Research Paper

The Future of Olympic Architecture?
Nicholas Howlett
THE FUTURE OF OLYMPIC ARCHITECTURE?

Does Londons 2012 Stadium represent a model for future Olympic stadium design?
A research paper submitted by Nicholas Howlett towards the degree of Master

of Architecture at the University of Bath, Department of Architecture and Civil
Cover image: http://allsizewallpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/london-2012-olympicstadium-aerial-hq.html#!/2012/07/london-2012-olympic-stadium-aerial-hq.html
Engineering. Session: 2012-13. Student number: 070221693
Nick Howlett
ABSTRACT
Olympic Games are some of the largest events in the world, and as such generate a
huge amount of discussion, including debate over the architecture built to support
them. In recent years, host cities have tended to invest in large, extravagant stadia,
however with ever-growing global concerns over sustainability and the legacy the
Olympics leave behind, there is increasing worry about these huge structures and
how they equate with a sustainable future for the regions they are built in.
In the summer of 2012, the Olympics came to London, where the architects behind
the stadium decided to try something different, creating a scheme designed to be
almost 70% demountable post-Games. This paper aims to investigate whether the
principles behind the design create a model for future Olympic stadia. Drawing on
previous published research, the context is first set by analysing prior designs and
relevant debates. The principles behind Londons stadium are then explored and
analysed, based on primary research from Planning applications, assessment of
published written media and personal experience, which also allows comparison to
alternative approaches for the design of a main stadium.
The paper concludes that whilst it is not as simple as saying that one approach will
always be the right one, the analysis suggests that the principles behind Londons
stadium would seem the best choice, assuming that a new stadium is desired as part
of a wider agenda. However, the difficulties that London is currently experiencing
regarding the stadiums future show that whether or not the strategy can be
successfully achieved remains to be seen.
KEYWORDS
Stadium, London, 2012, Olympics, design, architecture, Populous, demountable,
temporary, legacy, sustainability, stadia
Image
from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/garymcgovern/7808803714/
2
Nick Howlett
CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Context for Study
2.1. Background
2.2. The Olympics and Urban Regeneration
2.3. The Olympics and Sustainability
2.4. Olympic Main Stadia
3. Architectural Strategy for London 2012

3.1. Overall Strategy
3.2. Stadium (Olympics mode)
3.3. Stadium (Original Future Plan)
3.4. Stadium (Current Future Plan)
4. Analysing Success

4.1. Architectural Design
4.2. Functionality
4.3. Sustainability
4.4. Cost
13
19
5. Conclusion
27
Endnotes & Citations
29
Bibliography
31
Figure & Table References
34
Appendix
35
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank all those who have helped in the writing of this paper,
notably my tutor David Coley for his assistance, and Pauline and Andrew
Howlett for their proof-reading.
Image
from: http://ninety90.co.uk/london-2012-olympic-stadium/
4
Nick Howlett
1. INTRODUCTION
2. CONTEXT FOR STUDY
2.1 Background
2.2. The Olympics and Urban Regeneration
entire cities. But they are also travelling circuses, lighting
Since the Olympics were revived by Baron de Coubertin
Although initially the Modern Olympics were held
up a city for a few weeks, before disappearing again, to
in 1896, they have grown in size immensely and are
alongside World Fairs and had little lasting impact on a
emerge four years later. Many host cities have invested
now the largest peacetime events in the world.
city, by the time of the 1960 Games in Rome organisers
in extravagant architecture, with the main stadium
Today, holding the Olympics represents, The ultimate
had begun to realise the potential such large events
no exception. However, with ever-growing concerns
accolade that a city can earn on the world stage , with
had for catalysing urban regeneration. By the time of
over sustainability and the legacy the Olympics leave
the event being of sufficient size to have a significant
Barcelona in 1992, only 17% of the total expenditure
behind, and with many previous facilities sitting under-
impact on national economies. However, it brings with
went on the sporting element of the Games, with the
used, there appears an increasing dichotomy between
it focussed media attention on an unparalleled scale,
remainder spent on urban improvement projects.5 As
building extravagant Olympic stadia with high iconic
and looking back over 100 years of history, benefits to
a result, the Barcelona Games are seen largely as a
value, and building facilities with a sustainable future.
the host city are not assured Simon Usborne sums up
success in urban planning terms, regenerating a large
its impacts: The best Olympics regenerate neglected
stretch of the waterfront and laying the foundations for
The design of the London 2012 Stadium is an ambitious
districts, inspire children to take up sport and leave
further plans delivered throughout the 1990s.6
departure from its predecessors, with originally 69%
a city furnished with world-class venues and rolling
of its 80,000-seat capacity and much of what gives it
in Olympic dollars The worst are poisoned chalices
Ken Livingstone, mayor of London at the time of the
its visual identity, designed to be demountable. The
that leave a nation in debt and a city overrun by white
London bid, has been quoted as saying, I didnt bid for
hypothesis of this paper is thus: the architectural
elephants. 4
the Olympics because I wanted three weeks of sport.
Olympic Games1 are some of the largest events in the

world, with the power to entertain, inspire and transform
I bid for the Olympics because its the only way to get
principles behind Londons Olympic Stadium represent

the model solution for future Olympic stadia. This will
As the scale of the event has grown, so too has the
billions of pounds out of the Government to develop
be assessed by first investigating previous stadia and
architectural endeavour behind it, and today every
the East End.
related thinking and debates, before analysing Londons
Olympic bid involves promises of considerable
highlights one of the key benefits of the Olympics in
stadium in depth. Based on personal experience of
investment in new facilities and infrastructure. The
the eyes of the organisers, and one that must not be
visiting it during the Games, primary research of Planning
main stadium has always been the centrepiece of any
forgotten when considering the stadium.
applications and via the analysis of the written media of
Games, generally hosting the opening and closing
others, its success or otherwise will be explored.
ceremonies, as well as athletics and occasionally other
As well as the physical aspects of regeneration (for
sports. This however creates a difficult challenge for
example improved an transport infrastructure) the
the architects involved the Olympics only last for a
potential of the Olympics in place promotion has also
few weeks, and this sits very uncomfortably with the
been highlighted - in other words portraying a certain
normal permanence of architecture.
positive image of the host city or country to the world,
Although perhaps rather cynical, this
generally in order to encourage increased tourism or

investment.8
Perhaps the most pertinent examples
are the 1936 Games held in Nazi Berlin and the 2008
Beijing Games, both of which served as strong political
advertisements for their countries and regimes.
Nick Howlett
Table 1: Previous Olympic main stadia of note

Year
Place
Category
1908
London,
New
UK
permanent
2.3. The Olympics and Sustainability

