Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3 Dissertation AR519 Spring 2010
The Beijing National Stadium and London Olympic Stadium:
The Olympic comparison
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
The Beijing National Stadium and London Olympic Stadium:
The Olympic comparison Word count: 5422
Abstract I clearly recall the first time I saw an image of the Beijing National Stadium. I was about to enter my GCSE graphic design class when something stunning caught my eye. It was an extract from a journal that my teacher had pinned to the wall showing Herzog & de Meuronâ€&#x;s successful proposal for the new Olympic stadium in Beijing. It immediately stirred a deep-seated curiosity within me. I remember thinking that if architecture can create a steel birdâ€&#x;s nest for 100,000 people, then architectural design could be applied to anything. Six years on these feelings are as strong as ever. This dissertation is the perfect opportunity to discover more about this symbolic structure that was the stimulus for me pursuing an architectural career. However the timely design of the new London Olympic stadium has fascinated me for completely different reasons. I want to investigate how the design of two vastly different buildings can serve the same purpose. The fact that this essay concerns a building of personal significance, and a building which as I write is under construction has made this a stimulating and relevant topic to research and to convey to a wider audience.
2
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
“Holding an Olympic Games means evoking history.” Pierre de Coubertin, founder of the modern Olympic Games.
Since Coubertin spoke those words at the first Olympic Games of the modern era in Athens in 1896, there have been twenty nine Summer Olympic Games, each one captivating the world‟s attention on the single host city for a global festival of sport. For the chosen city, hosting the Olympic Games are an opportunity like no other. These include programs for urban regeneration, a stimulus to inspire a generation of young people, and most significantly, it is a socio-political event for a city and nation to exude its political and cultural ideals to a watching world. The focal point of any Summer Olympic Games is the host city‟s Olympic Stadium. Despite the fact that only a few of the Game‟s sporting events are held within the stadium, it can be the symbol and iconic image of a successful Olympic games and important tool in urban development (John, Sheard, Vickery 2007 251) It is the venue for the opening and closing ceremonies and where the Olympic flame burns eternal. For my dissertation I have chosen to analyse, compare and contrast two Olympic Stadiums which have provoked thought and opinion like no other sporting arenas in the last century – and one of them hasn‟t even been built yet. The Beijing National Stadium in China and The London Olympic Stadium in England are stadiums that are thousands of miles away in every sense of the phrase. Lovingly known as „The Bird‟s Nest,‟ the Beijing National Stadium is one of the boldest statements yet that China is becoming the world‟s largest economic super power. As for the London Olympic Stadium, such loathed is the design; it has yet to evoke an affectionate nickname. It looks set to be remembered as the „functional‟ stadium, a symbol of a nation and perhaps the world recovering from severe recession. This dissertation will focus on wide-ranging contrasts between two Olympic Stadiums. The design selection process, the reception received by each design, the impact of construction and the legacy. How were such contrasting Olympic visions conceived? Is the globally adorned Beijing National Stadium all that it is cracked up to be, or is there a white elephant surfacing from within the steel twigs of the Bird‟s Nest? Will the London Olympic Stadium be considered the pioneering arena of sustainable sporting architecture? These are just some of the questions this dissertation will address.
3
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
The Olympic dream On July 11th 2001, Beijing defeated Osaka, Istanbul, Toronto and Paris to be elected the host city of the twenty ninth Summer Olympic Games and thirteenth Summer Paralympic Games in 2008. Failure to be awarded these games was not an option for the Beijing Olympic Games Bid Committee, who, following the narrow failure to host the 2000 Summer games, were ordered by the governing Communist Party of China (CPC) to succeed in bringing the games to China for the first time. The failed bid for the 2000 games provoked antiforeign popular nationalism amongst the Chinese which was harmful for social development. (Price, Dayan 2008 145) For the CPC, hosting the games was crucial not just because of potential economic benefits for urban growth, but for the symbolic and political significance of holding the Olympics. The awarding of the games heralded China‟s emergence as a new global superpower, and was the CPC‟s opportunity to showcase its economic prowess of the previous two decades and present a rebranded image of China. This was embodied by their tagline, „New Beijing, Great Olympics.‟ Architecture has long been a way for cities to create a sense of global identity and to boost tourism. A single landmark building can completely transform the image of a city. A prime example being the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, which transformed the image of Bilbao from an industrial blot to an iconic cultural tourist must see. China saw the Olympics as an opportunity to erect a number of landmark buildings, stimulated by an insatiable need to impress the world. In October 2002, the Beijing City Government asked the Beijing Municipal Planning Commission (BMPC) to organise a design competition for the centre-piece of the 2008 Summer Games, the Olympic Stadium. The commission specified that “...the stadium design shall embody the new image of urban development in Beijing, and fully reflect the idea of Great Olympics – New Beijing.” Other than the obvious necessity of a playing field, athletics track and seating for 100,000 spectators, the primary requirements for the stadium were a vision for post-Olympic use, low maintenance costs and a retractable roof. (Beijing Municipal Planning Commission 2002a) On the 25th October 2002, the BMPC officially invited architects from across the world to design the proposed 100,000 seat Olympic sports stadium. (Xinhua News Agency 2002) International juried architectural competitions were a new practice in China with the
