baron-pierreIV Posted November 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2013 (edited) Has the policy been tightened very recently? Clearly a cauldron attached to the roof within the stadium was acceptable in 2008. If you have a roof that solid. That placement was as secure as secure can be. (But it wasn't visible to probably a good 2/5ths of the Nest audience.) And then when it was taken down and stood on its own on the ground, it didn't have any context. (I have a foto of it on the ground...but it won't paste.) Edited November 18, 2013 by baron-pierreIV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningrings Posted November 18, 2013 Report Share Posted November 18, 2013 If you have a roof that solid. That placement was as secure as secure can be. (But it wasn't visible to probably a good 2/5ths of the Nest audience. And then when it was taken down and stood on its own on the ground, it didn't have any context. (I have a foto of it on the ground...but it won't paste.) I really thought it was unusual that Beijing took the step of removing the cauldron after the Games and placing it near the stadium (like Sydney and Atlanta). I'd argue that the Beijing cauldron was a vital feature of the architecture of the stadium, and as you say, gave it its context. (similar to Los Angeles and Athens - where the cauldrons are a feature of the stadium architecture). Now Beijing's cauldron sits by the pavement like another discarded McDonald's french fry box in the American south. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMarkSnow2012 Posted November 18, 2013 Report Share Posted November 18, 2013 If you have a roof that solid. That placement was as secure as secure can be. (But it wasn't visible to probably a good 2/5ths of the Nest audience. And then when it was taken down and stood on its own on the ground, it didn't have any context. (I have a foto of it on the ground...but it won't paste.) - and not even a viewing gallery at the top. As for the roof- judging from the curved shapes of Hadid's design, the Tokyo stadium roof should be remarkably strong, despite its delicate appearance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted November 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2013 As for the roof- judging from the curved shapes of Hadid's design, the Tokyo stadium roof should be remarkably strong, despite its delicate appearance. Given Tokyo's tectonic plates, one would hope that dreadful design would be strong. I'm not questioning its durability. It's a rather 'busy' design on such a large scale -- i.e., the envisioned Hadid stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illustrado Posted November 18, 2013 Report Share Posted November 18, 2013 Given Tokyo's tectonic plates, one would hope that dreadful design would be strong. I'm not questioning its durability. It's a rather 'busy' design on such a large scale -- i.e., the envisioned Hadid stadium. or as i would like to call it kaiju staduim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMarkSnow2012 Posted November 18, 2013 Report Share Posted November 18, 2013 Given Tokyo's tectonic plates, one would hope that dreadful design would be strong. I'm not questioning its durability. It's a rather 'busy' design on such a large scale -- i.e., the envisioned Hadid stadium. Comparing the stadium with the building at right, I'd say the problem may be that it's not busy enough. On that epic scale, the horizontally-flowing lines need more isolation from the rest of the city, but of course they can't have it. Sorry, that should have been "right of centre". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted November 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2013 Comparing the stadium with the building at right, I'd say the problem may be that it's not busy enough. On that epic scale, the horizontally-flowing lines need more isolation from the rest of the city, but of course they can't have it. Sorry, that should have been "right of centre". It's not too bad at that angle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyroKinesis Posted November 19, 2013 Report Share Posted November 19, 2013 We need more stadiums like Athens and Salt Lake City where there is an opening at one end so everyone can see the cauldron lighting, both inside and outside. Sochi looked like it was going to have this, then they added that roof, so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted November 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2013 We need more stadiums like Athens and Salt Lake City where there is an opening at one end so everyone can see the cauldron lighting, both inside and outside. Sochi looked like it was going to have this, then they added that roof, so... Well, Helsinki 1952 and Innsbruck 1976 were completely open-air...yet they still lit 2 caldera for each of those. And then 3 for Innsbruck 2012 last year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRjHQPbJ6m8&list=PL1560323CE59B23DC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMarkSnow2012 Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 Well, Helsinki 1952 and Innsbruck 1976 were completely open-air...yet they still lit 2 caldera for each of those. And then 3 for Innsbruck 2012 last year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRjHQPbJ6m8&list=PL1560323CE59B23DC But what PyroKinesis put was "where there is an opening at one end," which is very specific. The classic example would be Berlin, where the 1936 Cauldron was in the same relative position, and roughly the same size, as in London 1948, but because there was a large notch taken out of the stadium end-wall and seating, it was as easily visible from outside as in. Demolishing part of Wembley to create the same effect in 1948 was a non-starter, but it could probably have been done in 2012 if LOCOG hadn't assumed the Cauldron would sit on the roof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOtherRob Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 One of the reasons the London stadium became a bowl (the bid renders, remember, had an open ended stadium like Athens) was because architects calculated the winds entering the stadium would not be beneficial for the athletes. Closing the bowl off reduced the wind swirl aroound the track and field. Having an open stadium is ok if the climate allows for it. It's easier for Winter hosts, where they can use a main stadium just for ceremonies and don't have to consider those pesky athletes. Or at least it should be; I still find it a bit strange Sochi couldn't make the open stadium idea work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted November 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 (edited) But what PyroKinesis put was "where there is an opening at one end," which is very specific. The classic example would be Berlin, where the 1936 Cauldron was in the same relative position, and roughly the same size, as in London 1948, but because there was a large notch taken out of the stadium end-wall and seating, it was as easily visible from outside as in. Demolishing part of Wembley to create the same effect in 1948 was a non-starter, but it could probably have been done in 2012 if LOCOG hadn't assumed the Cauldron would sit on the roof. Well, since u are wont to be argumentative...and I am in the same frame of mind, to wit... 1. I believe Athens had openings at BOTH ends of the stadium. They just picked one end over the other. SLC really wasn't open-ended at either end. By the time they put the Athletes' Stand, it became a fully enclosed bowl. They just happened to place the cauldron HIGHER than anything in that stadium. 