Although the event itself is inherently unsustainable,
involving as it does a massive construction programme
0%
68,000 seat capacity stadium multi-use stadium, with running

track, cycle track around the outside, and swimming pool in the
build
middle. Became increasingly neglected post-Games, and was

demolished in the 1980s
1936
and countless international flights9, within the current
Berlin,
New
Germany
permanent
as part of grand architectural scheme promoted by the Nazi
build
government. Still in use today (in modified form) for football
climate of environmental awareness the promotion of

sustainable development has become one of the key
% of seats Description
temporary
1976
aims of the Olympic Movement.10 As a result, a detailed
0%
Montreal,
New
Canada
permanent
decided on lavish, iconic facilities. The stadiums design was so
build
complicated that it was not finished on time and went far over
strategy for the environmental impact and legacy of the
0%
Monumental 110,000 seat stadium built in neo-classical style,
Like most of the Games during the 1970s, the organisers
event is an important part of all recent bids, although it
budget. The city spent over 30 years paying off debts accrued
has been noted that there have been no huge successes
from hosting the Games
in this area to date.11
1980
Moscow,
Simple
USSR
renovation
0%
Following Montreal, in general just upgraded existing facilities,

including the main stadium (at the time holding 103,000
people)
2.4. Olympic Main Stadia
1984
As Jacques Rogge, current president of the International

Olympic Committee, has said, Olympic Stadia are the
visual icons of any edition of the Olympic Games12 and
Los
Simple
Angeles,
renovation
0%
Games as a whole made a healthy profit, the lasting impacts
USA
1992
certainly in the last few years, the postcard image
have been negligible
Barcelona,
Extensive
Spain
renovation
0%
The main stadium was an extensively renovated existing facility.

Good legacy planning of the Games in general meant that
stadium was used regularly (until recently) by Espanyol Football
of any Games has been of their main stadium. By
club
extension, in the context of the role of the Olympics

in urban regeneration and sustainable development
Again decided on renovating an existing venue. Although the
1996
explored above, the main stadium is perhaps the
Atlanta,
New semi-
USA
permanent
44%
post-Games to turn it into a 47,000 seat stadium for a local
build
most important asset in terms of place promotion,
Built to seat 85,000, the main Stadium was partially demolished

baseball team. Still in regular use today (although almost
promotion of sustainable values and for catalysing
unrecognisable from the original stadium). Olympics overall
urban regeneration.
were an economic success

2000
Table 1 summarises Olympic main stadia of note in

the context of this paper (with London 2012 added for
comparison).
Sydney,
New semi-
27%
Main Stadium held 110,000 during the Games, with one stand
Australia
permanent
removed post-Games, becoming an 80,000 seat venue, primarily
build
for rugby and Australian Rules football. However, legacy planning

was only developed post-Games as a result the stadium
continues to struggle to attract enough events to be profitable,
largely because of competition from better located venues
Nick Howlett
Table 1 continued:
Looking at the historical precedent, there are numerous

instances where poor legacy planning or bad stadium
Year
2004
2008
Place
Category
Athens,
Extensive
Greece
renovation
Beijing,
New mostly
China
permanent
% of seats Description
temporary
0%
12%
build
London,
New semi-
UK
permanent
the Olympics have finished, the host city is left with
75,000 seat stadium dramatically renovated by Santiago
facilities that dont find sufficient use to be economically
Calatrava into an architecturally striking design. However, it
successful, leaving only Monuments to vanity16. This
is poorly used today (as is much of the Olympic park) and the
can naturally damage rather than enhance the citys
Olympics overall have greatly exacerbated Greeces economic
reputation.17 The strongest example is perhaps Athens,
problems
where 21 out of 22 venues now lie almost abandoned
91,000 seat iconic stadium designed by Herzog & De Meuron,
figure 3 shows some signature Calatrava architecture
11,000 of which were temporary and removed post-Games
left vandalised.18
(without any exterior visual change). However, not well-used

today, instead functions primarily as a tourist attraction
2012
design (such as in Montreal) have meant that after
69%
Figure 2: Los Angeles 1984 Olympic Stadium
That is not to say, however, that all new-build Olympic

stadia are consigned to this fate. The future life of
80,000 seat lightweight stadium, with 55000 on a demountable
Atlantas stadium (figure 4) was planned from the
structure allowing potential removal post-Games
start, and it remains in frequent use today. However,
build
the transformation required substantial building work

(the temporary parts could certainly not be described
as demountable19) and the design was dismissed as
architecturally very uninspiring.20 Sydneys design also
As can be seen, architectural strategies for Olympic main
featured temporary elements in order to improve its
stadia have varied widely, although in general they have
future legacy, however these were built from in-situ
fluctuated between simply renovating existing venues
concrete (thus stretching the notion of temporary)
and building large, extravagant buildings. The reasons
and this strategy alone was not sufficient to ensure the

Figure 3: Vandalised architecture at the Athens 2004
Olympic Complex
behind the chosen strategies are often political for

example, Beijings decision to build an architecturally
economic sustainability of the venue.21
iconic stadium (figure 1) that could be recognised across
These precedents set the backdrop against which
the globe was part of a conscious decision to show that
Londons stadium was designed, with the organisers
the Modern China could compete on the world stage.13
facing the problem of how to create a stadium that
Los Angeles adopted perhaps the opposite approach, in
positively promotes the city, is effective during the
general only using or updating existing facilities (figure
Games, and has a sustainable future. They faced a
2), and not worrying about trying to raise the global
particular challenge in following Beijing it has been
visibility of the city or prove a political point. Although
noted that following such extravagance, a more
this approach saw their Olympic Games make a healthy
functional and economical scheme would seem
profit, several commentators bemoaned the lack of
lacklustre and thus could be counterproductive to aims
intimacy and atmosphere caused by using existing
regarding place promotion.22
facilities that were scattered all over the city.14,15
10
Figure 1: Beijing 2008 Olympic Stadium
Figure 4: Atlanta 1996 Olympic Stadium
11
Nick Howlett
3. ARCHITECTURAL STRATEGY FOR

LONDON 2012
3.1. Overall Strategy
before, London took it much further in terms of seats,

London had almost the same amount of temporary
More than any other previous Olympics, the organisers
construction as the last three Olympics put together.24
of London 2012 were keen to promote sustainable
Figure 5 shows London in comparison to other recent
values, using the Games as a catalyst for the large-scale
Olympics (see appendix 1 for detailed breakdown of
regeneration of the Lea Valley area, in East London
2012 venues) it is worth noting too that seven of
as Hattie Hartman puts it, It [was] about much more
Londons new builds included substantial post-Games
than an Olympic Park full of new sporting venues. It
changes, such as the removal of temporary seating.
[was] about the creation of a sustainable urban quarter

with an ecological park at its heart.23 Central to this
In terms of the image London was trying to portray to the
was the principle of only building permanent new
world, it appears the organisers were keen to promote
venues when the long-term use could be justified with
functionality and efficiency through the architectural
a viable business plan. This led to the widespread use
schemes chosen suitable for the tough economic
of temporary buildings, as well as facilities which could
climate the country found itself in, and intrinsically
down-size following the Games and the use of existing
linked to the pursuit of sustainability.
arenas (such as Earls Court) where possible. Although
During the bidding phase, the notion of legacy was a
temporary venues have been used for the Olympics
key message for selling the Games. This incorporated
Figure 5: Comparison of total

numbers of different types of
venue
Existing
New permanent /
extensive renovations
Temporary
12
13
Nick Howlett
not only the built legacy (in terms of facilities that
history and potential future can be found in appendix
bowl, and the surrounding steel structure with
could be used by amateurs and professionals alike and
two. The key principles behind the Olympic-mode
roof were structurally independent, with the
the housing created by adapting the Athletes Village),
design were as follows:
demountable parts generally prefabricated and
but also the impact on social and economic factors
bolted (rather than welded) together. This would
such as promoting healthy living through access to
The headline strategy was of a partially demountable
sport, improving job prospects for local residents and
building - of the 80000 seats, 25000 were located
promoting volunteering.25
in a permanent concrete bowl, with the additional
It was designed to be as compact and lightweight as
55000 on a lightweight, steel and precast concrete
possible, to minimise the embodied energy, and to
structure above. This equated to 69% of seats
bring spectators close to the field of play. This meant
demountable.
a fully open concourse almost all the way around the
3.2. Stadium (Olympics Mode)
make for easier future dismantling.
stadium, and putting most of the ancillary functions

