London Olympic Stadium

[Aronious]

not really ghost.

Stadium Australia (82,000), and the Melbourne Cricket Ground (102,000) are both national stadiums here, both not in the capital.

I believe NZ national stadium is in Auckland, also not the capital.

Same as the national stadium not being in Washington.

In countries with a centralized population like England, with most of the people in one large city, yes then, the national stadium should be there.

This will occur in most European countries where there in little to no room.

Eg; Stad De France, Wembley and the Olympic Stadion.

[jimjam]

I don't understand the need to have a national stadium in the capital.  On that basis should the home of all sports and cultural groups also be in the captial?  All head offices in the capital?  All government workers in the captial?  Where do you stop?

We already have a London centirc attitiude to investment.  Its about time we started investing more outside.  

I fully accept London's role in the wealth of the nation - and I don't want to hold London back.  I do want to see the wealth spread a bit as I believe that this will benefit all (including London).

Oh and another point.  Most people in the UK do not live in London.  It may be the biggest city by some way but about 85% of the population live outside of London.  

[PatchMan]

I don't understand the need to have a national stadium in the capital.  On that basis should the home of all sports and cultural groups also be in the captial?  All head offices in the capital?  All government workers in the captial?  Where do you stop?

We already have a London centirc attitiude to investment.  Its about time we started investing more outside.  

I fully accept London's role in the wealth of the nation - and I don't want to hold London back.  I do want to see the wealth spread a bit as I believe that this will benefit all (including London).

Oh and another point.  Most people in the UK do not live in London.  It may be the biggest city by some way but about 85% of the population live outside of London.  

No. there is not London centric attitude to investment - London give more to the national conomy than it receives, despite having most of the poorest boroughs in the country.

Also, the metropiltan area of London has a population of 12 million. That is 20% of the people in the country, and 1  in every 4 people in England.

[jimjam]

The population of London in the 2001 census is just under 7.2million.  see link

census data

The London economy might contribute more than other cities and in no way do I undervalue it - sh1t I'm part of it.

My point is that under-investment in the regions allows the focus in the South East to continue thus making housing more unaffordable, social inequality etc.  This is of no benefit to the nation or to London.  A classic case is the recent debate on investment in public transport.  Manchester's metrolink is incredibly successful (not like other in Sheffield and Birmingham).  Metroling want some investment from the governemnt to extend out to some more of the towns around manchester.  This is about 500m.  however cross rail gets the go ahead depsite costing many billions more.  Other examples include the amount spent on arts and culture etc.  If we have more investment in the regions and government support for it the nation prospers everywhere.

[baron-pierreIV]

Robert Henson wrote:

The national stadium should be in the capital city of a country IMHO.

Going by that thinking, then why not just make the site wherever the new stadium will be, the capital?  That would satisfy your requirement, Mr. H.

[PatchMan]

The population of London in the 2001 census is just under 7.2million.  see link

census data

The London economy might contribute more than other cities and in no way do I undervalue it - sh1t I'm part of it.

My point is that under-investment in the regions allows the focus in the South East to continue thus making housing more unaffordable, social inequality etc.  This is of no benefit to the nation or to London.  A classic case is the recent debate on investment in public transport.  Manchester's metrolink is incredibly successful (not like other in Sheffield and Birmingham).  Metroling want some investment from the governemnt to extend out to some more of the towns around manchester.  This is about 500m.  however cross rail gets the go ahead depsite costing many billions more.  Other examples include the amount spent on arts and culture etc.  If we have more investment in the regions and government support for it the nation prospers everywhere.

I said metropolitan area, which is not the same as the one given in the census. Besides, that census is notoriously inadequate and inaccurate, particularly concerning London.

Westminster, a London borough, had to apthe population it was creited because it obviously had more, including immigrants and other effects, and it was being underfunded.

What makes no sense is that you say London is underfunded, yet it contains most of rthe poorest areas in the country and gives more than it receives from the economy.

As the capital, area most people have access to and international ambassador of the country, of course London receives more fl;agship arts funding et cetera... and so it should.

Im obviously not going to change your mind, but at leasat other people can see what youre saying makes no sense.

[jimjam]

Patchman – I said London and you said metropolitan area.  On that score we were both right.  The census is the closest thing we have to a record of national population data.  Of course there are problems with it.  By its nature it is out of date as soon as the forms are filled in.  What happened with Westminster happened around the country.

As for the poorest areas I think you will find that these are in Liverpool and Manchester and not in London.  That is not to say that London does not have poverty and does not need investment.

Why should London get more investment because of consulates?  That is a silly argument.  By its nature this type of funding should be inclusive.  The fact remains that London is disproportionately over funded when it come to arts and museums etc.  I’m not sure about some of what you say about most people having access etc so perhaps you could clarify.

[PatchMan]

Patchman – I said London and you said metropolitan area.  On that score we were both right.  The census is the closest thing we have to a record of national population data.  Of course there are problems with it.  By its nature it is out of date as soon as the forms are filled in.  What happened with Westminster happened around the country.

