好色先生TV

I am fortunate enough to see lots of architecture around the world and regularly fly in and out of London. Circling above it during one of the inevitable delays set me thinking about stadiums. Whether I am cheering at Arsenal鈥檚 Emirates, booing at Chelsea鈥檚 Stamford Bridge or cringing at the 2012 Olympic stadium, I have realised that these are hugely visited and evocative structures.

This is especially true because sport is taking over our consciousness: TV channels, newspapers and websites machine-gun us with sports news, scandal and even the occasional sporting event. Today stadiums get more international media exposure than any other building type.

Herzog & de Meuron鈥檚 Beijing national stadium (also known as the Bird鈥檚 Nest) is the building I most want to visit this year. For me, it signifies the type of architecture we should be striving for with our own Olympics in 2012: it is unique, immediately iconic and pushes the boundaries of architecture and engineering. Although it was hugely expensive and is on the verge of being turned into a shopping centre, I don鈥檛 think its success is tarnished by poor financial or visiting statistics. It is the sort of architecture that will inspire a generation in ways that you can鈥檛 quantify.

Unfortunately, our offering for the Olympic stadium in 2012 is a missed opportunity. Okay, the stadium is not awful. The design is fine, functional and economic - which in the shadow
of the Millennium Dome is a good thing, I suppose. But for a building that will receive so much exposure across its lifespan, where is the architectural excellence? Where is the ambition?

I think Janet Street-Porter said it best: 鈥淎n Olympic stadium by Ikea.鈥�

Tim Mallory is editor-in-chief of architecture website