Londons Olympic Stadium was designed by sports
The key elements (shown in figure 6) permanent
(for example, toilets and concession stands) into
facility specialists Populous - a timeline of the stadiums
lower seating bowl, upper demountable seating
temporary pods located either beneath the raked

seating or outside the building (see figure 7). In
Londons case, this was greatly aided by the buildings
island location, which allowed security measures to
be placed on bridges, away from the actual building.
Its permeable design is also an important factor in
Figure 7: Toilet pod beneath the raked seating, with
coloured wrap on the left
creating a very accessible stadium, especially for

wheelchair users. However, to regulate wind levels
within the stadium, a colourful wrap made from
twisted strips of fabric was placed around the entire
perimeter.
The roof is an extremely lightweight tensile fabric
structure, covering two thirds of the seats. To further
reduce the stadiums environmental impact, much
of the structure which supports it is constructed
from surplus gas pipes rather than virgin steel.26
The permanent seating bowl is partially sunken
into the ground, to minimise concrete usage, and
to allow service functions to be hidden beneath
the main entrance level (see figure 8). Again, the
conditions of Londons site (which is slightly sloping)
greatly aided this.
Figure 6: Exploded visual of Londons stadium showing its key component parts
14
15
Nick Howlett
Figure 8: Sectional diagram of the stadium (Red denotes main public entrance level)
Figure 9:Visual showing how the stadium might look if all demountable parts are removed
Back of house
as athletics, football or even Formula 1 racing. The

conversion will entail some reconfiguration of seating
In general, the material palette was subdued and
bowl, field of play and a small amount of supporting
the architecture expressive of it efficiency, so that
facilities - figure 9 shows how it could look. However,
the stadium became a backdrop for the events
no clear strategies for the reuse of the demountable
within.
elements were investigated at the time the original
areas (which is made simple by the demountable

design) but also, in order to comply with regulations for
international standard football stadia, the roof will need
to be completely rebuilt to cover all the seats.31
planning application only touches on legacy use in a
In addition, since all the demountable elements were
non-specific way.28 In practice, creating a new stadium

3.3. Stadium (Original Future Plan)
only designed for a five year lifespan, these will need to
(or several stadia) out of the removed parts would be a
be upgraded, and any temporary or hired infrastructure
difficult design challenge unless the sunken permanent

Although football was discussed as a likely legacy use
(such as security points) will need to be replaced.32 This
bowl was also recreated.
will leave a stadium that retains much of its Olympic-
when the stadium was first designed, no future user
mode visual appearance, although potentially minus
could commit before the time when decisions had to be

made to meet the strict programme.27 As a result, the
3.4. Stadium (Current Future Plan)
Figure 10:Distinctive triangular lighting paddles
the distinctive triangular lighting paddles (figure 10).
organisers decided that the best solution economically

was to design it so that it could downsize to a 25000-seat
Following the formation of the Olympic Park Legacy
stadium, which would primarily be used for athletics.
Company29 and the decision to grant the 2017 World
The demountable upper part of the stadium would be
Athletics Championships to the stadium, legacy plans
dismantled, then hopefully reused, either as a whole
were reviewed.30 The current proposal (December
or split into smaller sections. This would mean all the
2012) is to adapt the existing building into a 60000-
distinctive visual elements of the stadium would have
seat multi-sport venue with the potential for 80000
gone, leaving behind just the concrete sunken seating
people for concerts, which can host for sports as diverse
16
17
Nick Howlett
4. ANALYSING SUCCESS
4.1. Architectural Design
away with them, and can become a tourist draw in its

own right (as has happened with Beijings stadium).35
The Olympic Stadium represents a sea change in
Although a lack of extravagance could arguably limit
Olympic Stadium Design33, and as with any ground-
the iconic value of a stadium, in the case of London, the
breaking design, opinions on the architectural merits
fact that it is so different from what has come before is
of the scheme have been varied. Table 2 presents a
perhaps enough to negate this. However, this may not
selection of journalistic opinions.
be the case with any future demountable designs.
It is interesting to note that most of the positives arise
The architectural merit of any legacy scheme of course
from the decision to make the stadium lightweight and
remains to be seen. However, since the original legacy
compact, which in turn was done to some degree to
plan to downsize to a 25000 seat venue would entail the
allow it to be partially demountable. This key decision
removal of most of what gives the stadium its unique
to focus on the practicalities meant paring back the
character, it could be assumed that it would lose any
design to its most basic structural elements the
iconic value it currently has, becoming a community-
Majestic exoskeleton which would arguably be true
scale venue with only the memory of what it once
for any demountable or temporary designs.
was (see figure 9). This would limit its impact on place
promotion (on a national or international scale) to
However, it is when the stadium is compared to previous
just the period of the Games. The 60000-seat option
schemes that most of the criticisms arise the stadia
however should mean most of the visual character of
of both Beijing and Athens are massively extravagant
the Olympic-mode stadium is retained.
architectural statements, which perhaps make Londons

stadium look rather cheap and simplistic. However, a
Obviously architectural merit is very subjective and
move away from extravagant architecture was definitely
most of the other criticisms have been specific to the
a conscious decision on the part of the architects, in
actual realisation of the design principles rather than
order to fit in with Londons vision for a sustainable
the principles themselves, however the stadiums
Games as Rob Sheard, the project architect, has said,
appearance on the 2012 Stirling Prize list suggests it
This is not a stadium thats going to scream from the
has certainly generated significant interest from the
rooftops that its bigger and more spectacular this is
architectural community. It also fits well with Tom
just a cleverer building, a cleverer solution.
Dyckhoffs reading of the underlying theme of this
34
years shortlist, that of a move towards the Anti-
18
Iconic architecture is one of the key elements in place
icon, architecture without bells and whistles, but with
promotion, as it gives visitors a clear image to take
sensitivity and intelligence.36
19
Nick Howlett
4.2. Functionality
Table 2: Journalistic opinion on the architectural merit
(which was also primarily to be for athletics). However,

by deciding to focus on the larger legacy design, several
Positive
Negative
Majestic exoskeleton - Oliver Wainwright in Building
Almost lacking the grandeur one would expect from
Design
an Olympic epicentre - Oliver Wainwright in Building

Design
Writing in the Architects Journal, Rory Olcayto sums up
issues arise. During the bid phase, Londons organisers
what appears to be the general opinion on the stadiums
made an absolute commitment to an athletics legacy40,
functionality during the games: In terms of serving its
but should this be combined with football (as is
users, the main stadium has proved a great success.
considered likely), many observers have suggested that
The athletes appeared to love it. Those who attended
the track will mean spectators are too far away from
When you emerge from the dark undercroft into
The intention to make the stadium truly sustainable is
the Games felt an impressive sense of enclosure. And
the field of play.41 This has led to recent studies into
the stadium proper, the lower tiers fall away and you
really welcome, but it does not excuse the low level at
few would deny it made a great stage for [the] Opening
the feasibility of installing retractable seating over the
are hit by the drama of the 80000-capacity arena. Its
which the bar of architectural ambition has been set
Ceremony. Whereas most modern stadia incorporate
athletics track.42
the only stadium Ive seen where the best view is from
Ellis Woodman, quoted in Sydney Morning Herald
a large amount of supporting functions and security
ground level Keiran Long in London Evening Standard

In a very British way, what is beautiful and radical
It doesnt compare architecturally to the Velodrome
about it is its very practicality Tom Dyckhoff on the
or Aquatics Centre Tom Dyckhoff on the Culture
Culture Show
Show
Image of pared-back simplicity - Oliver Wainwright in
A cunning indicator of the decline of the West and
Building Design
the rise of the East Quoted by Rory Olcayto in

Architects Journal
What else is architecture for, if not to bring people
Where, oh where, is the sinuous swooping silhouette
together, to provide a setting for the expression of
that wowed the world in Athens and will do so again
common values, and make a dignified backdrop for the
in Beijing Marcus Binney, quoted in Sydney Morning
best of human activity Keiran Long in London Evening
Herald
Standard
Its a bowl of blancmange was my first reaction
simplicity: it looked good in 2D Rory Olcayto in
Marcus Binney, quoted in Sydney Morning Herald
Lithe all-rounder - Oliver Wainwright in Building

Design
checks within the entrance area of the building,
The process of finding a future user for Londons stadium
Londons decision to build an easily demountable
has been fraught with delays and problems, although
structure, as well as the principle of partially sinking the
this is arguably more due to the politics surrounding it
building into the ground (thus hiding the back-of-house
than because of flawed design principles. It would seem
functions beneath the main public entrance level) led
that the specifics of how it could adapt were not suitably
directly to a very open concourse extending almost all
explored at the design phase, and so today the design is
the way round the stadiums perimeter. This is a very
being re-assessed as a necessity. As Oliver Wainwright
unusual concept for such a large stadium, and makes
has noted, West Ham [football club]s proposed list
it one of the most accessible stadia ever designed.
of generic requirements could easily have been built in
38,39
from the beginning, rather than be clumsily retrofitted

From personal experience the one functional issue with
to a temporary structure.43
the Olympic-mode stadium was the roof. In order to

keep it as lightweight as possible (thereby facilitating
its easy removal) it only covered two-thirds of the seats
4.3. Sustainability
this was fine when the sun was shining, but made
Those watching on telly were struck by its graphic

Architects Journal
37
the stadium an uncomfortable place for some during
One of the key drivers for the compact, lightweight design
inclement weather. The need to rebuild it in order to
was to reduce the stadiums embodied energy44 as much
meet international football regulations also begs the
as possible. A study by the stadiums civil engineers
question of why it was not designed for 100% seat
Buro Happold has suggested that the consideration of
coverage from the start.
embodied energy is particularly important for stadia,

due to their intermittent use pattern potentially up to
The key issues regarding functionality arise when the
60% of the buildings lifetime energy load.45 Figures 11
A modern celestial/chthonic division perfect for a
stadiums future use is considered. For the Olympics,
and 12 show how Londons stadium compares to two
festival with its roots in pre-Socratic Greece Keiran
it was designed principally for athletics, so it would
previous Olympic Stadia, as well as a recent new football
Long in London Evening Standard
presumably have continued to function effectively if the
stadium (built in Johannesburg for the 2010 World Cup).
25000-seat transformation option had been pursued
20
21
Nick Howlett
The graphs suggest that the strategy adopted has
Figure 11: Total embodied energy
been successful in creating a low embodied energy
Figure 13: Embodied energy per seat, comparing

Olympic mode and different potential future schemes
mode design (see figure 13). In addition, the transport

emissions of moving thousands of tonnes of stadium
stadium the organisers claim that it is one of the
to a new location would have to be factored into any
most energy efficient of its type. This is particularly
legacy schemes environmental impact.
46
noticeable when compared to Beijings design, where

the huge amount of steel used dramatically increased
Considering the current proposed 60000-seat legacy
its embodied carbon. Sydneys partially transformable
design, the upgrading of the building to a longer
stadium compares favourably per seat, although as it
lifespan will allow further energy efficiency measures
housed 35,000 more people than Londons, its overall
to be installed strategies such as a more efficient
embodied carbon is 21500 tonnes higher. Primarily
lighting system would mean that the legacy stadiums
because of the decision to naturally ventilate most of
operational carbon emissions would be even lower than
the stadium by not providing a solid faade, operational
the Olympic-mode stadium (predicted at a saving of
energy is also predicted to be very low in comparison to
around 146 tonnes of CO2 per year).50
similar venues. In addition, the permanent, indoor parts

of the building have been given a BREEAM Excellent
If an existing stadium had been used rather than building
rating, which has never been achieved before by a large
anew, then the environmental impact of hosting the
sporting venue.47
Games (in terms of carbon cost) would be lower. This

is because, in calculating the carbon footprint of the
However, the decision to create a partially demountable

building meant that more expensive environmental
technologies such as photovoltaics or rainwater
whole Olympics, the fraction of the embodied energy of

Figure 12: Embodied energy per seat
the stadium that can be attributed to the Games must

be calculated. For example, say a stadium with a 50-
harvesting were not financially or practically viable, and
year design life and total embodied energy of 200,000
would have to be retro-fitted to a permanent building
tonnes had been used. Assuming 100 usage days a
at a later date. For comparison, Beijings permanent
year (which is the amount the legacy 2012 stadium is
stadium features a 130kW photo-voltaic array to
predicted to have51), then the embodied carbon per
partially power itself.49
event is 40 tonnes. The stadium was in use for 22 days
48
during the Olympics and Paralympics52, so the overall

