I refer to the article Plan to scale down Olympic Stadium is unsustainable (NCE 6 October) in which there seems to have been some mistranslation of what I stated on various issues.
First the statement 'it would be almost impossible to reduce the size of the building envelope' sounds as though technically it would be almost impossible. Rather, I said it would be a difficult exercise but the emphasis was on cost effectiveness and sustainability issues of such a reduction (80,000 to 25,000) as various infrastructure (such as drainage) would not be as easily reduced as seating.
Therefore operational costs and energy use would be likely to be that for around 40,000 capacity rather than a purpose built 25,000 seat stadium.
I was also unaware of the London Development Association's comment on the proposed reduction and so could not have dismissed it as 'short-sighted'. I said that there are also small stadiums that are white elephants because they are under capacity and not adaptable enough and that the lifespan should be at least 50 years.
One important point omitted from the article was my view that sustainability needs to be designed in from the initial concept and that design competitions should include engineers' input as they did for Stadium Australia.
Stephen Morley, director of design, Bianchi Morley, PO Box 49114, London, SW19 5XA