London Is Building Its Own Vegas Sphere | Hacker News Reader

London Is Building Its Own Vegas Sphere

theb1m.com

53 pointsgeox90 comments

Having moved from London to US SF. Residential buildings are very close, London is not spaced out from commercial settings like in the US.

> "Those who support it, however, say it could be an incredible opportunity for the area. And could transform this underdeveloped site into a thriving destination in itself."

Using the buzz-words in high profile planning applications: rejuvenating a under 'developed site'? We're talking about Stratford, houses London's BIGGEST shopping centre, it's not underdeveloped.

> "Developers of the Sphere offered to give residents closest to the structure black-out window blinds as a compromise. Somehow this didn’t appease them."

I can't imagine having a disco like effect of high powered LED lights whizzing past every few seconds some 50 or so meters away taller than most buildings.

Just so we can consume more ads? This should not be allowed. I'm with the residents on this one, I imagine will be appealing the application.

It looks like the only space for it is here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/x1548uF8uKq2ffND8

A lot or most of the residencies around there are high rise 5-20 floors so it will be very visible.

They aren't referring to the Stratford area in general as underdeveloped but rather to the specific plot of land, I suppose.

I wonder if MSG will concede and start building these spheres without the external screens. It seems like it would be much easier to get buy in from locals.

I'm not sure how much they would lose on advertising revenue, but if they are trying to proliferate the sphere as a format, like IMAX, then it seems short sighted to force the external screens. After all very few places are as accomodating of in your face 24/7 advertising like Vegas.

The article said the Vegas Sphere plans to charge $650k a week to advertise on its exterior. Not to mention that just running other people’s ads on such a massive display is also effectively advertising the Sphere itself.

That’s lot of cash and marketing reach to give up. I assume they will expend a lot of money lobbying to get their way before they consider going without the external LEDs.

The whole point seems to be the screens though. Without that, it’s just a grubby expensive ball sitting there.

Are they not, or is it a money thing? Billboards are fairly ubiquitous.

So I used to live in a flat overlooking the concourse by Stratford station, right next to where this is planned (and has been planned for 5+ years). There's a regular light-up animated billboard on that concourse, and it used to shine right into my living room at night. It wasn't great.

My question is what is this for. In Vegas there are many skyscrapers that would be able to look out over this, they have sporting events with helicopter coverage, people go to see lights. None of this is true for Stratford, even given the sports arena.

This is not a highly established entertainment district where lights are expected, adding more. It's a mostly residential area with two shopping centres, and a sports arena a 15 minute walk down the road.

I'm all for YIMBY when it's going to improve the local area, but Stratford already struggles with the crowds from the sports arena, the Westfield management team hate it as it doesn't bring in business but they have to hire private security for every sports event. There are good pieces of development happening – the new university campuses, the new V&A, the new BBC concert hall, the offices, but this just won't fit the local environment or benefit anyone.

I was in Vegas a few months ago and sightlines to the Sphere are everywhere, whether you're coming in from the airport, in your hotel room, various parts on the strip and while you're flying in/out. Really not sure how they could replicate the success of the Sphere anywhere else.

The Sphere is kinda meant for Vegas because it's an insane conception and perfectly suited for a city like Vegas that's equally insane. IMO the only other place this would work is Dubai.

I actually hate the Sphere. It's such an ugly dystopian future where we have giant orbs blasting adverts into peoples homes/hotel rooms. I'm not a fan of the billboards in NY either but these spheres are on another level, I feel like we're moving towards a Futurama future.

But in Vegas at least blasting adverts is sort of the motto of the city. There it fits in I'd argue.

Fwiw I've been to Vegas twice this year and it'd still be an eye sore even in that crazy city, imo

After the Futurama future, we make it to the Idiocracy future.

The Sphere is going to be turned off 30% of the time within the next 3-5 years, guarantee it.

I have never in my life seen an outdoor LED display last (yes, even with AC), and the maintenance on this one is going to be monumental.

The sphere uses a different kind of outdoor LED display. It will be fine for a long time.

https://supercarblondie.com/wp-content/uploads/las-vegas-sph...