Fig.1 Model of joint second place design by AXS SAWTO and Tsinghua University China
4
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
majority of new buildings coming from state-owned local design institutes and private architectural firms are required by law to collaborate with these institutes in the design and construction process. The fact the Planning Commission opened the design competition out to international architectural companies demonstrated China‟s intent to present its ascendancy to the world stage, and the commission knew a well-publicised international design competition would create invaluable promotion for the games. An entry list of bids to the National Stadium was narrowed down to fourteen final designs by a jury, a jury that included the internationally acclaimed architects Rem Koolhaas and Jean Nouvel. (Beijing Municipal Planning Commission 2002b) Entries included a bid from London based HOK Architects, who despite failing with their design, would get another chance in the London bid a few years later. The fourteen designs were narrowed down to three, with a scheme from the Beijing Institute of Architectural Design and Research, and scheme from a Japanese design firm AXS SAWTO in collaboration with the Tsinghua University losing out to the „Bird‟s Nest‟, a collaboration between Swiss based Herzog & de Meuron Architeckten and the China Architecture Design & Research Group. Their design won the vote of both the International jury and the public following a public exhibition of the scheme. (China Daily 2003)
Fig.2 Model of joint second place design by Beijing Institute of Architectural Design and Research China
Fig.3 Model of winning design by Herzog & de Meuron
5
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
London hadn‟t been expected to be awarded the 2012 games, and there had been mixed feelings from all sides as to whether London should have bid at all during the three year bidding process, which was led by the British Olympian Lord Sebastian Coe. Major concerns were cost, and whether there would be a repeat of the Wembley Stadium fiasco, which at the time was still under construction, and would come in £350 million over budget and four years over time. The focal point of London‟s bid was legacy, and the centre piece, an emotive 80,000 seat stadium designed by Foreign Office Architects. The most striking element of the design was the lattice-like roof elements which resemble the sculpted biceps of an athlete. The design was unveiled in November 2004 (Building Design 2004) and was presented as part of a conceptual masterplan put forward to demonstrate an ambitious vision of radical British architecture. The design proved an instant hit, with its radical curves offering London a glimpse of what a successful Olympic stadium bid could look like. This bold statement of architecture kick-started a pivotal late surge of public and media support towards the bid.
Fig.4 Rendered image of London Olympic stadium conceptual proposal by Foreign Office Architects
Following an emotional day of presentations at the 117th IOC Session in Singapore on 6th July 2005, Lord Coe‟s dream of a London Olympics was realised. London successfully defeated Moscow, New York, Madrid and the favourites Paris to be awarded the 2012 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games. The voting was close, with Madrid leading after the second ballot and London winning the final ballot receiving to fifty four votes to Paris‟ fifty. (Lee 2007 195) This was perhaps the high point of what has since been a difficult five years for the London‟s organising committee. The high of
6
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
winning the games lasted little more than twenty four hours as London was hit by a series of terrorist attacks on its public transport system. Eight days after the announcement, the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) was set up to control work on the construction of sporting arenas and infrastructure of the games (Culf 2005). They are a separate body from the London 2012 Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) who are responsible for publicising and staging the games (Poynter 2009 235). Their remit of the ODA covers all areas of the development of the Olympic stadium, right the way through to the completion of the structure. Their first task was to decide the process most suitable to deliver a successful design. Four years previous, an international design competition was China‟s way of discovering the variety of revolutionary and iconic architecture that could be bought to Beijing. The ODA felt a different approach to designing their Olympic stadium would be more appropriate, deciding not to have a competition to choose its designers. In July 2006 the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) notice was unveiled, stating that the ODA were looking for, A recognisable landmark... The creation of a stadium of this scale that delivers a powerful image for the Games [with its] innovative use of permanent and temporary forms and provides a cost-effective solution is a critical challenge of this contract. (Waite 2006) Rather than commission the build by design competition, the ODA chose to appoint a multidisciplinary consortium to design and build the Olympic stadium, warm-up facilities and external landscaping. The plan was to narrow down bids to up to six suitable consortiums who would be assessed on technical capability, financial strength and operating methods, followed by a design