2. Does it really matter? The Sochi organizers have deemed that they want to enclose the stadium and have opted for a larger cauldron outside -- so that's that. Why even question it? I still find it a bit strange Sochi couldn't make the open stadium idea work. I think it was for the main reason, Rob. The swirling winds in that area. But not for the athletes' performance sake, but for the safety of the spectators and performers...what with all the high-tech equipment hanging from the girders. And I think since they want to put on one of the most grandiose set of Ceremonies on record, why not go whole hog and enclose the venue and make it a totally controlled environment for show purposes. I also think when they saw what Vancouver could achieve even with an inflatable roof, that pushed them into going for a converted, fully-enclosed venue. I mean, what's a few extra million rubles between Vlady's billionaire friends?? Just give them a few more tickets. Edited November 20, 2013 by baron-pierreIV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMarkSnow2012 Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 Well, since u are wont to be argumentative...and I am in the same frame of mind, to wit... 1. I believe Athens had openings at BOTH ends of the stadium. They just picked one end over the other. SLC really wasn't open-ended at either end. By the time they put the Athletes' Stand, it became a fully enclosed bowl. They just happened to place the cauldron HIGHER than anything in that stadium. 2. Does it really matter? The Sochi organizers have deemed that they want to enclose the stadium and have opted for a larger cauldron outside -- so that's that. Why even question it? Quite right about Athens, but the SLC stadium wall was much lower at the cauldron end than at other points. They didn't have to use a tower at all- but I guess they wanted to show off (as did Athens, in even-more-obviously phallic style). And yes, I think it does matter. Having a very tall Cauldron structure adjacent to the stadium but not directly visible to stadium spectators seems to me very like a mistake. I think it was for the main reason, Rob. The swirling winds in that area. But not for the athletes' performance sake, but for the safety of the spectators and performers...what with all the high-tech equipment hanging from the girders. And I think since they want to put on one of the most grandiose set of Ceremonies on record, why not go whole hog and enclose the venue and make it a totally controlled environment for show purposes. I also think when they saw what Vancouver could achieve even with an inflatable roof, that pushed them into going for a converted, fully-enclosed venue. I mean, what's a few extra million rubles between Vlady's billionaire friends?? Just give them a few more tickets. I do rather wonder about those "swirling winds" (Sochi's airport is close to the Fisht Stadium). However, it's certainly true that the direction of the prevailing wind there does change significantly during the year. I wonder if the original stadium designers noticed ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted November 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 I do rather wonder about those "swirling winds" (Sochi's airport is close to the Fisht Stadium). However, it's certainly true that the direction of the prevailing wind there does change significantly during the year. I wonder if the original stadium designers noticed ... I think the bi-valve design of Fisht exacerbated the winds. It must become like a wind tunnel. For the soccer matches in 2018, it would probably present no problems for what's going on in the FOP. But with all the trappings they will be hanging from the girders, it is prudent for them to be cautious rather then cavalier especially in a premier showcase of the Putin regime. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikarus360 Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 Newest pic of the cauldron. Notice the walls they're building alongside the base of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshi Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 That looks like heavy artillery. Is this really the Olympic spirit Mr Putin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted December 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2013 That looks like heavy artillery. Is this really the Olympic spirit Mr Putin? Oh yoshi, that's just the way it looks. You can't be that gullible, can you?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMarkSnow2012 Posted December 8, 2013 Report Share Posted December 8, 2013 Oh yoshi, that's just the way it looks. You can't be that gullible, can you?? So who wins this argument if the thing lobs pyro shells across the city during the OC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshi Posted December 8, 2013 Report Share Posted December 8, 2013 It was a joke Baron Some people... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOtherRob Posted December 8, 2013 Report Share Posted December 8, 2013 Baron's the Jokemaster General around these parts. Do you have a license Yoshi? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshi Posted December 8, 2013 Report Share Posted December 8, 2013 Oops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted December 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2013 It was a joke Baron Some people... Well, I saw it more as an odd comment. I guess one can impugn anything as one sees it. I'd rather hope than anything militaristic be left out of the Olympic Games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshi Posted December 8, 2013 Report Share Posted December 8, 2013 I was just making a light comment that from that angle, the cauldron looks like a huge canon. Anyway, who'll light it? Plushenko? Isinbayeva? Anyone else? *cannon, not canon. Bloody spellchecker... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted December 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) I think they'll go for several Winter Olympians. And it not the 'show' cauldron inside; then maybe 2 others outside standing at each end of the "Firebird's" wings. Altho I'm guessing this is how the Lighting will go: as the cauldron rises from the raised stage, there's a lot of ice dancers doing their "Firebird" thing. Then 2-3-or-4 Olympians light the cauldron (I'm willing to bet Irina Rodnina would be one of them). Then a drone (Prometheus) swoops in..."steals" a bit of that flame. It too rises, they open up the big end of the added structure; the drone flies up to the top of the outside cauldron...and lights that one...with the help of the flame also coming from the two "wing-ends" of the stylized Firebird structure. Fireworx!! How does that sound?? Edited December 8, 2013 by baron-pierreIV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshi Posted December 8, 2013 Report Share Posted December 8, 2013 Sounds very possible. And it may explain the black roof if the drone is heavy. BTW, from the side, it looks like Nessie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.