As for the poorest areas I think you will find that these are in Liverpool and Manchester and not in London.  That is not to say that London does not have poverty and does not need investment.

Why should London get more investment because of consulates?  That is a silly argument.  By its nature this type of funding should be inclusive.  The fact remains that London is disproportionately over funded when it come to arts and museums etc.  I’m not sure about some of what you say about most people having access etc so perhaps you could clarify.

Simple... London is the most densely populated and most visited part of the UK... when cultural initiatives are held, they should be generally - not all, of cousre - in London. It is the capital, but also if they are in London, more people, both British and foreign will be likely to see them, and more easily, because it is densely populated, and  around 12  million people have easy, qucik access. By putting on events here, you make them more accessible.

[Lee]

Just wanted to say that I was very pleased to hear that the proposed London Olympic stadium will be scaled down to retain a world class athletics facility after the Olympics.

This is a great decision and much better than handing the stadium over to a premiership football team. London needs a quality athletics venue to compete in the Golden League meetings. I am very happy at this news.

[Ripley]

The population of London in the 2001 census is just under 7.2million.  see link

census data

The London economy might contribute more than other cities and in no way do I undervalue it - sh1t I'm part of it.

My point is that under-investment in the regions allows the focus in the South East to continue thus making housing more unaffordable, social inequality etc.  This is of no benefit to the nation or to London.  A classic case is the recent debate on investment in public transport.  Manchester's metrolink is incredibly successful (not like other in Sheffield and Birmingham).  Metroling want some investment from the governemnt to extend out to some more of the towns around manchester.  This is about 500m.  however cross rail gets the go ahead depsite costing many billions more.  Other examples include the amount spent on arts and culture etc.  If we have more investment in the regions and government support for it the nation prospers everywhere.

I said metropolitan area, which is not the same as the one given in the census. Besides, that census is notoriously inadequate and inaccurate, particularly concerning London.

Westminster, a London borough, had to apthe population it was creited because it obviously had more, including immigrants and other effects, and it was being underfunded.

What makes no sense is that you say London is underfunded, yet it contains most of rthe poorest areas in the country and gives more than it receives from the economy.

As the capital, area most people have access to and international ambassador of the country, of course London receives more fl;agship arts funding et cetera... and so it should.

Im obviously not going to change your mind, but at leasat other people can see what youre saying makes no sense.

If you consider the northern cities in the same way as you consider your London metro figure you would have to acknowledge the Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford/Leeds, Sheffield region as a single entity. They all function in a interdependant way and people commute between them on a daily basis for work and services. This would create a population similar to London's.

The fact is that London generates more revenue per head of population because it contains a majority of the best paid positions as a result of its priviledged position as the centre of government and the money markets. Surely if there was a more even spread of opportunities and wealth to other parts of the country by decentralising some of these roles, then the likes of manchester and Liverpool would be able to contribute more to the national coffers and London would pay less towards subsidising the poorer regions.

As for arguments about so called national stadiums....well at the end of the day a stadium is a stadium, large or small. Attaching  the word "national" to it doesn't really add anything or create an asset that would necessarily attract international events. People who award events to cities are only interested whether the stadium is large enough and has enough facilities for everyone who will need to use it.

Wembley "National" Stadium is not really a national stadium since it is not owned by the nation. It is owned by German banks and the FA.... the fact that the English team play there is tradition and the recent spate of internationals around the country have shown that any other premiership football stadium is more than capable of filling the role which Wembley is intended to.

[Suit U Sir !!!]

In countries with a centralized population like England, with most of the people in one large city, yes then, the national stadium should be there.

I understand what you're trying to say.

But England is not really a good example of a country where most people live in one big city.

Greece and it's capital Athens is a much better example.

Using estimated figures:

England has population of 50 million (not including Wales, Scotland, NI), and London has a population of around 8 million, which accounts for 16%

Greece has total pop: 10 million, with Athens' population of around 4 million, which is 40%

[Suit U Sir !!!]

I don't understand the need to have a national stadium in the capital.  

I don't think the issue is really about the capital city, it's more about having your national stadium in the country's principle/ Number 1 city.

So if you think about it, having "Stadium Australia" in Sydney (at the time of the 2000 games, of course now it is the Telstra Stadium), followed this idea some people have about having the national stadium in the main city, as Sydney is Australia's most populated and famous city.

[Lee]

I am abosultely sick to the teeth of hearing people from the North whinging about London. I lived in Manchester for nearly 2 years and love the city and northern people as I find them much more genuine than Londoners. I basically loved nearly everything about living up there except for the constant moaning that London gets everythnig and the common belief that we are stealing it all away from the North.

Contrary to Northern belief, people who live in London are not all fabulously rich, in fact many of us don't have a pot to piss in either. We don't all live in Westminster and yes our councils are also very poor and have little money to invest.

In the last 3 weeks I have heard 4 reports on TV about London 2012 and 3 of them have shown someone from the North(normally Manchester actually)moaning that the games should be in Birmingham or why dont we give the North a chance. For goodness sake we have all been told that a games outisde of London is not an option by the IOC president..what more needs to be said. I would love to see an Olympic games in Manchester but it ain't gonna happen despite Manchester 2002 being absolutely fantastic.

