WAKEFIELD, England — A design compromise is inevitable in the creation of a true English National Stadium at Wembley according to the international architects DLA Ellerbe Becket which reviewed the original design. Some significant issues still need to be resolved in respect of the provision of the proposed temporary Olympic deck to satisfy Simon Clegg, Chief Executive of British Olympic Association. DLA Ellerbe Becket stand by their report, which must be set in the context of maximising the opportunity of a successful British Olympic bid.

DLA Ellerbe Becket’s brief was to audit the ‘Build It Now’ and ‘Build It Later’ Olympic options being proposed for the English National Stadium based on a maximum capacity of 80,000 seats which was identified in Sport England’s Olympic Capacity Options Review and considered by the British Olympic Association as a requirement of a successful Olympic bid.

Director of DLA Ellerbe Becket, which is a world leader in the design of sports arenas, Peter Barrans, says, “Irrespective of the emotion and hype surrounding the press announcement by the Wembley National Stadium (WNS) Team in response to the recent House of Commons statement by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sports, there is in reality very little difference between our audit report and a substantial part of the WNS team’s response in respect of the ‘Build it Now,’ ‘Build it Later’ sections of the original report.

“Many of the differences of opinion that do exist within the ‘Build It Now’ and ‘Build It Later’ sections of the WNS Team’s response have already been resolved by the supply of additional information, or it has been recognised that further issues can be resolved during design development.”

DLA Ellerbe Becket have had sight of the draft response by the WNST and have requested amendments to its content. In this process, DLA Ellerbe Becket have respected the fact that the document represents the views of the WNS Team and have not requested amendments that fundamentally alter their response. This does not mean that DLA Ellerbe Becket are in agreement with the statements in the draft response. DLA Ellerbe Becket have not seen the final version.

The main areas of contention relate to the provision of the proposed temporary Olympic deck including the associated sightlines and focal points.

Peter Barrans adds, “It has already been acknowledged that Wembley’s brief was to create a facility capable of accommodating an IAAF event but with the main configuration respecting the needs of football. Such a solution necessitates design compromises which are unavoidable if the main configuration is for football and this has been recognised by the Wembley National Stadium Team. This is acknowledged by WNS team in their response, ‘… unrestricted sightlines as far as is practically possible … .’” This is in respect of the design solution proposed and it is with regards to the extent of the restricted view sightlines that have finally to be agreed with the Government and its Advisors.

Yesterday, in an attempt by Wembley to convince doubters about the sightline issues, scaffolding 6 metres (19.6 ft.) above the existing greyhound track was erected to show the view spectators would have if Wembley was converted to an 80,000 seat venue for athletics. It is reported in the press today that Mr Simon Clegg, Chief Executive of British Olympic Association was invited to sit on two sets of seating representing the top and bottom of a reconfigured lower tier. Clegg is reported to have said, “at the bottom, sightlines appeared to be slightly compromised but at the top, looking down on the track, the sightlines were such that it further fuelled our concerns.” Today’s Telegraph newspaper also reports that, “according to one observer the view from the top seats were so bad that all one could see was the back of the head of the person in front.”

Press comment has already identified the need for the provision of a temporary athletics deck as the real issue. It opens up the old arguments about the provision of a national stadium. Wembley was successful in the bid for the provision of this facility but have they been too focused on football?