I am aware of the puck design, but they will still fail for the same reason other multi-led panels (e.g. micro-led displays). Eventually there's too many dead pixels to make a good image. Discoloration adds up over time and is a huge problem for things like the Samsung "The Wall". That's before even considering the entire puck can fail, just like entire panels fail on micro-led displays.

And many of these run in fully cooled environments, no sun-facing element, running at way lower power levels since they aren't fighting the sun.

Universal Orlando has the Bourne Stuntacular with a 120ft wide panel running 9k 60hz and it requires work semi-annually. Running indoors. From 11-5pm daily. Not 24/7.

The exosphere LED pucks really share no similarities with the more common video wall panels. The LED pucks are repaired daily, and due to the nature of replacing individual pixels, you don't run into the discoloration that happens when you replace an entire panel.

Look at the pictures. It's very easy to replace a failed puck. There even seems to be a quick-release mechanism.

Good news for O2 though! They'll have a new stadium within the decade :D

Still subject to a planning approval process:

https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/sadiq-khan-set-decision-londons-...

Aand it's dead

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/other/stratford-msg-sphere-...

The original article says:

> Despite this objection from locals, planning permission was granted last year.

Which amazes me. Why on earth would Newham approve this? Your article has a clue:

> Plans for the Stratford sphere were approved by the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) last year, despite fierce opposition from some locals.

I vaguely remember that as part of the olympics "redevelopment", planning powers in this area were transferred from the council to LLDC. Who, being a bunch of unelected quangocrats, don't give a shit about residents, and have signed this off.

Indeed. The headline has overeager use of the present tense clearly!

And that is where it will die.

"It’s the world's biggest sphere"

I believe the world's biggest sphere is actually... the world.

The Earth is not a sphere though, it's an approximate ellipsoid :). Can't get pedantic without being pedantic about it ;)

It's actually an oblate spheroid. It's surface is an approximate ellipsoid, though.

well, as long as we're being nitpicky, you want "its surface" (the surface belonging to it), not "it's surface" (it is surface).

You're right. I can't believe I missed that. The error was the phone's, but I didn't catch it.

I double checked all the apostrophes this time.

But I’ll bet the Earth is closer to a sphere than this thing.

Yes, its oblateness is on the order of 40 miles difference between diameter at the poles and the equator. Not very oblate, but no perfect sphere.

Probably closer to a sphere than this! "It will have a diameter of 120 metres, the same as the London Eye, and be 96 metres tall"

Isn't the reduced height because the bottom is flattened/sunk into the ground?

Real spheres don't exist

But do the set of all the world's spheres includes itself?

As much as I'd love visiting the Sphere, imagine living in your apartment knowing that a giant LED is about to be built blasting ads in your windows 24/7.

7-11 not 24/7

That could easily be changed after it's built.

"While the sphere looks fantastic now as a giant eyeball, emoji or pumpkin, this isn’t what the exterior will be ultimately used for. It’ll reportedly be used to show ads, charging clients up to $650,000 a week. This makes it the most expensive billboard in the world."

Putting a giant advertisement ball into a residential era of London sounds like a Black Mirror episode. Vegas, I get it, the entire city is an exercise in vice, light pollution, gauche architecture and terrible ways to spend money but you can't do that to London.

I hope and think it's fairly likely whatever planning board is responsible doesn't actually wink this through.

I live near there; I think the impact on residents may be overstated but I'm not close enough to be directly impacted, so I will defer to those who might be.

The main negative impact will be on the transport infrastructure in that area. It's already blatantly unable to cope with the number of people in that area and a development like this can't possibly be contemplated without a wholesale upgrade of Stratford station. There's a bit of a sop to improvements but an order of magnitude less than required.

but isn't it a short walk from stratford tube/train station, which has DLR, jubilee, mainline and lizzy line?

It is. That station is _wildly_ over capacity already and cannot realistically absorb another venue.

> It will have a diameter of 120 metres, the same as the London Eye, and be 96 metres tall .... But it’s also just 76 metres away from people’s homes.

I can see that getting very annoying, very quickly - a lot or most of the residencies around there are high rise 5 floors so it will be very visible.

It looks like the only space for it is here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/x1548uF8uKq2ffND8

I love the sphere. Who wants to bet there will be one in Dubai eventually?

This article [1] even claims

> The moon-shaped resort is more than 200 meters high with more than 4,000 rooms, expected to be completed in 2027 in Dubai with a construction cost of nearly 5 billion USD.

[1] https://mgimagazine.com/resort-on-surface-of-moon-at-5-billi...

I love all these megastructures being built in the middle east. Hopefully it comes to fruition.

(also, if you're going to criticize me because I'm glorifying modern day slavery, nobody who says "oh we went to visit the pyramids of giza" is critized for visiting monuments built by slavery (although I remember reading a recent study that found evidence indicating the workers were treated fairly well))

My understanding is that the labor was primarily provided by non-slave populace during the periods where their labor was more available (i.e., neither harvest nor planting season). Would you as a pharaoh want your eternal resting place and it's associated grandeur built and installed by the adoring public who think you're literally a manifestation of a god on earth, or by slaves who probably don't accept your deity and will share the secrets of your tomb with grave robbers?

This aside, yes, there is a distinct difference between things built in the past (the circumstances of which cannot be changed, irrespective of modern observation) and things built in the present by (modern day) slaves for current use.

I hope this Google Map link: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Braithwaite+House,+7+Forre...

works and demonstrates why all the local residents are hoping that this doesn't get approved.

TL;DR the site is has residential areas on 2.5 sides within 50-100 meters

The site is the car park to the south of the train tracks. The red pin in your link shows it right in the middle of the housing development to the north. The Wikipedia map has the correct pin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSG_Sphere_London#/map/0

To note, I would object to this as well if I lived in the area and hope it gets rejected somewhere along the way.

I can't imagine how horrible that would be for residents. They've spent the best part of a decade building building building flats, only to plop a giant advert into each and every resident's eyeballs 24/7.

I don't live too far from Stratford and I'm wondering if I'll be able to see it from here

Everywhere in London is just 50-100 meters from residential areas. That’s even true for central London. It’s one of the quirks of the city.

It’s also worth noting that Stratford is under heavy redevelopment as a non-residential area. You have massive shopping malls, a top tier football stadium, huge rail links for out of town commuters and music festivals are hosted there too.

Stratford isn’t a residential district like Tooting.

Edit: I’m getting down voted for this but I visit Stratford daily, so I know a thing or two about the area ;)

Report that the Mayor has decided not to allow it and will make a statement today: https://twitter.com/MarkKleinmanSky/status/17266150198011822...

Nope, that's not happening. Sadiq Khan, the current Mayor of London has refused to give planning permission for it today.

Can someone please do the math and find out whether each could be two “Earth eyeballs” as seen from orbit?

They’ve been running ads for Chrome on the one in Vegas. It’s gross and annoying, IMO.

I love video systems and LEDs, and some of the art they were playing on the outside of it the first few months was cool, but now it’s just a giant annoying billboard.

Is the one in LV not hemorrhaging money?

You think anyone involved in the project cares? The money to build this crap will probably be borrowed from banks. People involved will be lining their pockets good for 5-10 years. Government will be happy for jobs created. When the project goes bust, the banks will go: "I am once again asking for your financial support".

If the project does succeed, it will be a fortunate accident for everyone involved. But I don't believe that its prospective success is their primary concern.

Only before it opened, but the press didn't really report it very well.

They posted accounts for the 3 months before they opened (minus 2 days) saying they lost $100 million in that period. The press picked up on this as "The Sphere is losing money". We need to wait for the next set of accounts and the ones after that to see if it is profitable.

How is it even supposed to make money, now that you mention it?

Adverts cost $450k a day (according to gaming articles on Xbox's advert in October), they also have 18,600 seats inside the LV Sphere for "immersive experiences".

Pay me tickets to watch my ads. I want a business like that.

I don't like the sphere but to be fair to them, I think it's haptic-heavy movies from what I remember reading! Sort of like a giant IMAX I guess.

