Plug is pulled on pool!

[Arianna]

THE Government has ordered the Olympic aquatic centre back to the drawing board because the cost of the lavish design, by award-winning architect Zaha Hadid, is almost double the budgeted £75 million

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...898688,00.html

[Phil Tanner]

Can't help thinking this is bad news for the sport as a whole, if it creates the impression that pools coming in at twice the original budget is the norm! Wasn't the architect involved in a debacle over the Cardiff Bay opera house as well?

[Swimhelper]

The Architect had won awards for her innovative desings, but I don't think she actually knew anything about designing a swimming pool. Not sure what the backstrokers would have made of the 'undulating roof like a mantra ray floating over the sea bed'!

[Steve]

My (nominally professional) opinion, based only on what I've read in the industry press and the other media outlets and what I've seen of the building (which which it probably should be possible to build the superstructure for £75m), is that much of the additional cost will be involved with ground conditions and other unforseen additional site works that probably weren't included or were underestimated when they did the original budget. Unfortunately if this is the case, and it happens a lot, it will mean that the building itself will need to be simplified to get it under budget, since you can't really skimp on foundations; clients never want to pay for them though because you don't see what you get for your money in the finished building.

[Leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Arianna

THE Government has ordered the Olympic aquatic centre back to the drawing board because the cost of the lavish design, by award-winning architect Zaha Hadid, is almost double the budgeted £75 million

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...898688,00.html

How on earth can a professional (s) even dare to put something forward that is so far off beam. And remember that the cost over runs on other major projects start some time into the project...

Put another 5 quid on Masters' Entry Forms - that'll fix it.

[Linny]

Originally Posted by Leprechaun

How on earth can a professional (s) even dare to put something forward that is so far off beam.

Scottish Parliament building anyone? 3 years late and 10 times over budget?

[Gina]

Maybe a plain, old POOL designer should have been hired, not some fancy designer who knows little about designing a pool. I think I remember seeing the plans and they looked a bit strange. Did it look like a glass cube or am I thinking about something else?

[OAC]

I think the glass cube thing is the Beijing pool, the London one is all curvy like a wave.

[Pete]

It needs to be really straightforward like the pool in Sydney.

[Ljunberg]

Maybe not a bad thing, I personally didn't like the look of it anyway. Didn't it have a brown ceiling? Stick along the lines of Sheffield, Manchester and tollcross. Can't go wrong with simplicity.

[Leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Ljunberg

Maybe not a bad thing.Can't go wrong with simplicity.

mr sparkes' comments on radio five tonigit were appalling. no real concern bit me setback these things happen sort of tone. he came across badly i thought.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Gina

Maybe a plain, old POOL designer should have been hired, not some fancy designer who knows little about designing a pool.

What makes you think that she doesn't know anything about pools? And why would it matter if she didn't? All pools are designed by architects but they'll only do the superstructure, not the tank and plant rooms etc on which specialists will provide the necessary spatial advice. Apart from those elements it's a building like any other.

Originally Posted by gina

I think I remember seeing the plans and they looked a bit strange. Did it look like a glass cube or am I thinking about something else?

You're thinking of the watercube which is the national aquatic centre in Beijing for the 2008 games:




The 2012 design is much more conventional:

 

Originally Posted by leprechaun

How on earth can a professional (s) even dare to put something forward that is so far off beam. And remember that the cost over runs on other major projects start some time into the project...

Notwithstanding my earlier comments, the key point is this part of what Tessa Jowell said:

I have had to send the designers of the Olympic aquatic centre back to the drawing board because a change in the specification had almost doubled the costs

To me that says someone outside the design team has asked for something to be changed, resutling in the cost increases, which would make it a client problem and not an architectural one.

Originally Posted by pete

It needs to be really straightforward like the pool in Sydney.

Except that in engineering terms it's not straightforward; the big arch and the grid shell roof are probably only marginally easier to build than the roof shown in the concepts for the 2012 pool.

[Crazy Legs]

Don't think you can put the blame squarely at the door of the Architect.
No doubt Team Hadid likes to express the architecture in weird and wonderful ways and use slick materials but there are many other players in the design team.
It is likely that there would have been a lot of loose but ambitious requirements in the initial Performance Specification which can't be compared with Tollcross or even Manchester and this is before we get on to spacial requirements.

There would have been a huge emphasis on the building to be environmentally sustainable as a legacy to the eventual end user, making use of renewable energy systems, recycle "grey water" that sort of thing.
I get the feeling that the Services Engineer and others will be airing on the high side to allow for a comfortable margin of error before getting down to the detail. It happens (Scottish Parliament aside!)

It is likely that there would also be a requirement for it to be a cut above anything else in its approach to people with disabilities (new British Standards and so on).
Disability Access Consultants would have been drafted in and many others in the design team pushing for features and standards that have not been taken seriously in the past. For example: for those familiar with it- how does a wheelchair user get up to the spectators' gallery in Tollcross?

Not saying that the latest cost can be justified but if you want to strive for quality you have to pay a bit more at the outset.

[chris_lamb]

Overall there are quite complicated requirements. It has to be suitable for the Olympics yet also sustainable afterwards. It has to be visually impressive yet still functional and ecomonic to run. They have to keep within budget and still provide all the necessary facilities. I believe the decision on where the training pools will be located has also changed since the original design spec was issued.

When faced with changing requirements it is inevitable that changes will need to be made. Sometimes it isn't possible to make changes so going back to the drawing board is easier. A decision like this now is not a problem - finding out half way through building that you have to make a change that will double the cost is!

[Leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Leprechaun

mr sparkes' comments on radio five tonigit were appalling. no real concern bit me setback these things happen sort of tone. he came across badly i thought.

Sorry for the gobbledegook, I was typing this on a smart phone while waiting for polo match vs Basingstoke last night. What I meant to say was:

"No real concern, bit of a setback, these things happen" was the tone of the interview. I was appalled not just in the way that the design has been allowed to escalate in cost terms (ie it suddenly just didnt become 100% overbudget on estimated costs) but the implication that budgets are just milestones you pass. If it was HIS money then fine, its not and never is, fellow taxpayers.

As for the polo we lost (a 2nd team friendly, good spirit from both teams), I have damaged ligaments in middle finger of right hand and the journey up and down the rain-soaked M3 wasnt much fun either!