analysis of the London stadium?


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Re: analysis of the London stadium?

Postby Jnathletics » Wed May 09, 2012 8:25 pm

Sorry, I can't say I've been to an Olympics. Been in a few Olympic stadiums, including the originals 1896 and BC. I went to Atlanta for the trials, so I guess my opinion wouldn't be that good since you could move around and see everything. (Didn't need to stay in your assigned seat.) Plus, I'm a backstraight person born and raised. So, Atlanta was pretty good from those points as you could get right up close to the track if you wanted too. Had front row seats to the start of the 200m finals. :D Atlanta fixed some seating issues after their test and IOC prez criticizing the baseball layout. My biggest complaint is I don't think the Olympic flame should be a temporary structure apart from the stadium and taken down after the games. Makes it feel like a cheap circus, rather then an inspirational global attraction.

As for future stadium designs, I'm hoping to get more involved in them. So, keep posting issues. As I can use it for research. 8-)
Jnathletics
 
Posts: 2213
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Cross Country Mudville

Re: analysis of the London stadium?

Postby tm71 » Wed May 09, 2012 9:49 pm

"There was a bit of a headwind and it was quite swirly," Bleasdale said. "It was good to come and experience that ahead of the Games because I can be confident coming into it."

so much for bolt and blake running 9.4 and 19 flat as some have predicted here!

btw i went to the olympic stadium in atlanta for the grand prix test meet in may and other than the hot and humid weather i was able to enjoy the meet as much as anyone i have been to in the last 30 yrs. i wanted to go to the trials, but my work conflicted and did not make it for the final weekend as i wanted to. i did not go to the olympics and i am glad i did not have to put with the long lines and side shows. my parents went to athens in 2004 and even though they were on the upper deck backstretch they both said they had a good view and enjoyed the experience.
tm71
 
Posts: 2297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: analysis of the London stadium?

Postby Vault-emort » Wed May 09, 2012 10:45 pm

gh wrote:the dictum should be what the Japanese say: everybody should climb Fujiyama.... once!

Totally agree. I'm glad I restricted myself to just one session of aths in Sydney (fortunately the Cathy & Geb night - the best night of track and field I am likely to see in my life) and was happy to watch most of the rest at home in comfort with cheap beer and snacks. It was a thrill though to go to every day of the test event (the Aussie trials) at the Olympic stadium. Probably the last time I'll see crowds of over 20,000 for a national track meet downunder...

I had reasonably good seats at the Olympics and finish-line seating for the trials but friends who had 'bleeder' seats at the Olympics had no complaints about their viewing - and that was in a 105-110 thousand seater stadium (is that still a record?).
Vault-emort
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:42 am
Location: In the pits

Re: analysis of the London stadium?

Postby krakatoa » Thu May 10, 2012 3:12 am

I'm pretty much in line with the rest of the critical comments on the stadium. I made a visit during the "test" event and thought It's very badly designed and actually looks cheap (which it wasn't) and temporary (which it is) because they intend tearing down at least the top tier and it will also have to undergo massive alterations to prepare it as a football stadium with only a few days each year allowed for track and field! (on another forum someone thought it looked like it was designed by IKEA as a flat pack assembly!)

I think a lot of people who managed to get tickets (most horrendously priced out of all proportion to previous Olympics) are going to be severely disappointed with their deal, especially the British public who've shelled out around £10billion in taxes to pay for it. Long queues to get in, poor facilities, no own drinks or food allowed in, excessively high prices for on-site food and drink, no rain shelter for 80% of the spectators, small stadium screens, poor sound system and for many a very long way from the action.

I hear that many volunteers are now re-thinking taking on the job and will walk away. Apparently, shifts are up to 12 hours long some ending at 2am. No arrangement has been made to accommodate any of these ("can't you stay with relatives living nearby" has been quoted from LOCOG) and of course they're all expected to do it for the love of the Olympics, never mind that the people who put it on, including the 'illustrious' Lord Coe, are raking in hundreds of thousands of £pounds in salaries, consultancies, fees and bonuses while 78.0000 poor sods do it all for nothing and without whom it couldn't happen!

Then there's the massive security. Ground to air missiles are being put in place to apparently deter or defend against any possible aircraft high-jack endangering the Olympic Stadium. So what are they going to do if a plane comes in? Shoot it down over London? Keep the VIP's safe in the stadium but presumably those in London are expendable as huge flaming ball of wreckage rains down somewhere else? How totally ridiculous!
krakatoa
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 2:28 am

Re: analysis of the London stadium?

