Jump to content

The London Olympic Stadium


Rob.

Recommended Posts

I remember him saying it linked to that colourful bridge too, its spotty, it fits. In my head anyway LOL

I thought that but I was kinda hoping i was wrong. That thing is just awful. Looked so good in the plans and turned out to look rather cheap in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 603
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Or the other idea, the woman that devised that lighting scheme for under the wrap has designed it and its coloured dots as a rainbow around the stadium, with the light doing the same job at night. Im convinced Spotted is the clue.

I just cant see them announcing it till the whole DOW arguement is going on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I couldn't understand. It would be absolute suicide to unveil it at present. I have a feeling that they had planned to unveil it about now but they are holding back until this Bhopal fuss dies down.

I am pretty sure also that the wrap is going to be spotted. I just hope it isn't the same colours as that bridge. I hate to say it but that really does look awful. I like your idea and hope that you are right, but maybe we are just cluthing at straws.

Good job I am going to Germany tomorrow otherwise it would be another day typing "spotted wrap" into google. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darjole, I am worried about the number of colours being used in the park. We have pink and blue on the hockey pitches, purple and red on the volunteers uniform and yellow,green, orange and pink on the bridge. I like the idea of spots but wanted colours that would tie everything together. Why couldn't they have designed that bridge using some diffeent primary colours? Those colours really do not work at all. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be absolute suicide to unveil it at present. I have a feeling that they had planned to unveil it about now but they are holding back until this Bhopal fuss dies down.

Yeah... the whole "Bhopal fuss" makes no sense to me... Dow purchased Carbide more than a decade after the accident... so clearly Dow in no way caused it or is responsible for it... it was a completely separate company at the time... so how does anyone deem Dow responsible... much less today, so many years later...? This seems like a real fault in logic to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah... the whole "Bhopal fuss" makes no sense to me... Dow purchased Carbide more than a decade after the accident... so clearly Dow in no way caused it or is responsible for it... it was a completely separate company at the time... so how does anyone deem Dow responsible... much less today, so many years later...? This seems like a real fault in logic to me...

Agree! The more I read on it, the more I feel that Dow has ntohing to answer for. I just don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still unsure. They might not be directly responsible for it, but as the owners of the company that was they are surely responsible for any outstanding liabilities. And there is ongoing litigation. When you hear that drinking water is still contaminated and children are still being born with abnormalities it makes the whole issue hard to avoid. It sounds like there's still a lot of mess in the area, and those campaigning believe Dow owes a lot the area. I'm sure they must know what they're talking about better than any of us.

As excited as I am about seeing the much-needed wrap, it does leave a bad taste.

Anyway, there's already a thread on Dow and its Olympic and IOC sponsorship...more thoughts in there:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone's been up the top! (not me)

Ae8nXKUCAAAISdI.jpg

That's the other thing too about a 490-ft high cauldron.

- no one would really see it at a decent level...maybe only atop the Orbital. So why bother getting a name architect if it's something that can only be seen from an overhead jet?

- how can u have TV cameras at 500 ft high not unless there's an arm from the tower with its own built-in webcam? Otherwise, like this shot, the rim of the stadium (and an expensive long-range camera from the Orbital) would be the only vantage points to shoot the cauldron at a somewhat horizontal angle.

- Look at that crane in the bkgd. That's already like 150 ft high. I don't see the point in building something twice that height. Everyone on the ground would get neck pains just to look at the top.

- Finally, a 500-ft high cauldron would be such a tempting target for an RPG missile terrorist-fired farther away from the security ring of Olympic Park.

- I am sure the Fire Marshall of Stratford/that part of London will NOT approve such a ridiculously high cauldron.

That "490-ft." height is a red herring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baron, don't theorise too much about it. I should have pointed out that the "490 feet" information was from some forum member (so anyone could claim that). He said that those 490 feet are according to "EG", though. Does anyone know what "EG" means?

It could even be that that forum member confused the numbers and that it's actually 149 feet (45 metres) and not 149 metres (490 feet).