challenge to gauge design flair and ability to create cost-effective and sustainable designs. At no point in the selection process would any consortium be asked to deliver any tangible concept of how the stadium may look. This was the critical moment in the development of the London Olympic stadium. Some firms commented that the selection process itself was unclear, particularly how the teams would be comprised and that firms who had already been involved in the conceptual masterplanning process during the bid to host the games had a clear advantage. Jan Kaplicky of Future Systems architects commented, “If the contractor chooses the architect, you can name on one hand the companies it will be.” (Building Design 2006) In October 2006, the true extent of the flawed process was revealed, when it was confirmed that just one consortium had met the basic criteria to apply, and would enter exclusive talks with the ODA with a view to being awarded the contract. (Beard 2006) Not quite the six suitable consortiums they had planned to assess. The group, led by Sir Robert McAlpine (contractors of the Arsenal Football Club, Emirates Stadium) included HOK Sports and Foreign Office Architects, and engineering firms Buro Happold and M-E Engineering Inc. 7
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
Many believe the reason for the lack of competition was partly due to the debacle over the construction of Wembley stadium, which saw Australian contractor group Brookfield Multiplex loose an estimated £100m. London‟s poor track record in budget management, coupled with rising inflation and a weakening pound created a rather unattractive financial proposition for any firm interested in bidding to design the 80,000 seat stadium. Ironically, it was Wembley that played an important role in London being awarded the games, showing that despite the problems, London can deliver state of the art sporting facilities. (Warner 2004) McAlpine‟s consortium had just under a year to produce the design proposals. Following early negative headlines about rumoured design proposals, culture minister Tessa Jowell reminded the ODA that they must “ensure design is as much of a pre-occupation as cost control.” (Building Design 2006b) Jerome Frost, head of design at the ODA, hit back in the Architecture Journal. He wrote, We are committed to high quality design but the functionality of venues and their legacy the local community is also very important for us... The commitment to creativity has been and will continue to be a fundamental part of our selection processes and planning... Innovation and creativity are essential, but must be balanced against delivery and legacy. (Frost 2006) However, big questions were again raised when in May 2007, having reached the detailed design phase, Foreign Office Architects stunned the ODA by stepping down from the stadium masterplanning team, amid rumours that the project was being dumbed down due to tightening budgetary control. (Walker 2007) This was another critical moment in development of the London Olympic stadium, losing FOA, whose creative and innovative flair during the conceptual masterplan stage helped bring the games to London in the first place. This left just HOK as the primary stadium architects. It was under these circumstances that the unveiling of the London Olympic stadium took place.
8
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
Fig.5 Rendered aerial view image of The Beijing National stadium
Fig.6 Rendered aerial view image of The London Olympic stadium
9
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
Fig.7 Rendered ground view image of The Beijing National stadium
Fig.8 Rendered ground view image of The London Olympic stadium
10
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
; Fig.9 Rendered internal view image of The Beijing National stadium
Fig.10 Rendered internal view image of The London Olympic stadium
11
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
The Olympic conundrum The reception the two stadiums received upon their unveiling as the new Olympic stadiums could not be more contrasting. Herzog & de Meuron‟s masterpiece was greeted with mass approval, with many heralding its design as a milestone of new architecture in Beijing. The Swiss firm took great care in designing a stadium which would be both a bold statement, yet sensitive to Chinese values. The design was instantly recognisable to the Chinese public for its iconic appearance, and was instantly dubbed, the „Bird‟s Nest.‟ Affectionate nicknames are important in China, and they can make or break an architect‟s reputation in the Far East. Norman Foster‟s airport terminal in Beijing resembles the most sacrosanct creatures of Chinese culture, the dragon, and is a nationally proud piece of architecture. In contrast, Paul Andreu‟s widely panned National Grand Theatre in Beijing is colloquially referred to as „The Egg.‟ In China, bird‟s nest is a very expensive component of soup and is highly regarded for special occasions, so the nickname of the „Bird‟s Nest‟ was very favourable. As for the London Olympic stadium, onlookers ranging from the most ardent of optimists to the most severe of critics have tried to give the stadium an analogical new name. But neither the „Roman Coliseum‟ nor „Lavatory Bowl‟ (Bayley 2007) have stuck, with the most common prefix has been „the troubled!‟ London‟s attempt at an Olympic stadium was met with widespread derision for its lack of flair and innovation. It was described as “not a stadium that's going to be screaming from the rooftops that it's bigger and more spectacular.” (Lutz 2007) That verdict came from Rod Sheard, Chief Architect of the stadium, responsible for designing what the ODA had asked to be 'A recognisable landmark... that delivers a powerful image for the Games,‟ when it unveiled its initial brief in July 2006. The design is banal, not representative of the exciting architecture that has emerged from London in the last decade, and is a kick in the teeth the British public and architectural community who had grown attached to FOA‟s design for the stadium that had come to symbolise all that was dynamic about London‟s bid. The ODA champion their stadium, claiming it to be a beacon of sustainable and functional architecture. Sure, but a portakabin is functional, and provides a roof that fully covers it user, unlike the HOK‟s Olympic stadium which covers just two thirds of those seated. In addition how can a £500 million stadium that will be taken apart following the three week games, and then rebuilt at further cost, ever be considered sustainable? The two stadiums had vastly contrasting reactions upon their unveiling, but whilst the proposed design for the London Olympic stadium was met with, widespread criticism, there were some who showed appreciation for its renewable intent, and while most onlookers had positive feelings towards
12
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
the Beijing National stadium, it must be noted there were some quarters who had serious questions regarding the design. The primary concerns of the Bird‟s Nest largely come from the culturally conservative older generation of Chinese architects who saw the growing involvement of international architects capturing coveted state contracts in China as a threat to the development of 21st century Chinese architecture. In an extensive article written in May 2006 for the New York Times, journalist Arthur Lubow responded to these concerns is an article on Herzog & de Meuron‟s involvement with the Beijing Olympics. Acknowledging that their architects were not yet up to the challenge, the Chinese had imported the best the West could offer, and now young local architects were collaborating with and learning from Western masters. By marrying Chinese tradition with a modern outlook, Herzog and de Meuron were helping to raise the bar for architecture in China... In a few years, as the junior Chinese architects become more sophisticated, foreign practitioners will be less needed and perhaps less welcome. This period of intense mutual enlightenment may be brief. (Lubow 2006) This wasn‟t the only issue on the mind of the Chinese cultural and political elite. The Beijing Olympics were heavily subsidised by the majority of industrial and commercial taxes (Jarvie, Hwang, Brennan 2007 121), and there was concern that not enough attention was on cost saving measures, and a financial review was ordered. This resulted in the original budget of $500 million being slashed to $290 million. Li Xinggang, local partner of Herzog & de Meuron, and chief architect described the cuts as “...like squeezing a wet towel – when the budget was reduced from $500 to $290 million, there‟s no water to squeeze anymore, and we had to cut features of the design.” (Ren 2008) These cuts led to the removal of the retractable roof from the design, which although a potential engineering marvel, would infact help to create a more refined form. Amidst the criticism of London‟s Olympic stadium, there was faint praise. Those in favour of the design felt it was a sensible and clever design that has come from a difficult brief. Shortly after the design was revealed, Architect Graham Morrison wrote in Building Design that „content over style is the issue here. The significance of this Olympic stadium is its very difference from its forerunners. It is not intended to be a lasting icon carrying the memory of the London games,‟ (Morrison 2007) going on to state that the design resolved issue in the brief with „disarming and elegant simplicity.‟ However Morrison has a minority view and the widespread disillusionment with the design has remained. There is an interesting clash in terms of cost and opinion on the two designs. Ignoring the fact that due to low cost labour charges, construction in the East is relatively cheap and the Yuan is strong, Beijing still decided to slash the stadium‟s budget by nearly half, and yet they still delivered an architectural 13
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
marvel. The London Olympic stadium has seen its budget nearly double on a design which is unpopular with the public. Obviously the global economic crisis came at a disastrous time for the ODA, but there is still one area of the stadium development which can be pinpointed as the critical moment in the issue of cost and design. The Beijing City Government asked for an international competition for design entries for the new stadium. Not only did this create a breadth of architectural choice, but it allowed entering architecture firms to be unbound in their designs, not having to be concerned with the cooperation of other firms within a design group. Another bonus for the organising authorities was the actual element of competition. Firms competing for the chance to have their design as the centre piece of one of the biggest global events in history are likely to show leeway in what they want in return for a winning proposal. Herzog & de Meuron agreed a design fee of $20 million, which at 6% of the projected construction cost at the time (which was itself just a tenth of what it would have cost to build in Europe), was much lower than the firm would have accepted for a build in the West. Also, a design competition allowed the Beijing public to have their say. The fourteen designs that had been narrowed down were put on show in a 14 day free exhibition, visited by nearly 50,000 people, with many giving feedback on the designs. (China Daily 2002) There was little involvement with the public when it came to the ODAâ€&#x;s design development process, who by choosing not to have a design competition and instead inviting consortiums to bid for the opportunity to design the London Olympic stadium, were always leaving themselves vulnerable. With just one consortium entering the race, the ODA were in no position to negotiate cost and were left with the prospect of just one proposal for the design. Even following the unveiling of the design, there were calls for a design competition for a less subdued design, (Bullivant 2007) but these calls were never realised.
14
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
The Olympic build It would be impossible to fully compare and contrast the constructional aspect of a building that has been completed with a building that still has just over a year of the build left, but we can still look at the BMPC and ODA went about building the chosen designs for their games, and the impact the two stadium erections have had, and are having on their respective cities. Whilst the steel nest encasing the stadium is the show stopper, the building combines the nest with a bright-red concrete bowl that sits the spectators. The 50ft space between nest and bowl creates an intermediate zone for spectator circulation, restaurants and retail, integrated within the labyrinth of steel at various levels. Jacques Herzog calls this space the „radical space,‟ (Pasternack 2008 pp.92-99) giving fans the sense of being in a giant steel forest. 44,000 tons of steel, all made in China, were used in the build, much of which comprises the twenty four trussed columns, which bend and curve to form the nest.
Fig.11 Model of one of the twenty four trussed columns that make up the stadium
London‟s Olympic stadium is simple. It is a sunken concrete bowl with 25,000 permanent seats, with a temporary lightweight steel truss structure placed on top. This structure contains the 55,000 temporary seats and a cable supported roof made from a lightweight polymer based membrane. Surrounding this structure will be a 900 metre, 20 metre high „environmentally sustainable‟ fabric which will be imprinted with various murals. The concept of the two stadiums is similar in the sense both are made up of bowl encased by a separate exterior structure, the difference being Beijing has a
15
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
mega steel robe and London will get a plastic wrap. A clear indication of opposing aims of each design. The most controversial aspect of either stadium is the humanitarian impact on local populations during construction. In Beijing a staggering 1.5 million Chinese were reported to have been forced from their homes to make way for the games, of which many were left even more destitute. During the stadium build, as many as 7,000 workers were organised in army like regiments from across the country in scenes of mass construction that havenâ€&#x;t been seen since the building of the pyramids. According to some media reports, China has even covered up deaths of workers amidst the rush to complete the stadium and to maintain a strong image of the games (Anonymous 2008). In this respect, design is secondary and we should be thankful for the greater transparency Western authorities generally show in construction to the well-being shown for workers. The most controversial aspect of the London Olympic construction is not humanitarian failings, but financial.
Fig.12 Aerial photo of London Olympic stadium taken in November 2009
The Olympic future Amongst all of the cultural, conceptual and constructional clashes the two stadiums have, there is one common theme that they both share. Each respective Olympic authority claims that their Olympic stadium has a fundamental focus on legacy. The one issue where the two stadiums are truly similar is the fact that in practice their visions of „legacyâ€&#x; are unclear and damaging to the way each stadium will be retrospectively viewed in the future. For Beijing, the legacy of the Olympic stadium was all about creating a permanent landmark, similar to the Eiffel Tower in Paris, and the Statue of Liberty in New York. In this respect, Herzog & de Meuron have succeeded, creating a monument to China that is globally recognisable, and can be instantly associated with Beijing. However the true vision of legacy is flawed. The functional legacy appears to have been given limited emphasis by the architects and authorities who claim the post 16
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
Olympic use is as an international and domestic sport venue with further commercial uses. (United Nations Environment Programme 2007 44) In the year following Beijing‟s hosting of the Olympic Games, the National stadium hosted just a single event, a performance of the opera „Turnadot‟ on the first anniversary of the Olympic opening ceremony. The National stadium is just one of many purpose-built Olympic venues that have seen minimal post-games use. Commenting on Beijing‟s Olympic building boom, economist Huang Yasheng told the Los Angeles Times, "They wanted to build 'the world's biggest this' and 'the world's biggest that,' but these buildings have almost zero long-term economic benefit." (Demick 2009)With no real strategy for practical use, the stadium is currently funding its $9 million a year maintenance bill through people visiting the venue as a tourist attraction. Authorities claim that the stadium gets between 20,000 and 30,000 tourists every day who pay 50 yuan ($7) to simply admire the stadium‟s architecture and watch nothing (Xu, Chisholm 2009). Recently, the „attraction‟ was turned into a snow theme park in an attempt to boost flagging visitor numbers, but this has provided little return with around 300 to 400 visitors daily (Kuo 2010). It has not proved popular with the Beijing public complaining about high prices and a lack of any interesting attractions. The stadium is one of architecture‟s great triumphs, and to see it treated as a mere seasonal gimmick is lamentable. As years go by, the memory of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games will grow more distant, and unless there is a drastic change in vision, the Beijing National stadium will go from being a symbol of China‟s rise as an economic and political super-power, to being a monument to the naive, reckless spending of an immature twenty first century China.
Fig.13 The Beijing National stadium disguised as a snow park.
When it comes to the London Olympic stadium, legacy is the buzzword. We have been told that every aspect of the stadium is focused towards the hazy concept of legacy. One particular critic cynically coined the phrase „LPH‟ for press conferences regarding London Olympic venues (the number of 17
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
times anyone involved with the stadium mentions the word „legacy‟ in any given time – „Legacy-perhour‟) (Glancey 2007). Following the Millennium Dome fiasco and the fact hosting the games historically leaves a number of unused facilities, it is no wonder politicians and organisers want to focus so heavily on legacy. The only problem is that there has been no confirmation of what the stadium actually will be use for after the Olympics. The stadium will be reduced to a 25,000 seat bowl, a sensible enough option as London doesn‟t need another 60,000+ seat stadium, but still no one knows who will be using this £500 million bowl. It was originally planned to be a national athletics stadium, but Mayor of London Boris Johnson stated in July 2009 that it should not be ruled out as a potential football stadium, causing a dispute amongst Olympic organisers. (Stafford 2009). This has alerted nearby West Ham United Football Club whose new owners have stated their intent to move the club to the stadium. However, their terms will be that the athletic track will have to be removed because football fans like to view the action close up for improved atmosphere. Currently, there is an impasse. The ODA focussed so much on the concepts of functionality and cost cutting that they lost sight of the fact the Olympics are a once in a life-time architectural opportunity and icon for a city. Their concept of legacy is completely distorted, influenced by bureaucrats who want their buildings to be designed with a safety net of alternative uses. Will Hunter, magazine editor for Building Design, wrote, „...if we only build for legacy, for the future we think we know, then maybe we miss out on the alternative, aspirational future we could have had.‟ (Hunter 2009) Although Beijing‟s Olympic stadium is finding use difficult, it was built for an aspirational future. The concept of reducing the stadium in size postOlympics was an understandable one, if not unsustainable, but it leaves just a sunken bowl in the East London, landscape as the awkward footprint of the 2012 Summer games. In March 2010 the ODA unveiled their Olympic landmark which would be a permanent fixture after the games. A 115-metre tower designed by internationally renowned artist Anish Kapoor (Fulcher 2010). This „artwork concept,‟ is a rather apt symbol of the organisation of the London Olympic stadium – an utter mess.
Fig.14 Anish Kapoor’s ‘Orbit’ tower
18
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
Conclusion Looking at the background to both the Beijing National and London Olympic stadiums, and investigating their creation and current construction, there are a number of conclusions that can be drawn. From a design point of view, the „Bird‟s Nest‟ is an architectural delight. A marvel of modern engineering that even Jacques Herzog admits is described by the Chinese as, “...one of their most important cultural monuments, on par with the Great Wall of China.” (Knöfel, Beyer 2008) The design of London‟s Olympic stadium lacks flamboyance and style, and although clever in aspects, is just too weak design-wise. The cause for the contrast in emotive designs stems from the way these were reached. In organising an international design competition, the BMPC had a wide variety of options to choose from and were then able to put to the public – an unusual process in Communist China. London‟s ODA had one choice for a design and they had to put on a brave face the day the design was unveiled as they knew they had a dismal design which could not be changed, and reflected their poor decision making. Ironically, the Western democratic regime had no people choice and the Far East communist regime had wide choice and consulted its people. Whereas Herzog & de Meuron should be congratulated on design, there are serious questions as to China‟s humanitarian handling of the build, with cover ups and forced relocation of people, the major blemish on a beautiful structure. Whilst China should look to the west as an example of civilized construction, the west can learn from China in terms of the efficiency of the build. Finally the legacy. In decades to come, our future educational elite will use the architecture of the 2008 and 2012 Olympic stadiums as a marker indicating the steady decline of the West, and the rise of the Far East. The Beijing National stadium will be seen as a monument to the ostentatious ambition of the Chinese government, stemming from the construction of the structure to its fundamental design. The London Olympic stadium will be seen as a reflection of the credit-crunch Olympics embodied by inflated costs and administrators and accountants believing flat-pack sporting arenas are the answer to the Olympic conundrum. What is most frustrating is that London‟s attempt could have been a Bird‟s Nest world beater. Had the organising authorities been shrewder with regards to flair in the design, and had a clearer post-games vision, the London Olympic stadium could have been an icon like the Beijing National stadium, but without the brutishness, instead with subtle and inventive tact, a beacon of smart British design. This failure could be the real London Olympic legacy.
19
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
Bibliography
Books Jarvie, G. Hwang, D-.J. Brennan, M., 2007. Sport, Revolution and the Beijing Olympics. Oxford: Berg John, G. Sheard. Vickery, B., 2007. Stadia: A Design and Development Guide. Oxford: Architectural Press Lee, M., 2006. The Race for the 2012 Olympics. London: Virgin Books Poynter, G., 2009. Olympic Cities: 2012 and the Remaking of London. London: Ashgate. Price, M.E. Dayan, D. 2008. Owning the Olympics: Narratives of a new China. Michigan: University of Michigan Press United Nations Environment Programme., 2007. Beijing 2008 Olympic games: an environmental review. UNEP
Journals Building Design., 2004. London flexes its muscles. Building Design, [internet] 12 November. Available at: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3043394 [Accessed16 March 2010] Building Design., 2006. Olympic planner are set to bid for stadium. Building Design, [internet] 28 July. Available at: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3071329 [Accessed 16 March 2010] Building Design., 2006b. Jowell: Olympic design has role to inspire. Building Design, [internet] 15 December. Available at: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3078776 [Accessed 18 March 2010] Bullivant, L., 2007. London‟s 2012 Olympic Stadium Panned. Architectural Record, [internet] 6 December. Available at: http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/071206london.asp [Accessed 28 March 2010] Frost, J., 2006. Games need design, delivery and legacy. Building Design, [internet] 15 December. Available at: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=427&storycode=3078841 [Accessed 18 March 2010] Fulcher, M., 2010. Kapoor unveils towering Olympic monument for London. The Architects Journal, [internet] 31 March. Available at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/aj-exclusive-kapoor-unveils-towering-olympicmonument-for-london/5216029.article [Accessed 1 April 2010] Hunter, W., 2009. Why legacy isn‟t always a gift. Building Design, [internet] July. Available at: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=719&storycode=3118707 [Accessed 30 April 2010] Knöfel, U. & Beyer, S., 2008. Herzog on Building Beijing‟s Olympic Stadium. Spiegel, [internet] 30 July. Available at: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,569011,00.html [Accessed 30 April 2010]
20
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
Morrison, G., 2007. Should London‟s Olympic stadium be an iconic design? Building Design, [internet] 16 November. Available at: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3100251 [Accessed 24 March 2010] Pasternack, A., 2008. National Stadium. Architectural Record, 07(2008), pp. 92-99. Waite, R., 2006. 2012 Olympic stadium contract up for grabs. The Architects‟ Journal, [internet] 25 July. Available at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/2012-olympic-stadium-contract-up-for-grabs/579652.article [Accessed 16 March 2010] Walker, C., 2007. Foreign Office resigns from Olympic masterplan amid „dumbing-down‟ rumours. The Architects‟ Journal, [internet] 25 May. Available at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/foreign-office-resigns-from-olympic-masterplan-amiddumbing-down-rumours/108220.article [Accessed 17 March 2010]
Newspapers Anonymous., 2008. China hushes up Olympic deaths. The Sunday Times, [internet] 20 January. Available at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3216569.ece [Accessed 30 March 2010] Bayley, S., 2007. Fine, but where‟s the flair? Guardian, [internet] 11 November. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2007/nov/11/architecture.olympicgames2012 [Accessed 24 March 2010] Beard, M., 2006. McAlpine strikes Olympic gold with stadium deal. The Independent, [internet] 14 October. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/mcalpine-strikes-olympic-gold-with-stadium-deal-420075.html [Accessed 18 March 2010] China Daily, 2002. Olympic design finalists announced. China Daily, [internet] 30 July. Available at: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2002-07/30/content_129999.htm [Accessed 24 March 2010]. China Daily, 2003. 'Bird's nest' raises expectation for innovative schemes. China Daily, [internet] 12 July. Available at http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-07/12/content_244906.htm [Accessed 11 March 2010]. Culf. A., 2005. The party that never was: capital marks the games at last. Guardian, [internet] 2 September. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/sep/02/london.Olympics2012 [Accessed 16 March 2010]. Demick, B., 2009. Beijing‟s Olympic building boom becomes a bust. Los Angeles Times, [internet] 22 February. Available at: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/22/world/fg-beijing-bust22/2 [Accessed 28 March 2010] Glancey, J., 2007. Will the Olympic stadium have a life after the games? Guardian, [internet] 7 November. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/artblog/2007/nov/07/artblogbyjonathan [Accessed 30 April 2010] Kuo, L., 2010. Beijing‟s National Stadium is on thin ice. Los Angeles Times, [internet] 15 February. Available at: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/15/world/la-fg-china-birds-nest15-2010feb15 [Accessed 30 March 2010] Lubow, A., 2006. The China Syndrome. The New York Times, [internet] 21 May. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/magazine/21bejing.html?pagewanted=11&_r=3 [Accessed 22 March 2010]