Postby krakatoa » Thu May 10, 2012 3:31 am

And I should add, not only are all funded British athletes contractually bound to only be positive about the sport, including the Olympic Games and their own governing body, UK Athletics under threat of losing their funding, but the press are also wary of being critical because their accreditation to be at the Games is subject to LOCOG's approval. The Daily Mail has already been banned from any UK Athletics press conferences and events for daring to ask pertinent questions of one of the conveniently imported Brits (usually referred to as "plastic Brits") Big Brother reigns in our new Eastern Block!
krakatoa
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 2:28 am

Re: analysis of the London stadium?

Postby chuku69 » Thu May 10, 2012 11:53 am

I thought the wrap around the stadium was supposed to be completed already.
chuku69
 
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:34 am

Re: analysis of the London stadium?

Postby John G » Fri May 11, 2012 4:17 am

I went to Atlanta (appalling transport, long queues, terrible food, ignorant spectators and horrible temporary seating) and Sydney (long journeys to and from stadium and seats a mile from the action). None of that mattered one little bit. I was actually watching the friggin Olympics. With my own eyes. As it happened. I was pinching myself during every session - hardly able to believe my good fortune.

I've got tickets this time again courtesy of TFN Tours. I'm like a kid waiting for the ultimate Christmas and dont care how long the queues are or how hard the seats are or what crap fast food I need to eat or how far away I am from the action. I'll be there and I'll cherish every moment.

My Dad's also going (he got tickets through the BASC). He's just the sort of cynical old git who, in the past would have been writing all the stuff in the previous posts. He would have certainly been telling anyone who'd listen that the tickets were overpriced, the view was going to be crap and he'd rather watch at home without all those annoying people around him who didn't know anything about athletics. However, he's got terminal cancer and that focusses the mind on what's really important. Sadly he won't be around for very much longer but on his death bed we'll be able to talk about the atmosphere when Mo did his victory lap. The fact he saw the finish from 100m away and it was raining won't matter one little bit.
John G
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: analysis of the London stadium?

Postby Daisy » Fri May 11, 2012 7:20 am

John G wrote:I've got tickets this time again courtesy of TFN Tours.

Did you have to buy the whole package for them? I was thinking of going that route but didn't need the hotel or the plane.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: analysis of the London stadium?

Postby gh » Fri May 11, 2012 10:18 am

analysis from an American friend who was there:

<<Lower deck seating is shallow and far away from the track on the straights, with lousy perspective for athletics. I’m told these are A and AA category tickets [which means that once again, they've had a moron in charge of figuring where the best track views are; the good news is that if you you didn't splurge on the high-end tix you were probably better off].

Most surprising was the number of seats not covered by the stadium roof. In the lower deck, the first 20 of about 24 rows are not under cover. In the upper deck, the first 5-6 rows will also get wet in the rain. Upper deck seats have better sightlines, but are far away as well.

The stadium looked to be about 70% full for the test event. Security lines were a breeze. I walked right through, no waiting. Queues for concessions, though, were extremely long.

On the plus side, access is easy and there is a huge Westfield shopping mall attached to the Stratford tube station, with tons of shopping, restaurants, fast food outlets, coffee shops, etc. The restaurants and food court were open past 10:30 pm on the night of the test event, so I’d assume they’ll have late hours during the Games as well. It’s an easy 10-minute walk from the tube station to the Olympic Park entrance and another 10 minutes to the Olympic stadium (assuming no waiting in security). >>
gh
 
Posts: 46302
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: analysis of the London stadium?

Postby Conor Dary » Fri May 11, 2012 11:00 am

Amazing analysis. Sounds like a spectator disaster. Did Coe even get involved in the planning? Does he care?

No wonder Ovett moved to Australia.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: analysis of the London stadium?

Postby gh » Thu May 17, 2012 3:27 pm

the Londonist isn't impressed

http://londonist.com/2012/05/olympic-st ... -guide.php

<<...t looks like anybody in the stadium come Games time will have a vibrant, if potentially chilly, time, especially if they remember to bring their binoculars with them. Maybe that’s why they’re sometimes called “field glasses”?..>>

<<....the sandpit might as well have been on the moon for all we could see of any triple or long jumpers using it. In particular, the distance measuring panels, so useful to the television viewer, completely obscured the seated landings of the competitors....>>
gh
 
Posts: 46302
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: analysis of the London stadium?

Postby mump boy » Fri May 18, 2012 12:03 am

that review is spot on and the observations about the seating categories are exactly why i didn't even bother trying to buy any tickets. Even now people who'e spent 100's of pounds have no idea where they are seated and from what i've seen many of them are going to be disappointed
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: analysis of the London stadium?

Postby Daisy » Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:27 am

What is the redux on the stadium. Did it turn out OK?

The modifications required to make it a multipurpose stadium look pretty good too. If it works.
The drawings, published on the club's official site, show how the Stadium will be able to function as both an athletics arena - with seating withdrawn - and a football ground with the four sides of the lower bowl pushed towards the pitch by automated motors.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/ ... d-publicly
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests