Zaha Hadid denies Aquatics Centre “design flaws”

© Hufton + Crow

Although Olympic officials have been forced to offer ticket refunds to seats with obscured views in the London Aquatics Centre, Architects denies that this issue is a result of bad design. During last few days, critics have been accusing Zaha’s curvaceous roof as a design blunder that has blocked many of the top rows from viewing the 10m diving board – the highest diving board that will host eight events and Beijing Olympics hero Tom Daley.

As reported on bdonline, a spokesman for Zaha Hadid has insisted this is the result of a ticking issue, as the ticket holders were not informed about the restricted views upon purchase. He stated, “The brief for the building from Locog was to provide 5,000 spectator seats with uninterrupted views of the 10m diving platform events.”

“The centre actually provides over 8,000 seats with uninterrupted views of the 10m platform events. This is more than 3,000 additional seats than the brief required.”

He further explained, “Locog approved the sightline studies and seating layouts over two years ago.”

Continue after the break for more images and a revealing cross section.

© Hufton + Crow
Cross Section (Olympic Mode)

Learn more about the London Aquatics Centre here on ArchDaily.

Cite: Rosenfield, Karissa. "Zaha Hadid denies Aquatics Centre “design flaws”" 27 Jul 2012. ArchDaily. Accessed 23 Oct 2014. <http://www.archdaily.com/?p=258155>
  • Kyle Kutz

    Architecture that does not consider it’s inhabitants is not architecture. It is just a building.

    • James Stirling

      Read the article. Inhabitants are considered. All can see the pool, but not all can see the diving board, due to faulty changes which the architect did not agree to.

  • Tsukiyo

    Isn’t that too irresponsible?

  • Walt

    Why any one would pay to see another jump off a platform is irrelevant?

  • anon

    even though zaha fulfilled the program brief, this is just f**king pathetic.

    does anyone really think that just fulfilling the program brief is a good argument for this piece of ‘Architecture’?

    yea right… try saying that critics during a student presentation… doubt that would hold up for half a second.

    woMAN UP and take responsibility.