21
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
Lutz, T., 2007. London 2012 stadium revealed. Guardian, [internet] 7 November. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/nov/07/Olympics2012.politics [Accessed 24 March 2010] Stafford, M., 2009. Tessa Jowell disputes mayor‟s claims over 2012 Olympic Stadium legacy. Guardian, [internet] 9 July. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/09/london-2012-olympic-stadium-future [Accessed 30 April 2010] Warner, A., 2004. The Wembley factor. London Evening Standard, [internet] 12 November. Available at: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/article-14675232-the-wembley-factor.do [Accessed 18 March 2010] Xinhua News Agency, 2002. China holds design contest for main stadium of Beijing Olympiad. Xinhua News Agency, [internet] 25 October. Available at http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2002-10/25/content_608937.htm [Accessed 11 March 2010]. Xu, P. & Chisholm, M., 2009. China tourists twig to Beijing‟s Bird‟s Nest. Reuters UK, [internet] 22 April. Available at: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE53L10L20090422?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0 [Accessed 30 March 2010]
Publications Beijing Municipal Planning Commission, 2002a. Announcement for the International Architecture Scheme Competition For the Conceptual Design of the National Stadium (the Main Stadium for the 29 th Olympic Games) in Beijing. [internet] Beijing : BMPC. Available at: http://www.strategy4china.com/designstadium.pdf [Accessed 11 March 2010]
Beijing Municipal Planning Commission, 2002b. International Architecture Scheme Competition Conceptual Design of the National Stadium in Beijing. [internet] Beijing : BMPC. Available at: http://www.strategy4china.com/nsdesignresults.pdf [Accessed 11 March 2010] Ren, X., , 2008. Architecture and Nation Building in the age of Globalization: Construction of the National Stadium of Beijing for the 2008 Olympics. [internet] East Lansing : Urban Affairs Association. Available at: http://faculty.washington.edu/stevehar/Birdsnest.pdf [Accessed 22 March 2010]
Images Cover image. Photo of The Beijing National stadium. Image available at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Beijing_Birds_Nest_Closeup.jpg [Accessed 11 March 2010] Abstract page image. Photo of The London Olympic stadium. Image available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/21000745@N02/4483291717/sizes/l/ [Accessed 11 March 2010] Fig.1 Model of joint second place design by AXS SAWTO and Tsinghua University China. Image available at: http://www.strategy4china.com/images/ns1b12thumb.jpg [Accessed 11 March 2010] Fig.2 Model of joint second place design by Beijing Institute of Architectural Design and Research China. Image available at: http://www.strategy4china.com/images/ns2b08thumb.jpg [Accessed 11 March 2010]
22
Christian Wren B.A. (Hons) Architecture Stage 3
The Olympic comparison Dissertation AR 519
Fig.3 Model of winning design by Herzog & de Meuron. Image available at: http://www.strategy4china.com/images/ns2b11thumb.jpg [Accessed 11 March 2010] Fig.4 Rendered image of London Olympic stadium conceptual proposal by Foreign Office Architects. Image available at: http://valemail.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/olympic.jpg [Accessed 16 March 2010] Fig.5 Rendered aerial view image of The Beijing National stadium. Image available at: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/cityq/Projects%20and%20developments/Proposal11x1small-1.jpg [Accessed 18 March 2010] Fig.6 Rendered aerial view image of The London Olympic stadium. Image available at: http://data.map.london2012.com/images/4822d428a5a74.jpg [Accessed 18 March 2010] Fig.7 Rendered ground view image of The Beijing National stadium. Image available at: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/cityq/Projects%20and%20developments/Proposal11x3small.jpg [Accessed 18 March 2010] Fig.8 Rendered ground view image of The London Olympic stadium. Image available at: http://static.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/2373_1_Olympic%20stadium%202.jpg [Accessed 18 March 2010] Fig.9 Rendered internal view image of The Beijing National stadium. Image available at: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/cityq/Projects%20and%20developments/Proposal11x2small.jpg [Accessed 18 March 2010] Fig.10 Rendered internal view image of The London Olympic stadium. Image available: http://www.earchitect.co.uk/london/jpgs/london_olympic_stadium_oda071107_3.jpg [Accessed 18 March 2010] Fig.11 Model of one of the twenty four trussed columns that make up the stadium. Image available: http://www.beijingolympicsfan.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/killer-paperweight.jpg [Accessed 30 March 2010] Fig.12 Aerial photo of London Olympic stadium taken in November 2009. Image available: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/pictures/576x432fitpad[0]/7/8/2/1215782_091112_ODA_MDA_AC_167_HI.jpg [Accessed 30 March 2010] Fig.13 The Beijing National stadium disguised as a snow park. Image available: http://nimg.sulekha.com/others/original700/china-snow-festival-2009-12-19-3-40-57.jpg [Accessed 30 March 2010 Fig.14 Anish Kapoor‟s „Orbit‟ tower. Image available: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/pictures/576x432fitpad[0]/7/2/5/1222725_mittal_tower.jpg [Accessed 1 April 2010]
23