As with functionality, the sustainability story becomes
fraction of the stadiums embodied energy that can be
much more complicated when legacy issues are
added to the Games overall carbon footprint is just
considered. For example, the concept of embodied
880 tonnes, essentially negligible. Since a new stadium
carbon becomes difficult when demountable or
is built specifically for the Olympics, arguably all of its
temporary elements are considered if the stadium
embodied energy can be added to the Games overall
did downsize to the 25000 scheme and the removed
carbon footprint, which would mean 50,000 tonnes in
portion did not find a suitable future use, should that
the case of Londons stadium.
demountable part be included in the embodied carbon

value for the permanent stadium at the Olympic site?
In addition, social and economic sustainability must
If it is, then embodied carbon per seat for the venue
also be considered. If an existing stadium is used,
would be almost four times as much as the Olympic-
additional benefits for the surrounding community may
22
23
be limited to during the Olympics only. A new stadium
Nick Howlett
Figure 14: Total cost
Figure 14: Cost per seat
prohibitively expensive. This highlights an issue with
(demountable or not) can be the catalyst for urban
all transformable buildings that in general, clients are
regeneration, bringing jobs and increased footfall to
unwilling to invest in hypothetical futures.
an area, which is turn improves the economic prospect

and quality of life of the surrounding community.
Initial cost aside, one of the key reasons for building a
London has been keen to promote this aspect of the
design which could downsize following the Olympics
Games legacy, although only time will tell if it has been
was so that it would leave behind an economically
successful.
sustainable venue, in contrast to what has happened
53
in Athens, and also in Sydney (where the stadium

has operated consistently at a loss since it opened56).
4.4. Cost
Only time will tell whether or not Londons stadium

is an economic success, although the fact that the
Londons Olympic Stadium cost 428 million54 figures
organisers have changed their mind from a small 25000
14 and 15 compare this to other recent stadia within
seat athletics venue to a large 60000 multi-use arena
London, both in terms of actual cost, and by seat (note,
highlights the difficulties in predicting future use of
impact of inflation not included).
stadia, especially when a definite future user cannot

be found at the design phase. At the time of writing,
The Olympic stadium compares well when cost per
Londons stadium has still not found a future user,
seat is considered, although in terms of absolute cost
despite several deadlines passing.
it seems high considering how minimal the design is

in comparison to the other stadia. Information on past
Olympic Designs has not been included as it is impossible
to make useful comparisons given the wide variation in
local markets, particularly when comparing to China.
Although the estimated cost for the transformation of
the stadium varies widely, it could potentially add an
extra 180 million, which would make the cost per seat
extremely high.55
This high cost suggests that the design for disassembly
approach is more expensive than creating a comparable
permanent venue, perhaps due to the need for bolted
pre-cast concrete or steel elements rather than cheaper
in-situ concrete. The fact that the demountable
elements for Londons stadium were only designed
for a five year lifespan suggests that creating true
demountability (where the removed portion could
be reconstructed perhaps several times over) was
24
25
Nick Howlett
5. CONCLUSION
Table 3: Comparison of London 2012 to main alternative approaches

New (mostly) permanent
London 2012
Renovate / use existing
Architectural
More opportunities for an
The focus on demountability
Less opportunity for an iconic
design
iconic, extravagant design
led to a functional, stripped
design, with the opportunities
around which a new Olympic
back aesthetic. Not an icon
for place promotion it could
district or park can be centred.
in a show-off way, although
bring. The Olympics simply
Greatest impact on place
appropriate for the message
furthers any current urban
promotion.
London was trying to convey.
regeneration schemes rather
Legacy scheme perhaps of
than catalysing something new.
limited architectural impact.

Functionality
Sustainability
New build means it can be
Compact and open design
Compromises may be
perfectly suited to its function
functioned well during the
required regarding providing
and can meet the highest
Games, particularly regarding
functionality and accessibility
standards for accessibility.
accessibility. Potential issues
without massive changes to
Danger of it becoming poorly
however when the stadium
the existing fabric. Already
used post-Games because the
transforms post-Games,
functioning, so presumably
needs for the Olympics do
particularly because organisers
legacy issues avoided.
not match those of the local
have diverted from the initial
community.
strategy.
Allows the incorporation of
Lightweight, compact design
When considering just the
more expensive environmental creates a very low embodied
carbon footprint of the Games,
solutions to reduce operating
energy design, and minimal
it is much lower. Retrofitting of
energy (which would be vital
enclosed space means operating
environmental technologies to
for zero carbon), but potentially energy also low. Carbon cost
reduce operating energy may
high embodied energy.
be expensive and difficult.
massively compromised if
demountable parts dont find a
legacy use.
Cost
26
High initial cost, and
Relatively expensive in
By far the cheapest option, and
potential to be too big to be
order to create potential for
economic future much more
economically sustainable post-
demountability, but more likely
likely to be positive (assuming
Games.
to be economically sustainable
it was already operating well
post-Games.
before the Games).

27
Nick Howlett
Table 3 summarises how the architectural strategy for
quite difficult for London. However, if similar principles
Londons stadium compares to the two main alternative
were followed again in a different location by a different
approaches, either building a new, mostly permanent
team, perhaps these obstacles could be overcome.
ENDNOTES & CITATIONS
venue (such as the Beijing 2008 Stadium) or simply

using or upgrading an existing facility (such as in Los
Although it could be argued that a semi-demountable
Angeles 1984).
venue can never be as architecturally iconic as the

permanent stadia seen in Beijing or Athens, London has
1. For the purposes of this paper, The Olympics is
those that can be deconstructed and reconstructed
The initial hypothesis of this paper, which must now
shown that you can still produce something provocative
used to refer to both the Olympic Games and the
again, allowing the facility to pop up in different
be tested, was that the architectural principles behind
by building minimally, even it is not to everyones taste.
Paralympic Games. The Paralympics began in 1960,
locations (in the same form).
Londons stadium represent the model solution for
Putting aside making a stadium demountable, even if
and since 1988 have been held in the same city
20. Oobject, n.d.
future Olympic stadia. Overall, it would appear that it is
there is a local demand for a new large stadium, the
using the same facilities as the Olympics, generally
21. Hartman, H., 2012b, p78
not as simple as saying that one strategy will always be
environmental benefits of following the principles seen
a few weeks after the Olympics have finished. The
22. Gold, J. & Gold, M., 2011, p53
the right solution it depends on what the organisers are
in London would make that choice the better solution,
term The Games is also used to mean the same
23. Hartman, H., 2012b, p13
trying to achieve. From an environmental or economic
as a lightweight, compact design greatly improves both
thing
24. UK Green Building Council, 2012b
point of view, using or upgrading an existing stadium is
the embodied and operational energy of the building.
probably the best option, however opportunities for
2. BioRegional & WWF, 2005
25. Commission for a Sustainable London 2012
3. Gold, J. & Gold, M., 2011, p6
26. London Legacy Development Corporation, 2012c

