Follow this blog:
RSS

London’s Olympic Stadium: larger than life but built to shrink

By | June 19, 2012, 3:35 AM PDT

Next month, all eyes will be on London as the Olympic Games begin on July 27. But after the closing ceremonies two weeks later, some of the main competitive arenas will morph into smaller, more practical community venues–by design. Part of the overall strategy of the London Olympics organizers was to help revive East London, an industrial and run-down area of the city. And that includes not burdening that community with the upkeep of massive structures.

Even the Olympic Stadium–the Games’ crownlike main arena–will scale down to a more manageable size after the torch goes out.

The architectural firm Populous designed the stadium, which will seat 80,000 during the Games, to transform (via semi-deconstruction) into a building that will accommodate only 25,000. It may not look as visually striking or unique upon first glance as some of the flashier Olympic stadia of decades past–such as the eye-popping “Bird’s Nest” of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. But some of the innovative ideas that Populous came up with to create a shrinkable stadium also will pay off in improved energy and material usage, when compared to previous Olympic stadia.

Here’s a quick overview of some of the London Olympic Stadium’s most clever details:

  • The designers first considered creating a roofless stadium, but overhead coverage was needed to protect athletes and audience from the wind. So they came up with a PVC (polyvinyl chloride) awning that shelters 75% of the venue’s seats.
  • The awning is supported by tubular-steel structures put together in a bicycle-wheel pattern above the stadium. The structures are made from salvaged parts from a gas-pipeline construction project.
  • Opting for a PVC awning means that the London Olympic Stadium is the “lightest” Olympic Stadium in history. Populous’s design uses 11,000 tons of structural steel. For context: the 2008 “Bird’s Nest” Olympic Stadium in Beijing, designed by Herzog & de Meuron, used nearly 42,000 tons.
  • Concession stands are located in pop-up “pods” on the rim of the Stadium, rather than embedded within it. This means there was no need to add mechanical ventilation systems for food preparation and fire prevention.

That the core concept of creating a large-scale arena that could easily become smaller led to money-saving construction and operational solutions illustrates how one inventive, focused design goal can often lead to others. While the Olympic Stadium designed by Populous won’t be a permanent landmark in its full form, the creative ideas behind it will likely resonate and live on.

[Via Architectural Record]

Images: Populous; e-architect/Wikimedia Commons

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Reena Jana

About Reena Jana

Reena Jana was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2011 to 2013.

Reena Jana

Reena Jana

Contributing Editor

Reena Jana has written for the New York Times, Wired, Harvard Business Review online, Fast Company, Architectural Record, Artforum, Time Out New York, Harper's Bazaar, and GQ. Previously, she was the innovation department editor at BusinessWeek. She holds degrees from Columbia University and Barnard College.

Follow her on Twitter.

Reena Jana

Reena Jana

Reena occasionally consults with companies, and when her writing discusses a corporation or other organization with which she has worked, she will disclose this fact. Reena does not hold any investments in the companies she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
4
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
-2 Votes
+ -
London 2012 - Shamefully Profligate Waste of Money - GBP 25bn and counting
London 2012 Olympics is a shameful GBP25bn waste of money, that could be spent on hundred's of more worthy things that a few weeks of sport/TV spectacle.
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
Updated - 19th Jun
-1 Votes
+ -
But the spectacle, sir!
Think of the spectacle!
Posted by NickNielsen
19th Jun
-1 Votes
+ -
GBP 25bn spectacle
I'd rather the money had been spent on worthwhile projects, like say delivering Super-fast broadband to 90% of the UK population. Or keeping open many sports facilities/pools that have been sacrificed to Austerity, at the same time funds seem unlimited for this obscene Stalinesque or North Korean folly which will have no return on investment like virtually all other modern Olympiad host ciites have suffered to their cost - see Sydney 2000 as a case study in promises v's reality, and Sydney 2000 was a successful games.

The UK just had a nice spectacle, with the Queen's Jubilee celebrations - at a cost of a few tens of million GBP.
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
Updated - 20th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
Almost Gold medals
One would think that after all the Billions spent, the Gold medals for the outstanding athletes would be Gold. Guess what? They're Gold-plated.
The athletes, after putting their lives on hold to train and compete, deserve the "Real Deal" (as in real Gold medals).
Without the athletes, there simply wouldn't be any Olympic Games.
Just saying......
Posted by da philster
19th Jun
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!