In short, people from the North have to accept that London IS the capital city and no we dont get everything...try telling the people of Tower Hamlets and Newham that they get all the money. If Manchester was bidding for the games then I would do all I can to support them but sadly, there is a hige chip on the shoulder of many Northerners who cannot get past their hate for everything London.

I hate making this post because I love the North so much but it is a reality and a striking one.

[arwebb]

Spot on, and I'm not a Londoner.

It would be fantastic to have an Olympics in Manchester or Birmingham but it's got to be London first so that the IOC sees what Britain can do.

[baron-pierreIV]

Why not build the Olympic complex on the site where William Wallace (BRAVEHEART) was quartered, disemboweled and killed -- so that he can haunt the new stadium?  

[arwebb]

Why not build the Olympic complex on the site where William Wallace (BRAVEHEART) was quartered, disemboweled and killed -- so that he can haunt the new stadium?  

Why?

[Robert Henson]

London Olympics bid takes flight on winged stadium

THE first glimpse of what a London Olympics would look like reveals an 80,000-seater stadium with diaphanous roof sections resembling giant insect wings.

An artist’s impression of the main stadium, released by the 2012 bid committee, also shows Athens gold medallist Kelly Holmes racing to victory on its main screen. She will be 42 if and when the games come to Britain.

The images are being released in a bid to impress on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) the ways in which London will provide showpiece arenas and athletes’ facilities for the games.

The £300m stadium would be built on a 500-acre site in Stratford, east London, close to a new station which would serve a fast Channel tunnel rail link. But planners are taking no chances with the unpredictable British summer. The roofing details have been left deliberately vague: it has yet to be decided whether the translucent sections covering the seating areas would remain fixed or whether they could close, like an insect’s wing casings, to form a weatherproof cover.

“They are not meant to be insect wings but there is certainly something futuristic about the stadium,” said a spokesman for the city’s bid committee.

I can't find any pictures of this anywhere. If anyone finds any, post them in this thread please!

[Aronious]

London Olympics bid takes flight on winged stadium

THE first glimpse of what a London Olympics would look like reveals an 80,000-seater stadium with diaphanous roof sections resembling giant insect wings.

An artist’s impression of the main stadium, released by the 2012 bid committee, also shows Athens gold medallist Kelly Holmes racing to victory on its main screen. She will be 42 if and when the games come to Britain.

The images are being released in a bid to impress on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) the ways in which London will provide showpiece arenas and athletes’ facilities for the games.

The £300m stadium would be built on a 500-acre site in Stratford, east London, close to a new station which would serve a fast Channel tunnel rail link. But planners are taking no chances with the unpredictable British summer. The roofing details have been left deliberately vague: it has yet to be decided whether the translucent sections covering the seating areas would remain fixed or whether they could close, like an insect’s wing casings, to form a weatherproof cover.

“They are not meant to be insect wings but there is certainly something futuristic about the stadium,” said a spokesman for the city’s bid committee.

I can't find any pictures of this anywhere. If anyone finds any, post them in this thread please!

Do you, or anyone else have pictures or renderings of this?

[PatchMan]

Why not build the Olympic complex on the site where William Wallace (BRAVEHEART) was quartered, disemboweled and killed -- so that he can haunt the new stadium?  

The Houses of Parliament are the sitre of where he was condemned to death (and maybe executed).  They're about 90 seconds from the beach volleyball, and I'm pretty sure they'd be on the marathon route, so maybe tou'll get some haunting.  I doubt they'll be demolishing the Palace of Westminster to make way for a stadium any time soon, though.

[mr.x]

giant bird nests, giant pies......GIANT INSECT WINGS? :oo:

[arwebb]

Why not build the Olympic complex on the site where William Wallace (BRAVEHEART) was quartered, disemboweled and killed -- so that he can haunt the new stadium?  

The Houses of Parliament are the sitre of where he was condemned to death (and maybe executed).  They're about 90 seconds from the beach volleyball, and I'm pretty sure they'd be on the marathon route, so maybe tou'll get some haunting.  I doubt they'll be demolishing the Palace of Westminster to make way for a stadium any time soon, though.

Yes, it is unlikely, but demolishing it would solve the security problem that seems to be so terrifying there.

There's a picture of the design in today's Sunday Mirror. I think the word is "interesting".

[Sir Rols]

There's a couple of images of the proposed esign here now on the BBC website:

London 2012 Stadium Design

I love the look of the stadium _ I'd love to see London win 2012 just to see this stadium built

[baron-pierreIV]

Human form?  Baloney.  They've just run out of ideas for good traditional stadium design.

Well, New York's will be based on a giant Airconditioner.  Take that you pansy Brits!!!

[baron-pierreIV]

Human form?  How 'bout this?  

There are some human forms there.

[Sir Rols]

Okay, here's some pics of the new London Stadium Design: