Few projects have inflamed passions more than the 2012 Olympics. The process of marrying the aspirational and the practical has put some sectors of the industry and the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) at each other鈥檚 throats.

The ODA is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side are the design professionals, who see 2012 as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for British architecture to lay out its wares before an admiring world. On the other are the politicians. Gordon Brown reiterated last week that the Games must be built within their 拢9.35bn budget. The consequence is that Zaha Hadid鈥檚 aquatic centre is being trimmed back for a second time as contractors insist it can鈥檛 be built for the money available.

Can the two sides be reconciled? The ODA has clearly been stung by Richard Rogers鈥� criticism that it doesn鈥檛 give two hoots about architecture, although in hindsight it laid itself open to this attack by failing to appoint a design champion to its board. But isn鈥檛 it time that the architects learned a little realpolitik? Naively, the ODA has been shocked by how difficult it鈥檚 been to get firms to bite. Contractors will no longer take on a job purely for the glory. If they aren鈥檛 reimbursed for their risk, they won鈥檛 take it on. And as well as the engineering risk of tackling an ambitious design, there is the commercial risk of sourcing the materials to build it. See '' if you need to be convinced of how daunting those are.

The British public will crucify any politician who uses their money to buy a white elephant 鈥� we鈥檙e a nation whose greatest pleasure is finding a bargain in Primark, remember. And remember, too, that London already has wonderful backdrops for many events, from Greenwich park to Horse Guards Parade.

Architects are the first to say good design doesn鈥檛 have to cost the earth. We鈥檇 like haute couture, of course, but if some venues are off the peg it doesn鈥檛 mean we won鈥檛 get attractive buildings or enjoy the events they host. The ODA is launching its design strategy today. Let鈥檚 hope it 鈥榣l bring the architects onside.

Denise Chevin, editor

A simple solution to a difficult problem

The industry has produced some prototype solutions to the zero-carbon problem. On display at BRE are five homes that achieve a variety of Code for Sustainable Homes ratings, including the all-important level six. But qualifying for stamp duty relief is harder. This is because the government is insisting on a very demanding minimum standard for heat loss through the building fabric and ventilation system. This means only one of the BRE homes qualifies, and only one other could do so without modifying the building fabric and ventilation system. If the government is serious about encouraging housebuilders to build zero-carbon homes now, it needs to keep it simple and make the tax relief threshold level six of its own code.

Topics