Legacy worry over London pool
The start of construction of the Aquatics Centre for the London Games three months ahead of schedule sounds just like the good news story London 2012 should be bragging about.
But the fact is that the issues surrounding the most hyped sporting venue for the London Games illustrate many of the problems that now dog it.
Yes, the Games will provide Londoners with some marvellous facilities, including Olympic-sized swimming pools.
But for the Aquatics Centre to be converted into use for the community after the Games, more money will have to be spent on it, another facility built next to it, and more money found for it.
The seductiveness of architect Zaha Hadid's design for the Aquatics Centre cannot be doubted.
It could be argued that such a design is worth all the money spent on it. The cost of it has risen from £73m to £303m, which includes £61m for a footbridge that will form part of the building's roof.
But the jury that selected the design in 2005 acknowledged there were problems with it and its legacy use.
Indeed the jury's report, which has now been revealed, said it had not been well thought out and a costly step had been missed in converting it from Olympic use to community use.
The conversion involves having an additional facility built next to the Aquatics Centre, providing a leisure pool with water slides and a health and fitness centre.
This will now be done after the Games and could cost as much as £40m.
Paul Brickell, the executive member for Olympic opportunities for Newham, told me that Newham is prepared to pay some £5.5m for this but it is not clear where the rest of the money might come from.
Many have argued that the use of Olympic facilities after the Games should have been worked out when the bid was made.
This is not an argument that John Armitt, the chairman of the Olympic development authority, entertains, as you can see from his video interview with me:
Yet there are many now raising questions about a lack of legacy planning that, if not remedied in time, could mean London joining Games like Sydney, which produced a marvellous spectacle at the time, but had nothing to show after it.
Armitt's chief executive, David Higgins, in his recent evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, admitted such in relation to the Olympic village.
"There had been no detailed planning," said Higgins. "And we have spent the last 18 months making the planning more efficient, and getting more efficiency out of the existing site."
The problem is that while this planning was being carried out the housing market had started to collapse.
The Olympic village was meant to be converted into 4,200 apartments, this has now been scaled down to 3,300.
The builders delivering the project have not yet got the money from the banks, and the government may have to put in more money. And once built, the credit crunch may mean it will not be easy to sell the apartments after the Games. Initially most of them will probably have to be let out before they can be sold.
There is also much debate about the media centre. The plan is to have permanent structures converted into office use.
But now the debate is whether the media centre should not be just a temporary tent, which is rolled up after the Games are over. I understand that property experts have advised the Olympic development authority that this would be a more sensible and less risky option.
It is the credit crunch that has prompted much of this rethinking. In the process it has highlighted that a lot more needs to be done and done quickly if London 2012 is to provide a sustainable legacy.