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 24 Jul 2014. <http://www.archdaily.com/?p=258155>

15 comments

  1. Thumb up Thumb down +9

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

    • Thumb up Thumb down +2

      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.

  2. Thumb up Thumb down +5

    Isn’t that too irresponsible?

  3. Thumb up Thumb down +12

    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.

  4. Thumb up Thumb down -3

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • Thumb up Thumb down 0

      Actually BIM would quickly show you the photograph above from the 10 meter diving board and show you which seats are obstructed. CAD would fail on this part.

      The architect just chose to ignore it and get it approved by the client anyhow.

  5. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    Who has never deal with a client who wants always more and push as much as he can?
    I’m working in China and it’s common.
    I’m not a fan of ZH but I would indulge her on this one if like she said the gauge was planed for 6000 people and the final building can hold 8000.
    It’s a shame but to guess who is to blame would be difficult.
    sounds like the Paris Opera Garnier where they are selling seats “without visibility”

  6. Thumb up Thumb down 0

    Excuses! Excuses! Lame, lame, lame! very lame. ZH just won’t accept it as a mistake. They know very well the seating will be over 5000. And that was ignored. Absolutely lame!

  7. Thumb up Thumb down +6

    Having attended synchronised swimming here in the obscured view seats I can confirm how user unfriendly the building is. As well as not being able to see the diving board you cannot see the other side of the centre or audience leaving you with a strange caged in feeling. It was also unbearably hot with food, drink and toilet facilities so far away you would miss half of the event if you used them. Dissapointing.

  8. Thumb up Thumb down +2

    ITS A NATURAL THING FOR HER SJE IS NOT A GREAT INTERIOR DESIGNER AND HER ARCHITECTURE IS MORE ABOUT FORM THAN THE INTERIOR SPACE AND FUNCTION.
    i AM NOT SUPRISED BY HEARING SUCH STORY

  9. Thumb up Thumb down -5

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

  10. Thumb up Thumb down +1

    So basically, she fulfilled the brief, so the remaining 3,000 seats doesn’t matter, they can sit outside the window, lock them into a room with small opening towards the pool, in the attic, she just doesn’t care.

Share your thoughts