sustainable I think not. Design, well what design? This should be something to celebrate Britain not commensurate. If anything should go to a public enquiry this shoud!

Nobody mentioned the lame hatband with the stiff graphics of; wait for it: Athletes!!! Brilliant!

Now I know why the government aren't pushing hard enough to cut down carbon emissions - it's so global warming ensures that we'll have no rain by 2012 and the UK won't be embarrassed by a stadium that has no roof! Come on - what were they thinking?

Well I beg to differ. You have a structure to be used for 2 weeks (what legacy have the Olympics ever left except debt?) and only the interior will be seen by the vast majority of people, and only on TV. Who cares what it looks like if it stands up for 2 weeks and has camera appeal on the inside. Get real, I say.

Why does it have to be like something else? It is what it is -- a demountable stadium, an example of modesty and restraint in an era when being over the top is the only thing admired. Look a little closer and the beauty and subtlety will become clear.

Are they recycling the London Eye? Drop it on it's side, hang a few banners underneath and bobs your grandad... Shockingly lame.

This is going to be an international embarrasement! Did a first year out student design this (without trying to be rude to first year out students)?

It does look like a fruit basket in the land of Jack and the giant beanstalk. But if you think that it looks ugly now, wait until budget constraints and cost-over-runs force the builders to use oversized gusset plates and enormous brackets instead of the elegant connections currently shown in the rendering. The pessimist in me cries foul.

A disaster. What on earth were HOK thinking? The ODA, Peter Cook and HOK should be sacked (isn't Peter Cook a paid consultant to HOK anyway?). What happened to degrade the original design to this awful bowl of Trifle? Shame on them all. This is the British Olympics for goodness sake, not a casino in Kazakhstan.

mind numbing crap! ....and structurally incompetent.

Beautiful

i must admit that gas-o-meter was my first reaction, but so what. corb was impressed by silo containers and in the AA in the 60's it was the well serviced shed. and whats wrong with gas holders? they do a job, they are in a town near you and our prejudice is just another sign that our mind gets in the way of the clear light of reality.

at least there will be plenty of spare seats for the hooligans to throw at each other.. An they can be posh hooligans too given the cost per seat for the stadium.

Ugly, yes. At least it won't be there for long....Many cities (eg Barcelona) that have built vast and wasteful olympic villages that become baron the moment the games draw to a close.

British architecture is bland. What did you expect? At least it's not made of brown bricks.

Richard Lewis is right it is" incredibly dull". The answer to Richard Booth's question surely lies with the client. We do have the world class architects as The Stirling Prize attests. The real question is - Do we have world class clients who can produce a world class brief?

This Proposed Stadium has many poorly developed ideas and suffers from a sort of tunnel vision where it seems nobody has tackled the brief from first principles. 1). A multifunction stadium with a football pitch inside an athletics running track is not disagreeable to football clubs as a football stadium, the old Wembley had exactly this arrangement and international football matches and many other events re held there for over 50 years. Ref www.stadefrance.fr to see how its done 2). Most people who attend a football match in a large stadium will quite happily be some distance from the touchline, not everybody wants the close up view that this location brings. 3). If it is thought that a part of the crowd should be closer to "the action" then a slight lowering of the level of the playing field by say 1.5 Metres would allow 3 or 4 rows of removable seating to be introduced at the sides with say 10 or more extra rows at the curved ends when football or rugby is played which could slide back under the permanent seating when not required. These special seats or positions could be occupied by disabled, infirm, elderly or children. They could easily be supervised by management in the front few rows. 4). Reducing the capacity of the stadium is not a sensible idea, it would involve complete demolition of the roof and upper tier of seatas which would mean massive disruption of the lower tier of "permanent" seats due to the machinery involved. What about the moral of the builders? Are they just beasts of burden who are to pour their hard work sweat and tears into a building no sooner finished and then three quarters removed and what part remains trashed and turned into a pile of rusting steelwork? No reputable skilled worker would wish to be involved in such nonsense. If the stadium were to be leased to a First Division Football club after it were reduced in capacity what would happen if the club gained promotion. The stadium would then be too small. Would they have to leave? 4). If it is not possible to put a permanent stadium seating 90,000 people and make it work and pay its way on this brown field site in Stratford, London with 2 underground stations, the DLR, a large bus interchange depot, 3 suburban rail lines, the Stratford Mainline Rail route to Southend, Chelmsford and the East Coast, the new international Eurostar station, a direct connection to the motorway network via the M11 extension and the East Cross route to Blackwall tunnel and the O2dome a 15 minute journey time to Docklands Airport, the new Stratford City development with its thousands of sq metres of new floorspace shops offices, car parks for thousands of cars etc, AND a connection to the canal network. and all of the remaining buildings which would remain after the Olympic Games have passed into history and nearly 7 million people within 10 miles then where should one be built ? 6). Temporary buildings designed to be used by large numbers of people for just a few days can be fairly primitive with barely adequate even poor facilities (pop concerts, Glastonbury etc. but will an international Olympic audience sit in the rain to watch athletics without an umbrella? 7). A building which is to house 90,000 people safely for 3-4 months will need to be designed to the same standards as a permanent building (e.g the London Eye, Eiffel Tower etc were originally meant to be temporary). No professional involved would agree to "skimp" or "cut corners" in case such skimping should give rise to some accident for which they might be blamed. 8). The proposed stadium would seem to have a surrounding sheeting membrane which it is proposed to decorate, the material from which this would be made would need to be very special, there a very few totally non inflamable fabrics and a sail of this size would generate an enormous sideways stress on the roof structure iin a high wind.

A greet building !

Poor architechture, brilliant engineering

"what legacy have the Olympics ever left except debt?" - Ask Los Angeles - twice - and Atlanta. Oh wait, you can't: they left no debt.

What a shame that architects missed the opportunity to show what the profession can contribute in building towards a carbon neutral future. The project could have directed money in building materials that are green and technologically advanced. This in turn could have increased economies of scale and brought done the price of such technology making it affordable and known to the British public. When will the architecture profession realise that it is not just politicians that play key roles in the direction that society takes. Wake up to the future!