PS YR 5 // 2015

Revising a Legacy Dalila Khairi U1234389

Practice case review : The London Aquatics Centre,

by Zaha Hadid

Revising a Legacy

Nur Dalila Mohamed Khairi U1234389

The Deputy Managing Director of a not-for-profit organization called GLL Sport Foundation; Peter Bundey who is running the building in ‘Legacy’ mode has characterized the building as a swan that used to be an ugly duckling. The renovation has removed the temporary seating stands and installed a total of 628 panels of glass and 8 external doors. Despite all the positive critiques about the building in ‘Legacy’ mode, it seems as though there are no limits on cost as the total cost has led up to a final £269M.

Described by Oliver Wainwright of BD Online, the stingray-like London Aquatics Centre (LAC) was designed by a world renowned architect, Zaha Hadid, is the grand and most overblowing budget building on the site. Built in 2005, it was the center of excitement during the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The client, Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) has supervised the construction by Balfour Beatty as the chief contractor, as well as Ove Arup and pool architects S&P. It has been seen by Rowan Moore from The Guardian that it was 2012’s most challenging project, the earliest to be proposed and last to be completed. The centre was actually designed even before the Olympic bid was completed, hence where the complication part came into the picture.

London was in a position where it is generally known for its confident-but-unappealing option, with boring designed buildings and Hadid’s extravagant idea could easily blow away the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as evidence of a wow factor. The issue that surfaced was that the brief wasn’t developed enough before London won the bid, and when design comes first and clients second, there will often be mishaps.

This of course raises a lot of questions especially when compared to The Velodrome or its ‘Legacy’ name; Lee Valley Velopark. The Velodrome was designed for a permanent condition with an additional café as part of its minimal alteration for the ‘Legacy’ mode. Peter Buchanan from The Architectural Review is quoted saying about LAC, “not only achieved at considerable structural and economic extravagance, the result appeals to the eye alone, not the mind or empathic engagement: this is more scenography than architecture”. Judging from the surface of the construction, LAC seems the product of an architect determining the form and the engineer making it feasible whereas The Velodrome seems to have successfully integrated simultaneously all disciplines working together closely and all forms the product of everyone’s input.

IMAGE

Moving on to the construction, there are three main components of the building: a cast in-situ concrete podium; an extensive length of a steel roof that is covered in timber louvres and aluminum cladding, with a slanting seams on top. Both of the facades are replaced with glass with bronze coloured aluminum frames.

The renovation phase recycled a lot of the removed parts including: frame wings on both sides, the PVC wrap that temporarily closed the space, and the seats and toilets were used elsewhere. The recycling element is an attempt to keep the overall cost down even though loads were spent on building and reassembling it. To top it off, the building’s sustainability accreditation should be followed, as the building has exceeded ODA targets where it has achieved a BREEAM Innovation Credit for its rare use of a concrete mixture. Incorporating very high levels of insulation, a well-sealed envelope with low velocity systems with highly efficient heat recovery and water-based heating systems using various pump speeds has maximized energy efficiencies. This has been done through a thorough and complex detail of the strategy that pushes the design team to work successfully.

The undulating design of the roof has also been debated when it was completed. This 1600m long and 80m wide roof uses as much as 2,800 tonnes of steel to get its light and floating look. 35,000 sections of precisely cut timber were used to create the spectacular interior surface of the roof. Comparing it again with The Velodrome, the roof uses only 1,000 tonnes of structural steel and weighs 60kg/m2, in comparison with LAC, which weighs 220kg/m2. This summarizes those provoking queries as to how and which approach is more relevant than the other.

The London Olympic Aquatic Centre in ‘Legacy’ mode

Recently, LAC has undergone a transformation from ‘Olympic’ mode to ‘Legacy ‘ mode where a spectator wings to accommodate 17,500 people was removed. The initial design before ‘Olympic’ mode was meant to fit 2,800 people. Due to the ready-made design, a major part of the building’s aimed look has been hidden because of necessity to add two spectator wings just to add more seats.

Unfortunately during the Olympics, a total of 600 diving seats were sold with partially restricted views. The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) gave a statement saying that the spectators in affected seats will not be able to get a full view of the divers when they jump into the air and that they will miss a split second of the action. LOCOG also mentioned that the architect was to be blamed because of the curved roof that Zaha Hadid has designed. One may begin to question should the client or the architect to be blamed for the issue as Hadid on her part completely denied any responsibility saying that it is not because of her design but mainly due to the ticketing problem. Hadid was quoted saying that she has followed the brief to provide 5,000 seats and the centre has actually provided more than the brief requested. It was also mentioned that LOCOG has approved the seating layouts as well as the view over two years ago. This is one of the mishaps in relating to the complication part.

From the statements, both the architect and client did not really foresee and discussed it thoroughly where it should have happened in Stage 2, Concept and Design under the RIBA plan of work. If the design has been ready before the brief, in this stage, there should have been an agreement on alterations to the brief and a Final Project Brief will be issued accordingly. A big problem like this could have been avoided as in result, it will add up to the cost of the project.

The London Olympic Aquatic Centre in ‘Olympic’ mode

The diving boards as the center of attention

Section of the London Aquatics Centre

The centre is naturally hot due to the glass facades on both sides. A lot of the visitors find it too hot once you’re inside.

Its main objective is to let the natural light in but perhaps the current glass material could be replaced by switchable glass or smart glass where it controls the amount of light and thereby heat transmission. When installed on buildings, smart glass creates climate adaptive building shells, with the ability to save cost for energy. In order to change the material, planning permission is required, as it will also alter the appearance of the building. Such alterations will need an approval so that it will be authorized.