27. Hartman, H., 2012b, p76
doing more with the Olympics than just hosting some
In conclusion, Londons approach to its stadium has
4. Usborne, S., 2008. White elephant in this context
exciting sport are limited. In Londons case, the desire
provided a viable third option for Olympic stadium
refers to a building whose cost greatly outweighs
to catalyse the regeneration of a large swathe of the city
design. For future stadia, assuming that a new stadium
its use and value, but cant be demolished
meant that using an existing stadium would not have
is desired as part of a wider regeneration agenda, the
5. Gold, J. & Gold, M., 2011, p3
worked. Since it was perceived at the design stage that
strategy behind Londons stadium would seem the
6. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, 2011
in 2008. In 2012 it was superseded by a mayoral
there would be no real future demand in the area for
best way forward in principle, although whether it can
7. Livingstone, K. in Kendall, J, 2012, p19
commission, the London Legacy Development
such a large venue as the one required for the Games,
actually be successfully achieved remains to be seen.
8. Girginov, V., 2010, p271
Corporation, which is now in charge of the
adopting the idea of demountability would appear to
9. Hartman, H., 2012b, p30
redevelopment of the Olympic Park
have been the best decision. This in theory allowed
10. BioRegional & WWF, 2005
30. London Legacy Development Corporation, 2012b
London to have a large stadium as a focal point during
11. Girginov, V., 2010, p276
31. Ibib. It currently only covers two thirds
12. John, G., Sheard, R. & Vickery, B., 2007, pIX
32. Ibib
community-scale facility post-Games. However, the fact
13. Kendall, J, 2012, p18
33. Hartman, H., 2012b, p78
that the organisers are now pursuing a 60000 seat multi-
14. Usborne, S., 2008
34. Sheard, R., quoted in Olcayto, R., 2012
sport venue instead of the original 25000 seat athletics
15. Gold, J. & Gold, M., 2011,p 43
35. Hartman, H., 2012b, p27
venue, combined with the on-going difficulties that
16. ibib., p41
36. Dyckhoff, T., 2012b
they are having in securing a future tenant, suggests
17. Girginov, V., 2010, p272
37. Olcayto, R., 2012, p84
that although in principal the idea is a good one, in
18. Wergeland, E., 2012
38. London Legacy Development Corporation, 2012c
reality it is a very difficult strategy to pursue effectively.
19. It is important to make the distinction between
39. Wainwright, O., 2011a
the Games, and to have an economically successful,
Word count: 4927
28. Planning Application reference 08/90143/REMODA,

submitted by Olympic Delivery Authority, 2008
29. The Olympic Park Legacy Company was formed
temporary and demountable: temporary facilities
40. Olympic Park Legacy Company, 2011
Securing a future tenant would be necessary for any
are those that will only exist in their original form
41. Baillieu, A., 2012
new stadium, but securing one for a hypothetical future
for the duration of the event (although they may
42. Kelso, P., 2012
that has not been fully designed appears to have been
find other uses following it), demountable ones are
43. Wainwright, O., 2011a
28
29
Nick Howlett
44. The embodied energy of a design is the total

energy required to produce, transport and erect
BIBLIOGRAPHY
all the materials used in its construction. This is

often expressed as embodied carbon, which is
the amount of carbon dioxide (the principal gas
that causes climate change) emitted to release the
Alter, L., 2008. London Olympic Stadium to be Worlds
org/sustainable-games/sustainable-legacy/ [first
energy required
Biggest Flatpack. Treehugger (online). Available at
accessed 07.09.12]
45. Quoted in Hartman, H., 2012b, p78
http://www.treehugger.com/modular-design/london-
46. London Legacy Development Corporation, 2012a
olympic-stadium-to-be-worlds-biggest-flatpack.html
Cousins-Jenvey, B., Sykes, J., Epstein, D., 2012.
47. University of Bath, 2012. BREEAM stands for
[first accessed 04.10.12]
Approach to Carbon Footprinting Major Sports Events
Building Research Establishment Environmental
(pdf). Available at http://www.usefulsimpleprojects.
Assessment Method, and is nationally recognised
Athens 2004 Organising Committee, 2004.
as a tool for analysing the sustainability of buildings.
Official Report of the XXVIII Olympiad (pdf).
An excellent rating is a score between 70% and
Available at http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/
Cullen, J., Carruth, M., Moynihan, M., Allwood,
85%, the second highest rating.
OfficialReports/2004/or2004b.pdf [first accessed
J., Epstein, D., 2012. Reducing Embodied Carbon
06.11.12]
Through Efficient Design (pdf). Available at http://
48. Hartman, H., 2012b, p84

49. getsolar.com, 2008
co.uk/majoreventspaper.pdf [first accessed 06.11.12]
learninglegacy.independent.gov.uk/documents/pdfs/
50. London Legacy Development Corporation, 2012a
Baillieu, A., 2012. Is the Olympic Stadium legacys first
sustainability/425009-145-reducing-carbon-aw.pdf
51. London Legacy Development Corporation, 2012b
white elephant? Building Design (online) Available
52. London Organising Committee of the Olympic and
at http://www.bdonline.co.uk/comment/is-the-
Paralympic Games, n.d.

53. Commission for a Sustainable London 2012
olympic-stadium-legacy%E2%80%99s-first-white-
Department for Culture, Media & Sport, 2012. London
elephant?/5041122.article [first accessed 28.12.12]
2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Quarterly
54. Department for Culture, Media & Sport, 2012
Report (pdf). Available at http://www.culture.gov.uk/
55. Bond, D., 2012
Beijing Organising Committee, 2008. Venues.
56. Gold, J. & Gold, M., 2011, p50
Available at http://en.beijing2008.cn/venues/ [first

accessed 07.09.12]
publications/9134.aspx [first accessed 16.11.12]

Dyckhoff, T., 2012a. The Culture Show (television
programme). BBC, 2012/13 ep. 4
BioRegional & WWF, 2005. Towards a One Planet

Olympics (pdf). Available at http://www.bioregional.
Dyckhoff, T., 2012b, The Culture Show (television
com/files/publications/ [first accessed 07.09.12]
programme). BBC, 2012/13 ep. 13
Bond, D., 2012. Olympic Stadiums future is taking too
Econ Poyry, 2009. Feasibility Study for a Carbon
long to resolve. BBC News (online). Available at http://
Neutral 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa (pdf).
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2012/11/boris_
Available at http://www.norway.org.za/NR/rdonlyre
johnson_says_it_is.html [first accessed 16.11.12]
s/3E6BB1B1FD2743E58F5B0BEFBAE7D958/114457/
FeasibilityStudyforaCarbonNeutral2010FIFAWorldCup.
Commission for a Sustainable London 2012, n.d.
pdf [first accessed 06.11.12]
Sustainable Legacy. Available at http://www.cslondon.

30
31
Nick Howlett
getsolar.com, 2008. Solar Olympic Projects. Available
Eastside Story: Olympic Park. Architects Journal
Long, K., 2012. Its a Winner so give our Olympic
divides-opinion/2007/11/08/1194329412685.html
at http://www.getsolar.com/blog/solar-olympic-
Supplement. pp14-19
Stadium the Stirling Prize. London Evening Standard
projects/172/ [first accessed 16.11.12]
(online). Available at http://www.standard.

