Flickr member Nicksarebi, licensed for use under Creative Commons

The Observer’s Tim Lewis may have been trying to resurrect architecture as an Olympic event when he rated how London did in all aspects of the Olympic Games over the weekend—judging the venues, fans, Team GB, transport, BBC coverage, business impact, party factor, and star quality.

Oddly enough, Lewis didn’t give venues gold, silver, or bronze. Instead he awarded rings on a five-ring scale, giving the Olympic architecture four out of five rings.

Lack of a fifth ring could have easily come from annoyances such the swarm of bugs that annoyed sports fans in Populous’s Olympic Stadium on Aug. 8. (“With almost no wind swirling in the 80,000-seat stadium, the bugs were everywhere and showing no signs of relenting,” reported The Associated Press.) But the bigger annoyance for Lewis was the music in Olympic Stadium, and how the games looked filled with spectators.

“We expected the stadiums to be a bit rubbish after the architectural boastiness of Beijing, but what we didn't count on was the people who filled them. Zaha Hadid's Aquatics Centre, which feels like sitting in the belly of a gigantic concrete whale, was the favourite with design buffs, but a disappointing medal haul meant that the 17,500 crowd only reached top volume when Tom Daley stepped on the platform to dive.”

Now we want the crowd-meter rating: How many rings would you award London's Olympic architecture?