According to the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA), the site has been a heavily polluted dumping ground of waste for more than 100 years. Miles and miles of waterways have been cleaned, removing disused buildings and many more clearings have been done to get the site for a new sustainable urban park with an enormous area for green space, including woodland and wildlife habitats that will double the size as the long-term public will use and expand it.

Reflecting back on the Aquatics Centre in today’s mode, one has got to admit, the building is very appealing and the atmosphere is pleasant, yet surprisingly sober for a Hadid design. In RIBA’s Plan of Work, Stage 7 under In Use, it is hope that this award winning building will reach its target to become a ‘Legacy’ and will be a favourite venue for Londoners for generations to come.

So how does this affect the role of an architect in the society we live today and in the future?

There’s a constant argument on a case like this where star architects like Zaha Hadid is often questioned. Is hiring a world-renowned architect really that worth it? I believe when big projects like these are offered to star architects, there is not only a glamour feel towards it, but it will always have that marketing strategy as well. It also seems as though there are no limits when it comes to world famous buildings, as with cost and building regulations there is always a certain way to build things. With all the vast amounts of money they have spent to build the LAC, it seems that building it with lots of mishaps are okay as long as a famous architect was hired and produces a ‘statement like’ building.

What about local general practices and future young architects?

When will they get a chance to build something grand?

Taken from RIBA’s study: The Future for Architects, a study on what is going to happen to the industry in fifteen years, star architects like Zaha Hadid will surely still be in demand where high level of brand image would still be relevant.

Based on the report, as building technology becomes overwhelmingly complex, the clients and consultants would see that designing is slipping down as the subcontractors take over in designing. The role of an architect might still be important and needed but more likely as a coordinator or a manager, a role to bring all of the team together. This too raised a question; does the contemporary architect would want to be positioned as a coordinator? Typically it is seen that an engineer would be replacing our roles.

Derived from the fluid geometry of water in motion, the concept has helped in creating spaces responding to the surrounding river landscape of the Olympic Park. The completed LAC has succeeded in proving that it works in both situations even though the demand was unusually challenging for the building to fit as an Olympic venue and a public swimming pool. During Stage 3, Developed Design under the RIBA Plan of Work, Hadid was instructed to amend her design because of a particular item has made the cost doubled which is £75M. The revised cost was expected to cost even less than the previous estimation, but unfortunately the cost increased. In April 2008, under Stage 4, Technical Design of the RIBA Plan of Work, Balfour Beatty was awarded the construction contract and at the same time it has been calculated that the cost would actually tripled up, totalling to about £242M. Renovation plans of the stadium for the ‘Legacy’ mode have also risen up the cost.

It surely reflects on this project where critiques are widely debating that Hadid determined the form making and leaving the rest to the engineers. It somehow gives a negative impact on the profession; as such comments will always be discussed.

On a final note, do architects not fear of losing the integrity of the profession? We are thought in architectural schools to always be a perfectionist when it comes to work. Be it design or technical requirements. An architect has to be not only well informed of the building that we’re building, but also to care about the end users as well.

The ‘blocked view’ seats showing the undulating roof

London Aquatics Centre under construction

Bibliography ArchDaily,. ‘London Aquatics Centre For 2012 Summer Olympics / Zaha Hadid Architects’. N.p., 2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Designbuild-network.com,. ‘London Olympics Aquatic Centre, Stratford - Design Build Network’. N.p., 2015. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

Dezeen,. ‘Zaha Hadid’s Olympic Aquatics Centre Due To Open In Its Completed Form’. N.p., 2014. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Doward, Jamie. ‘London Aquatics Centre: Take A Daley Dive Or Adlington Dip At £3.50 Off-Peak’. the Guardian. N.p., 2014. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

Etherington, Rose. ‘London 2012 Olympic Park Legacy Plans Unveiled’. Dezeen. N.p., 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Etherington, Rose. ‘Zaha Hadid Denies Blame For Restricted Views At London 2012 Aquatics Centre’. Dezeen. N.p., 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Frearson, Amy. ‘London Aquatics Centre 2012 By Zaha Hadid Photographed By Hufton + Crow - Dezeen’. Dezeen. N.p., 2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Griffiths, Allyn. ‘Zaha Hadid’s Olympic Aquatics Centre Due To Open In Its Completed Form’. Dezeen. N.p., 2014. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

London Aquatics Centre at Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park,. N.p., 2015. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Robinson, Dickon. The Future For Architects?. 1st ed. London: RIBA, 2015. Print.

References http://www.treehugger.com/infrastructure/visit-breathtaking-olympic-aquatics-centre-zaha-hadid.html http://londonaquaticscentre.org/about/history http://www.archdaily.com/161116/london-aquatics-centre-for-2012-summer-olympics-zaha-hadid-architects/ http://www.dezeen.com/2014/02/25/zaha-hadids-olympic-aquatics-centre-due-to-open-as/ http://www.dezeen.com/2012/08/10/legacy/ http://www.dezeen.com/2012/07/26/zaha-hadid-denies-design-is-to-blame-for-restricted-views-at-london-2012-aquatics-centre/ http://www.dezeen.com/2011/08/12/london-aquatics-centre-2012-by-zaha-hadid-photographed-by-hufton-crow/ http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAProfessionalServices/RIBAStrategy2012-2016.pdf

Revising a Legacy

Nur Dalila Mohamed Khairi U1234389