Low profi le

Many stadia would look best with a profile kept as low as possible. Two techniques which help achieve this are dropping the pitch below ground level and raising the surrounding landscape by means of planted mounds.

There are in fact great financial benefits in lower-ing the pitch below existlower-ing ground level, so that a proportion of the terracing can be constructed as ground-bearing. This not only results in less steel-work but also in a reduced and less costly vertical circulation element – see chapter 23.

Ch05-H6844.indd 50

Ch05-H6844.indd 50 11/3/06 6:57:00 PM11/3/06 6:57:00 PM

Form and structure

51 5.2.3 Roof and façade

In roofed stadia, which are becoming more com-mon (particularly in Europe), the most important step towards a satisfying and harmonious architec-tural solution is to avoid having an assertive façade competing with an equally assertive roof. If one of these elements is dominant, with the other subdued or completely invisible, the composition may imme-diately become easier to handle.

Dominant roof

A successful example of a ‘dominant roof’ design is Gunter Behnisch’s complex of sports buildings in the Olympiapark, Munich. In these buildings the wall has been virtually eliminated and the stadia reduced visually to a series of graceful roof forms hovering over green landscape (Figure 5.1). The playing sur-faces are recessed below ground level.

Where the walls cannot be eliminated altogether it helps to reduce them to submissive, horizontal elements of ‘built landscape’ over which floats a separate graceful roof.

Dominant façade

A successful example of the ‘dominant façade’

approach is the Mound Stand at Lord’s Cricket Ground in London by Michael Hopkins & Partners (Figure 5.2). This stadium façade can genuinely be called successful. It maintains an urban scale, follows

the streetline, contains variety and grace; and there is a satisfying progression from the heavy, earth-bound basecourse to the light pavilion-like tent roof at the top.

Dominant structure

In large stadia there could be a third approach: to make the structure dominant. For instance, both façade and roof could be visually contained behind a dominant ‘cage’ of vertical structural ribs. Examples include the Chamsil Olympic Main Stadium at Seoul and the Parc des Princes in Paris. This may work best on large open sites where the building is mostly seen from a distance.

Kenzo Tange’s twin gymnasia for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics provide supreme examples of struc-tural expressionism of a different kind. Both have organically-shaped roofs suspended from cables which in turn are anchored to massive concrete but-tresses. The horizontal sweep of the seating tiers and the upward-curving spirals of the suspended roofs obey few of the traditional canons of architec-tural composition and yet look magnificent – but it has to be said that few designers could handle such unorthodox forms so successfully.

An excellent recent example is provided by Santiago Calatrava’s 2004 Olympic Stadium in Athens (Figure 5.3).

Figure 5.1 Visual conflict between roof and façade can be resolved by eliminating the wall and reducing the building profile to a graceful roof hovering above the landscape. An excel-lent example is the 1972 Olympic Stadium at Munich. Architect: Günter Behnisch. Structural engineers: Frei Otto and Fritz Leonardt.

Photograph: Action Images/Sporting Pictures/Nick Kidd

Ch05-H6844.indd 51

Ch05-H6844.indd 51 11/3/06 6:57:00 PM11/3/06 6:57:00 PM

Form and structure

52

Figure 5.2 In urban contexts the most appropriate approach may be a dominant façade with the roof either hidden or subdued. The Mound Stand at Lord’s Cricket Ground, London has a light roof floating above a dominant and well-composed façade. Architects: Michael Hopkins & Partners.

Ch05-H6844.indd 52

Ch05-H6844.indd 52 11/3/06 6:57:03 PM11/3/06 6:57:03 PM

Form and structure

53 Appropriate choice: open sites

Stadia situated in open parkland can make a posi-tive contribution to the environment if the form rising above the landscape is genuinely attractive and well-composed. If these qualities cannot be achieved, for whatever reason, then there is no shame in hiding the stadium completely behind landscaping; it is a perfectly valid strategy.

Achieving a form that blends with the surroundings is usually not too difficult in the case of an open sta-dium. Roofed stadia present a greater challenge.

Sinking the playing field below ground level and/or surrounding the stadium with planted mounds to reduce the apparent height are useful devices, and could enable the stadium almost to melt away into the landscape.

Appropriate choice: urban sites

If a stadium is situated in a town or city the façades will probably be dominant, partly to allow the site to be exploited right up to its perimeter at all levels, and partly to maintain rather than disrupt the rows of façades which form the streetscape on either side of the stadium. It may then be desirable to subdue the huge stair ramps, and the backs of the seating tiers with their horizontal or sloping geometry, to blend with a surrounding streetscape of closely-spaced, vertically-accented building façades.

One approach, exemplified by the Mound Stand in London, is to adopt a structural pattern for the sta-dium that enables the rhythm, scale, materials and details to harmonize with the surroundings, and to ensure also that the façade smoothly follows the street line (Figure 5.2).

The other, exemplified by the Louis IV stadium in Monte Carlo, is to place a row of shops, restau-rants, a hotel or some other ‘orthodox’ building type between stadium and street as part of a multi-purpose development. In addition to its architectural merits such a solution would help bring life to the street and could have economic benefits for the sta-dium as explained in Section 23.4.