How to design a white elephant

The British love a good White Elephant. It has only been a decade since the creation of the Millenium Dome, which cost over a billion dollars, and was swiftly known as one of the biggest flops in public spending history (although it has drastically improved in its current incarnation).

Only a couple of years after its opening, commentators were analysing its downfall:

The government in 2000 got it precisely backwards. Instead of deciding first what should be in the Dome and whether or not it could attract an audience, it first determined the site and the structure. But it ultimately was the unappealing content that dragged the whole thing down. In the case of the Great Exhibition, the contents’ overarching purpose and appeal were determined first and the site and building came later. – Lawrence W Reed

Look back over the history of any “white elephant” project, and you will find the following two crucial steps:

How to Design a White Elephant in Two Steps

1. Design a multi-million pound development without consulting the people who will be using it for the next 50+ years.
2. Wait until the development is nearly built before looking to find a long term tenant.

Fast forward to 2011, and it seems we are still following this two step process.

The London Olympic stadium is currently being tendered for by two Premier League football teams, after all the design work has been completed, and when construction is already past an irreversible point.

What does this mean for the people of London and the taxpayer?

Both schemes are flawed:

• West Ham, with close proximity and the need for a new stadium, have agreed to keep the running track, which will make it a less than suitable football stadium, whilst also requiring a £40million injection from the local council

.

• Tottenham, have the funds and the fans, and a scheme that will end up with the best football stadium, but require the demolition of the existing stadium. This has been widely criticised, not least of all by Lord Coe:

“I remember talking about young people in east London fashioning their futures through sport. I’m prepared to revisit my words that day, but I genuinely don’t recall a whole heap about bulldozing down a publicly-funded facility, replacing it with a Premiership football club and inspiring a generation of Tottenham season ticket holders, however many there may be on a waiting list.” – Lord Coe

What should have happened

It was clear, before a pen had been taken to paper, that a long term tenant would be needed for the stadium, and that rather than this being a 3 week series of games, this tenant would occupy the stadium for close to 50 years.

Long term tenants should be identified prior to the concept design stage, and they should be involved throughout the design process to make an adaptable infrastructure that can cope with both the short and long term needs of the building.

This may have involved a wide variety of design solutions, such as retractable seating as in Paris, or actually creating a separate stadium for track events, which would have removed the key legacy constraint from the main stadium (the track) whilst creating something more fit for purpose for some of the most important Olympic events than a multipurpose stadium.

Involving the long term tenant in the design process has, indeed, occurred on one Olympic building, the velodrome, and it looks certain to be the 2012 Olympics project with the most sustainable legacy. And it is that, more important than any gold medal, which we should be aiming for.

Key lessons:

1. Think long term about capital investment;
2. Co-create your solution with the people who will actually be using the space;
3. Take the time to think through the services and experiences that should take place within the space before designing the concept;
4. Once all of this is identified, be prepared to think differently about the potential solution.