London Legacy Development Corporation, 2012a.
co.uk/arts/architecture/its-a-winner-so-give-
UK Green Building Council, 2012a. Delivering
Girginov, V., ed., 2010. The Olympics: A Critical Reader.
Energy Statement (part of planning application
our-olympic-stadium-the-stirling-prize-8204885.
a Sustainable Stadium (pdf powerpoint slides).
Abingdon: Routledge
12/90349/FUMODA). Available at http://
html?origin=internalSearch [first accessed 16.10.12]
Available at http://www.ukgbc.org/events/delivering-
planningforms.newham.gov.uk/online-applications/
sustainable-stadium [first accessed 4.8.12]
Gold, J. & Gold, M., eds., 2011. Olympic Cities: City
applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=M7
Olcayto, R., 2012. Olympic Stadium. The Architects
Agendas, Planning and the Worlds Games, 1896
GGSXSZ01L00 [first accessed 27.08.12]
Journal. 236(13), 11.10.12, pp.82-92
2016. Abingdon: Routledge
UK Green Building Council, 2012b. Delivering

Sustainable Temporary Venues (pdf powerpoint slides).
London Legacy Development Corporation,
Olympic Delivery Authority, 2008. Design Statement
Available at http://www.ukgbc.org/events/delivering-
Hartman, H., 2012a. Delivering a Sustainable
2012b. Environmental Statement (part of planning
(part of Planning Application 08/90143/REMODA).
sustainable-temporary-venues [first accessed 4.8.12]
Stadium. Architects Journal (online). Available
application 12/90349/FUMODA). Available at http://
Available at http://planningforms.newham.gov.uk/
University of Bath, 2012. Leaving a lasting Legacy. BA2,
at http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/footprint/
online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab
issue 19, p25
footprint-blog/london-2012-delivering-a-sustainable-
=documents&keyVal=K0LTMFSZK0000 [first accessed
stadium/8629242.article# [first accessed 4.8.12]
10.11.12]
Usborne, S., 2008. After The Party: What happens

when the Olympics leave town. The Independent
Hartman, H., 2012b. London 2012 Sustainable Design.
London Legacy Development Corporation,
Olympic Park Legacy Company, 2011. Stadium
(online). Available at http://www.independent.co.uk/
Chichester: Wiley
2012c. Sustainability Statement (part of planning
Legacy Multi-use Venue Brief (part of planning
sport/olympics/after-the-party-what-happens-when-
the-olympics-leave-town-901629.html [first accessed
International Olympic Committee, n.d. Olympic
16.09.12]
Games. Available at http://www.olympic.org/olympic-
games [first accessed 28.10.12]
Wainwright, O., 2011a. London 2012 Olympic Stadium

by Populous. Building Design (online). Available at
John, G., Sheard, R. & Vickery, B., 2007. Stadia: A
London Organising Committee of the Olympic and
Oobject, n.d. Every Post-war Olympic Stadium: 1996
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/buildings/london-2012-
Design and Development Guide. 4th ed. Oxford:
Paralympic Games, 2012. Carbon Footprint Study
Atlanta. Available at http://www.oobject.com/every-
olympic-stadium-by-populous/5016249.article [first
Architectural Press
(pdf). Available at http://www.london2012.com/mm/
postwar-olympic-stadium/1996-atlanta-2/2380/ [first
accessed 02.09.12]
Document/Publications/Sustainability/01/24/08/76/
accessed 6.11.12]
Kelso, P., 2012. London Mayor Favours 200m
Wainwright, O., 2011b. Olympic Velodrome by
carbon-footprint-study.pdf [first accessed 06.11.12]
Retractable Seat Plan as Long Term Solution for
Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, 2011. The
Hopkins. Building Design (online).Available at http://
Olympic Stadium. The Telegraph (online). Available at
London Organising Committee of the Olympic
London 2012 Games: The Regeneration Legacy.
www.bdonline.co.uk/buildings/olympic-velodrome-by-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9610170/
and Paralympic Games, n.d. Schedule and Results.
Available at http://www.rics.org/site/scripts/
hopkins/5013394.article [first accessed 02.09.12]
London-Mayor-Boris-Johnson-favours-200m-
Available at http://www.london2012.com/schedule-
download_info.aspx?fileID=10510 [first accessed
retractable-seat-plan-as-long-term-solution-for-
and-results/ [first accessed 15.0113]
02.09.12]
Troubled Legacy of Olympic Design. Journal of Design
Olympic-Stadium.html [first accessed 21.10.12]

Sydney Morning Herald, 2007. London Olympic
Kendall, J., 2012. Event and Memory: Olympic
Stadium Divides Opinion. Available at http://www.
Predecessors. In: Pallister, J. & Slavid, R., eds., 2012.
smh.com.au/news/World/London-Olympic-stadium-
32
Wergeland, E., 2012. Whens Icons Crumble - The

History, 25:3, pp304-318
33
Nick Howlett
FIGURE & TABLE REFERENCES
APPENDIX
Appendix 1: London 2012 Venues
Note: Overlay in the table below refers to the addition of facilities for athletes and spectators, as well as Olympic
Figures
branding/security etc.
1. Beijing 2008 Olympic Stadium. http://www.flickr.
com/photos/22079885@N02/2947401162/
2. Los Angeles 1984 Olympic Stadium. http://
Authors own presentation of data from Cullen, J
Venue
Category
Maximum
capacity
Aquatics Centre
New build
17500
86%
Bespoke temporary seating in large side wings for

Games, main building adapted for community and
elite sport use post-Games
Basketball
Arena
New build
12000
100%
Off-the-shelf temporary seating within bespoke

structure. Potential to be reused for future large
events
BMX Track
External works
& back of house
6000
100%
Off-the-shelf temporary seating. Track retained (but

modified) post-Games
Box Hill
Overlay only
N/A
Brands Hatch
Overlay only
Unknown
Unknown
Overlay only
32609
0%
Existing venue
presentation of information from Royal Institute
City of Coventry
Stadium
of Chartered Surveyors 2011, Gold, J. & Gold, M.,
Copper Box
New build
7000
14%
Retractable seating system ensures flexibility.

Adapted post-Games into community sport facility
Earls Court
Internal fit-out
15000
0%
Existing venue temporarily adapted for sports
Equestrian
Centre
External works
& back of house
23000
100%
Eton Dorney
Enhancements
30000
Unknown
Eton Manor
New build
10500
71%
Extensive remodelling post-Games for community

use. Olympic hockey pitch relocates to here in legacy
ExCeL Centre
Internal fit-out
40000
(over 5
arenas)
100%
Temporary arenas constructed within exhibition hall
Hadleigh Farm
External works
& back of house
3000
100%
Off-the-shelf temporary seating removed post

Games, track remodelled for continued use
et al., & Econ Poyry, 2009

13. Comparison of embodied carbon of legacy designs.
dailytrackpic.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/los-
Authors own presentation of data from London
angeles-memorial-coliseum-los-angeles-ca/
Legacy Development Corporation, 2012b
3. Vandalised Athens Olympic Complex. http://assets.
14. Comparison of stadium cost. Authors own
flavorwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/
presentation of data from Department for Culture,
Athens-2011-007.jpeg
media & Sport, 2012 & Bond, D., 2012
4. Atlanta 1996 Olympic Stadium. http://
15. Comparison of stadium cost per seat. Authors
www.oobject.com/every-postwar-olympic-
own presentation of data from Department for
stadium/1996-atlanta-2/2380/
Culture, media & Sport, 2012 & Bond, D., 2012
5. Comparison to past Games architectural

strategies. Authors own presentation of
Tables
information from Hartman, H., 2012b, Beijing

