´óÏó´«Ã½

Adrian,

I just want everyone to stop wringing their hands about the costs over the next three years. We've won the bid and we need to make sure it's a Games that will make us all proud - both of our ability to deliver and stage a fantastic event.

Looking further ahead, I hope that millions of young people will be able to get tickets for the Games and for the rest of their lives will retain some of the the sense of optimism and pride that the Games will deliver.

People like to moan a lot about the costs especially in this recession, but surely the construction of the stadia, redevelopment of transport links etc. has been a boon to the hard hit construction industry, providing jobs and income to not just the construction firms but also to large numbers of their employees.

Why oh why are you always reporting on negative things about 2012! Every time I hear a report on London TV by yourself it is highlighting some negative item. Seldom have I heard you reporting on how well the work is progressing and in main appears to be keeping within budget. Rather than a waste of money during the current recession it is providing work for our hard pressed construction industry and it appears most materials being used are from UK sources.
I must admit I have some reservations on the expense of the rather futuristic design of the Aquatics Centre and of course for the Stadium itself, particularly when further millions we be required to make it suitable for use after the Games.
However being born within a few miles of Stratford and travelling for many years through the area concerned I have seen it go from an industrial area of chemical and soap factories to an urban wasteland. It is now rising again as an exciting development as part of the Lea Valley Park. I know the existing Upper Lea Valley Park very well and I suggest you take a trip there to see what Statford of the future may look like. Lets have some positive reporting by London TV in regard to the Stratford developement please!

Can anyone explain why although everyone is gushing over the simple steel stadium design on the news tonight 27.07.09, it looks absolutely nothing like the visuals shown everywhere when we first won it. They were groundbreaking and exciting.
Think of the architecture we saw in china, the birdsnest and incredible swimming venue by world renowned architects. The london stadium now looks like my local sainsburys or B&Q, yet the budget does not reflect this. its still costing 9 billion or something like that! Is this another case of people syphoning off the cash in various ways through pay and bonuses and expenses, under the guise of "value engineering" whilst london is left with a substandard result for years to come?...
I dont understand why journalists on the bbc news are not questioning this, especially who is ultimately making the design decisions and reporting back the savings made by taking such decisions. Its our money after all...It appears that design cuts are being made yet nothing is being seen back in return, which looks like bad management on the part of the government who should be fighting to retain the vision of the scheme for london and for the image of the country... or am i being cynical...

I think they have got the stadium design just abour right. The Birds Nest in Beijing was marvellous but cost more than twice as much as ours and contains 4 times as much steel. Hardly sustainable. The UK is trying to do things differently. We should applaud that. Where we can excel is by the quality of culture and the welcome we extend to the world in 2012 As for the £9 billion cost, that is a tenth of what the Government spent propping up mismanaged banks paying top staff millions.

As a tax payer I am glad they are spending it on something useful at last. I was also a bit puzzled by the claims on this blog that the ODA is covering up accidents that included "hospitalisation." Surely a conspiracy theory too far if UCATT one of the most active trade unions in the UK has an office in the Olympic Park looking after its members. Next someone will claim Seb Coe is an alien.

Keep digging Adrian. It is right to ask difficult questions but lets briefly all put our hands together and say well done to LOCOG and the ODA. If three years ago somone would have said the stadium would be on time and to budget and the first train from St Pancras to Stratford would arrive 15 seconds early we would have all belly laughed and told them to leave off the wacky baccy.

I disagree with the big opportunity's comment above. My point is that the olympics is being sold on its gift to prosperity, not just on the two weeks of culture and welcome. Good Architecture reflects good culture, as the uk bid for london team recognized when they employed top architects to produce the concept and visuals presented to the olympic committee which ultimately helped to win the bid, and sell it to the British public. The extent of the difference, and dumbing down in what is actually being built raised my question above, which is, at which point did this vision cease to be important. Good design doesn't necessarily mean extra cost, and its a sign of how poor the venue design now is that the team who produced the "spinny whizzy" animated visual now being used to show the revised scheme could only find the blue coloured chairs and a set of graphic posters assembling itself onto the exterior to try to make it interesting. (these in reality will be 1. stuck to the floor and sat on, and 2. static posters stuck on the outside of a metal frame building) even wembley stadium had "the arch" as a distraction!

I would also say to TheBigOpportunity that as a tax payer they should be questioning that if the design has been simplified for cost, what are the actual savings, and where have they been redistributed. I would also remind them that good, groundbreaking architecture plays a massive role in attracting future visitors to venues and to cities and can bring revenue. I would say its a BigOpportunity...Missed.

One final point on the "on budget" comment above, I would agree with TheBigOpportunity if the substantial changes had resulted in an £8 billion scheme instead of the £9 billion...but instead they are delivering a substantially substandard one, for the same cost. Wheres the value in that? and ultimately who's accountable?