One thing is clear, though: The cauldron tower must have a certain height to be visible from the stadium, and I think that LOCOG will take the height of Torino's cauldron as an orientation. So if Torino's cauldron was 187 feet (57 metres) high and bearing in mind that London's Olympic Stadium has probably a higher roof than Torino's (due to the higher capacity of the former), the London cauldron shouldn't be much lower than Torino's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addendum: London's cauldron should actually be equally as high or even higher than Torino's -- because there are still those big floodlight triangles blocking the view from the stadium to any structures outside the stadium. So the cauldron must be considerably higher than the stadium's roof plus the floodlights. And: The flame should be bright and sitting high enough to outshine those very bright HD floodlights at night or to be at least not completely diminished by them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still unsure. They might not be directly responsible for it, but as the owners of the company that was they are surely responsible for any outstanding liabilities. And there is ongoing litigation. When you hear that drinking water is still contaminated and children are still being born with abnormalities it makes the whole issue hard to avoid. It sounds like there's still a lot of mess in the area, and those campaigning believe Dow owes a lot the area. I'm sure they must know what they're talking about better than any of us.

As excited as I am about seeing the much-needed wrap, it does leave a bad taste.

Anyway, there's already a thread on Dow and its Olympic and IOC sponsorship...more thoughts in there:

I accept that they have responsibilities, but their involvement does not warrant talk of boycotts and demands for the wrap to be scrapped. I agree that it is the IOC that should answer the questions and not LOCOG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be really that tall... It will be kind of the Aspire Tower in Doha 2006... In fact i think the Aspire Tower is taller than this one... Still, it will look good.

Have u seen the spit of land on which the cauldron is proposed? Tiny. And, if as you say, it will be something so massive...then that would not be the right spot for it.

1. the Lighting sequence as initiated from within the Stadium will probably be a long and tedious one; and

2. if it's something as massive as the Aspire Tower, therefore being even bigger than the Orbital, then of course people will draw conclusions--that it's come down to a battle of egos between Johnson and Coe, and why the need for two SUCH massive towers? ODA would start to look like a fool for allowing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Naming rights will be crucial to the success of the London Olympic Stadium post-Games, but despite a lack of clarity about what is on offer there is understood to be some initial interest already. At least one major US brand is understood to have shown interest, but they will require a great deal more detail about what will be in the stadium — West Ham remain the favoured outcome for Olympic organisers but are yet to show their hand — before anyone starts to commit to substantial negotiations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/8990819/London-2012-Olympics-Elgar-and-Sir-Paul-McCartney-to-feature-in-opening-ceremony.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Olympic Stadium will not be occupied by West Ham after the 2012 Games unless retractable seating is installed, according to the club's co-owner David Gold.

"We are not prepared to have fans sitting 60 yards from the pitch," he said. "We still want to move into the stadium but will not do so if the track remains uncovered. There has to be some form of retractable seating."

However, there is no provision to install seating of this natureby the Olympic Park Legacy Company. The deal to award West Ham the stadium collapsed last October when the OPLC ended negotiations.

The stadium remains in public ownership but talks on a new tenant will re-open this month.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/west-ham-move-in-jeopardy-6286691.html

This is a change of tune isn't it? When they were bidding to own the stadium against Spurs they were effusive about how the furthest seat would be closer than the furthest seat at Wembley. Keeping a running track was not a problem, according to Brady, as the gentle slope of the stadium gives it a "real sense of intimacy". She said it is a "really breathtaking" structure. They were releasing pictures like this to show their fans the track wouldn't be a problem:

WestHamStadiumAFP_543.jpg

Before the first tender process opened Gold was saying football and athletics couldn't work together. Then they had the chance to clear their debts and buy a £500m public asset on the cheap and they were suddenly best friends with athletics. Now they have no chance of actually owning the stadium they're back to their original stance. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know they've been selling shirts for months with a white monochrome print of the Olympic Stadium on them. I still reckon they'll probably end up in there, but I've found their stance regarding athletics to be disingenuous.

http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/football/west-ham/west_ham_insist_on_commitment_to_bobby_moore_fund_1_963814

4135166659.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...