Organising Committee, 2008, & Athens Organising
Committee, 2004
6. Exploded diagram of the stadium. Adapted from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11408319#
7. Pod under seats and wrap. Authors own
8. Stadium sectional diagram. Authors own
9. Original legacy design. http://www.bbc.co.uk/
blogs/davidbond/2011/01/original_stadium_plan_
not_an_o.html
10. Lighting paddles. http://www.
populouslondon2012.com/olympic-stadium-
1. Summary of Olympic Stadia. Authors own
2011, John, G., Sheard, R. & Vickery, B., 2007, &

Wergeland, E., 2012
2. Journalistic opinion overview. Various (referenced
in text)
3. Comparison of stadium options. Authors own
% of seats Notes
temporary
sportlights/
11. Comparison of embodied carbon of stadia.
Authors own presentation of data from Cullen, J.
et al., 2012 & Econ Poyry, 2009
12. Comparison of embodied carbon per seat.
34
No seating provided
Off-the-shelf temporary seating
35
Nick Howlett
Venue
Category
Maximum
capacity
Hampden Park
Overlay only
52603
0%
Horse Guards
Parade
External works
& back of house
15000
100%
Off-the-shelf temporary seating, sand reused for

other facilities
Morrison
Hyde Park
External works
& back of house
3000
100%
Off-the-shelf temporary seating
06.07.2005 London wins the right to stage the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics
Lords Cricket
Ground
External
adaptations
6500
100%
Permanent seats at Lords not used, off-the-shelf

temporary seating added in field of play
Millennium
Stadium
Overlay only
74500
0%
Existing venue
20000
0%
Existing venue temporarily adapted
North Greenwich Internal fit-out

Arena
% of seats Notes
temporary
Existing venue
Appendix 2: Stadium Timeline
15.07.2003 London bid submitted to International Olympic Committee. Conceptual design by Allies &
07.02.2007 Olympic Park masterplan submitted for outline planning permission. Approved 28.10.2007
30.11.2007 Stadium design submitted for First Stage reserved matters planning permission. Featured
80000 seat scheme (with future transformation down to 25000 seats). Approved 03.04.2008
09.05.2008 Stadium design submitted for Second Stage reserved matters planning permission. Approved
02.10.2008
Old Trafford
Overlay only
75811
0%
Existing venue
Olympic
Stadium
New build
80000
69%
Bespoke demountable system built above permanent

venue (see main text for more information)
Riverbank
Arena
New build
15000
100%
Off-the-shelf temporary seating, pitch relocated to

Eton Manor post-Games
Royal Artillery
Barracks
New build
Sailing Centre
External works
& back of house
N/A
No seating provided, venue becomes elite sailing

centre post Games
(not approved at time of writing)
St James Park
Overlay only
52387
0%
Existing venue
27.07.2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony
The Mall
External works
& back of house
Unknown
100%
Seating system same as that used for London

Marathon and other events
December 2012 (time of writing) Debate on-going over future tenant despite various deadlines passing.
New build
6000
Velodrome
7500
0%
100%
Bespoke demountable system will be reused at

Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2014
11.02.2011 West Ham Football Club chosen as preferred bidder to take over the stadium after the Games
11.10.2011 Deal to sell to West Ham collapses after legal challenge
19.07.2012 Planning application submitted for transformation to a 60000 seat legacy stadium instead
Stadium will now be let rather than sold.
Remains as community and elite sport facility postGames (as part of bigger Velo-park)
August 2015 Potential reopening (liable to change)
Off-the-shelf temporary seating system within

bespoke structure
2015 Potential to host Rugby World Cup matches
Water Polo
Arena
New build
Wembley Arena
Internal fit-out
6000
0%
Existing venue temporarily adapted
Wembley
Stadium
Overlay only
90000
0%
Existing venue
White Water
Centre
New build
12000
100%
36
5000
100%
22.05.2008 Construction officially begins
2017 Stadium will host Athletics World Championships and Paralympic Athletics World Championships
Off-the-shelf temporary seating around permanent

facility (some adaptations post Games)
37

Research Paper

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Research Paper

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Future of Olympic Architecture?

THE FUTURE OF OLYMPIC ARCHITECTURE?

A research paper submitted by Nicholas Howlett towards the degree of Master

Engineering. Session: 2012-13. Student number: 070221693

The Future of Olympic Architecture?

The Future of Olympic Architecture?

2. Context for Study

2.2. The Olympics and Urban Regeneration

2.3. The Olympics and Sustainability

2.4. Olympic Main Stadia

3. Architectural Strategy for London 2012

3.1. Overall Strategy

3.2. Stadium (Olympics mode)

3.3. Stadium (Original Future Plan)

3.4. Stadium (Current Future Plan)

4.1. Architectural Design

Endnotes & Citations

Figure & Table References

The Future of Olympic Architecture?

2. CONTEXT FOR STUDY

2.2. The Olympics and Urban Regeneration

entire cities. But they are also travelling circuses, lighting

Since the Olympics were revived by Baron de Coubertin

Although initially the Modern Olympics were held

up a city for a few weeks, before disappearing again, to

in 1896, they have grown in size immensely and are

alongside World Fairs and had little lasting impact on a

emerge four years later. Many host cities have invested

now the largest peacetime events in the world.

city, by the time of the 1960 Games in Rome organisers

in extravagant architecture, with the main stadium

Today, holding the Olympics represents, The ultimate

had begun to realise the potential such large events

no exception. However, with ever-growing concerns

accolade that a city can earn on the world stage , with

had for catalysing urban regeneration. By the time of

over sustainability and the legacy the Olympics leave

the event being of sufficient size to have a significant

Barcelona in 1992, only 17% of the total expenditure

behind, and with many previous facilities sitting under-

impact on national economies. However, it brings with

went on the sporting element of the Games, with the

used, there appears an increasing dichotomy between

it focussed media attention on an unparalleled scale,

remainder spent on urban improvement projects.5 As

building extravagant Olympic stadia with high iconic

and looking back over 100 years of history, benefits to

a result, the Barcelona Games are seen largely as a

value, and building facilities with a sustainable future.

the host city are not assured Simon Usborne sums up

success in urban planning terms, regenerating a large

its impacts: The best Olympics regenerate neglected

stretch of the waterfront and laying the foundations for

The design of the London 2012 Stadium is an ambitious

districts, inspire children to take up sport and leave

further plans delivered throughout the 1990s.6

departure from its predecessors, with originally 69%

a city furnished with world-class venues and rolling

of its 80,000-seat capacity and much of what gives it

in Olympic dollars The worst are poisoned chalices

Ken Livingstone, mayor of London at the time of the

its visual identity, designed to be demountable. The

that leave a nation in debt and a city overrun by white