39 replies to this topic

[Brekkie Boy]

Far too soon after the Olympics, and for the wrong reason too.

And though they screwed athletics over, wasn't Wembley the intended venue for any future World Athletics bid, with a reduced capacity of something like 67,000 with a track placed over the lower tier.

[RobH]

I don't know whether this is purely speculation or what, but this is an 'interesting' piece of information:


Under the original plans, the 80,000-capacity stadium will be reduced to a 25,000 athletics stadium after the Games.

If that proposal goes ahead - and London's bid is successful - then an extra 12,000 seats would be added for the World Championships.

http://www.insidethe...news&Itemid=119

UK Athletics, and its chairman Ed Warner, have long preferred to see the stadium's capacity reduced to 28,000 and for it to become an established home for their sport. If London wins the 2015 event, a temporary ring of 12,000 seats would be added.

http://www.independe...ps-1921924.html

---

I'd assume the Indy has taken insidethegames' speculation and treated as fact, rather than either knowing London's plan already.

Edited by RobH, 16 March 2010 - 01:00 PM.

[Michelle]

So the IAAF need to weigh it up...
A 40,000 strong crowd cheering on the athletes in London, or an 80,000+ seat arena in the Chinese capital (no doubt packed to capacity during the championships)...

It's a hard one.

Edited by Michelle®, 16 March 2010 - 01:05 PM.

[RobH]

When you put it like that, it makes the above speculation seem a bit silly. The existing stands aren't so temporary that they'd need to be replaced by 2015, and if London knows it's to host in 2015, it'll simply delay conversion to a smaller stadium. I'd be more than a little surprised if London tries to take on Beijing with a 40,000 seater.

I think, as I said, the Indy has treated another article's speculation as fact. Beyond these two articles I couldn't find any mention of 12,000 new temporary seats in any news report. If there had been mention of new temporary seating, more than two articles would have picked up on it.

Edited by RobH, 16 March 2010 - 01:14 PM.

[Brekkie Boy]

I know half full stadia never look good, but never really get why so many big venues would rather go to the extra expense of removing them when surely they could just somehow be masked when the stadia isn't full to capacity. Surely the cost of maintaining them can't outweigh the cost of removing them - especially when removing them limits the stadia potential use without more expense a few years down the line.

[arwebb]

Surely it's a no-brainer. If London win this, and like Michelle I think Beijing are favourites, they're bound to leave the Olympic Stadium in 2012 mode, aren't they?

[Brekkie Boy]

That would be common sense, which leads me to believe they'd rip out 55,000 seats to add 12,000 seats a couple of years later. I suspect though even if they do get it, it won't be at the full 80,000 capacity - probably around half way between the Olympic set up and the planned legacy set up.

Are the IAAF just awarding for the one championships - don't they usually award a couple at once? 2017 or 2019 seems much more realistic for London.

[TheoG]

maybe if we win the bid for the 2018 world cup, the stadium will not have to be downsized until after that

[The Tower Bridge Fox]

TheoG, on 19 March 2010 - 01:20 PM, said:

maybe if we win the bid for the 2018 world cup, the stadium will not have to be downsized until after that

I think we can forget about down sizing the stadium.

[TheoG]

The Tower Bridge Fox, on 19 March 2010 - 05:42 PM, said:

I think we can forget about down sizing the stadium.

kind of takes away the point, but that's quite possibly going to be the case