New images of the £900million Olympic village in Stratford have been released by the Olympic Delivery Authority
More...
£525m stadium could be demolished after 2012
Matthew Beard, Sports News Correspondent05.09.08
London 2012 chiefs were today plunged into a battle over the legacy of two key Olympic venues.
They are facing a crisis after it emerged the £525 million Olympic stadium may be demolished to build a venue for a Premier League football club. Meanwhile, the future of the £1 billion athletes' village has been put into further doubt by the resignation of two key figures from developer Lend Lease.
Plans for a purpose-built football stadium in the Olympic Park are being made amid concerns the venue will otherwise become a white elephant.
The London Development Agency may ditch the original plan to convert the 80,000-capacity stadium to an athletics venue holding 25,000 people.
Planners for Mayor Boris Johnson believe it could be cheaper in the long run to build a stadium in partnership with a football club than subsidise it as an athletics venue.
That could pave the way for West Ham who are sceptical about moving to a former Parcelforce depot site suggestedby the LDA. West Ham's initial talks with 2012 chiefs about a move to the Olympic stadium broke down two years ago over the cost of converting the venue after the Games.
Tottenham Hotspur plan to redevelop their own White Hart Lane stadium to boost capacity but sources say they would not rule out a move to Stratford if the price was right.
Mr Johnson has become increasingly concerned that no "anchor tenant" has come forward to occupy the venue, but denied there were plans to demolish it.
His spokesman said: "The London Development Agency has rightly been looking at a range of options but the Mayor has no plans, and is not aware of any plans to demolish the stadium. The Mayor has made it clear on countless occasions that he envisages a long term future for the Olympic stadium. Expensive facilities should not be built unless they have a viable future.
"That's why he is determined to play his part in finding a suitable use for the big ticket London venues beyond the 2012 games. He also agrees that athletics should be part of that legacy."
Responsibility for making it pay its way has been given to Tom Russell, the LDA director of Olympic legacy, who was a key figure in the building of Manchester City's Eastlands stadium when at Manchester City Council. The issue will be the first major matter dealt with by Mr Johnson's legacy advisory board, to be launched this month.
Progress on the £1 billion athletes' village was plunged into further doubt this week when Nigel Hugill announced he was resigning as chairman of Lend Lease. Development director Robin Butler is also going.
The troubled Australian firm has struggled to raise its £450 million stake in the project with a deal not expected until later this year.
However, the planners are not looking to change the existing design for the 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium, and have also been told that whatever is there afterwards must have the capability to stage major athletics events.
An LDA spokesman said: "The LDA has left no stone unturned in examining all legacy options for the Olympic venues and is still looking at a range of potential sporting uses including athletics, football and rugby for the Olympic stadium."
Mr Johnson's Olympics watchdog, David Ross, has warned that the 2012 stadium's cost now is £525 million and there would have to be significant private investment for a new venue.
2012 chiefs have also warned having an athletics facility after the Games was one of the promises made to the IOC.
Link to:
Reader views (21)
Here's a sample of the latest views published. You can click view all to read all views that readers have sent in.
If it is to be used for football, Why not build the stadium like the one that hosted the Commonwealth games before Manchester City moved in. 3 permanent stands and a temporary one at one end so the track can be taken out, the grass moved closer to the already permanent stand, then the temporary stand replaced with a permanent structure.
Far less cost and hassle than demolishing it completely only to rebuild it
- Martin, preston, Lancs
Isn't it weird how as soon as the UK is given such a wonderful opportunity as hosting the Olympics they take it for granted and completely miss the point of it? I mean, shouldn't they've thought carefully about this before they built the stadium? and would there still be a need for a 'premiership football club' in that area if this wasn't happening? It's hard to believe that something which should be as straightforward as 'building a stadium for the olympic games' even has room for such complication as demolishing it after only being a few months old. It's embarrassing that the government even has the state of mind to think that. This is such an incredible opportunity that the UK has been given and instead of being selfish and using people's money to build it only for it to be gone after a few months why can't we just accept it for what it is and create something that we could benefit from?
- Christie, United Kingdom
Why not build the original stadium intended and keep it for sports and such within the area? If there's already enough facilities nearby then I'm sure it can be used to host international competitions or even national. I can't see, however, why the stadium can't be used for both the Olympics and the football.
- Rebecca, Edinburgh, UK
Add your comment