In the 70s and 80s we had Cinema 180 and Dimension 360, everything old is new again.

I thought it was some kind of venue inside the dome, and that the outside was sort of promos for the events and/or general adverts

What a horrible idea.

Haha “we’ll give residents window blinds” actually lolled.

How unfortunate. The Sphere works in Vegas because it’s a grand spectacle amongst a city based on dopamine. Plopping it down in London is random and would presumably lose its playful video style.

Important to note it's not planned for Central London, but Stratford, where it makes a bit more sense, as it's a commercial hub with huge shopping malls and modern developments.

It has a shopping mall (singular) and is surrounded by tons and tons of residential buildings. Seems odd to drop a giant sphere and 60k tourists in such a residential heavy area.

Two shopping centres.

Not sure it makes sense to build this thing so far away from where the tourists normally go

There is no space in central (essentially the area bounded by the Circle line stretching down to Elephant and Castle). Lots of these developments happen in East London which has tons of brownfield land that used to be docks and industry. This is what happened to Canary Wharf and what they have been trying to do with North Greenwich and the Millenium Dome, and Newham and the Olympics. Stratford has loads of land and six train lines run through it (Central and Jubilee, North London, Great Eastern, DLR, Elizabeth) so it seems like the kind of place they would pick. Modern London isn't known for sustainable or sympathetic development. Go to Lewisham town centre and see how the new age tower blocks look completely out of kilter with the surrounding environment.

It's main purpose would be as an event venue where people would travel there deliberately rather than as a sightseeing item, and Stratford is a travel hub with connections to all other travel hubs in London and by extension the rest of the UK.

It really doesn't work in Vegas either; it's already lost $100M in the first three months: https://boingboing.net/2023/11/09/las-vegas-sphere-lost-near...

That’s actually not true. The Sphere was only open for two days during that quarter.

If it shines bright enough, you won't see any of the poor people /s

In the UK, complaints from neighbors can get pretty much any project canned or delayed indefinitely.

There is always some kind of rare amoeba whose habitat would be impacted by any new building, requiring more multi-year studies be done.

What's your opinion on the location of the site compared to the location of the residents of that area? Hopefully you're not calling the locals amoebas.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Braithwaite+House,+7+Forre...

I suspect OP is referring to the presence of newts or bats or greater-crested hedge warblers etc, which can put a stop on building work for literally years in the UK

To hell with nature, we need a giant spherical video screen!

I walk past this site multiple times a week. It's currently partially derelict land and a car park. Not sure which nature you're talking about.

How about just making it a good old fashioned nature park? Vegas and Dubai are plenty enough for building extravagant vanity projects.

And if the private owner of the space cannot extract value from it without degrading the quality of life of the surrounding area's residents, maybe there should be laws to give it back to the public. This would also tackle "investors" that buy cheap properties amass and leave them to rot, until they can make enough profit from gentrification.

Let me clear, as a local to Stratford (not within direct line of sight to where this would be though), I don't particularly support this project. But, there's already a fair amount of green space around the Olympic park.

I wasn't talking about this project at all, I was responding to GP's sarcastic assertion that there's "always some kind of rare amoeba whose habitat would be impacted."

Same here in Germany, but I don't think that it's always a bad idea. Should help to make better decisions. Why seal land instead of reusing already existing lots.

In that case here, it's a huge screen in front of a lot of peoples windows, so I see why it's a dumb decision. I wouldn't want that either.

A policy to defend nature is a good one... But the nature that gets defended shouldn't depend on which pissed off residents hire the right naturalist to go find some reason building can't happen.

In the West you can stop pretty much any construction be releasing a rabbit family on the site and then sending a picture of them to the media. It will block construction for years until they decide where to relocate them.

Not in Stratford, the foxes would scoff them almost immediately.

Perfect, send a picture with the cute foxes that would be displaced to the media.

No cute foxes in London, grimy greasy animals due to mainly subsisting on discarded fried chicken and kebabs (which is why they'd be so keen on a fresh rabbit).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com