If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
nitram wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:48:42 +0100, (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco) wrote: nitram wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:17:06 +0100, (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco) wrote: [] I think it could be done, and I support the bid- because I think the regeneration would be worth it. UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games. No, but given the pressure on land in the south east, the area is going to be developed in _some_ kind of way anyway. If hosting Olympics accelerates that, or does it better, then that's fine with me. I worried that without the Olympics nothing will happen. There's a need for really good quality council housing in London. I'd be worried that without the Olympics, it will just turn into lots of glitzy docklands-style developments, with a convenient Eurostar terminal! -- David Horne- www.davidhorne.net usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
nitram writes:
Except it has few suitable stadiums, inadequate public transport and the area chosen needs to be bombed flat before they can start. I don't care. I still think it's the perfect place. Much better than Paris. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
nitram writes:
UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games. Since the Olympics are always a net loss, you have to try to link them to something, no matter how bogus. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Derek McBryde wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:06:51 +0100, (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco) wrote: UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games. No, but given the pressure on land in the south east, the area is going to be developed in _some_ kind of way anyway. If hosting Olympics accelerates that, or does it better, then that's fine with me. I worried that without the Olympics nothing will happen. There's a need for really good quality council housing in London. I'd be worried that without the Olympics, it will just turn into lots of glitzy docklands-style developments, with a convenient Eurostar terminal! London and the South East are most likely to benefit. Who pays for it? The same people who pay for any massive regeneration in the UK? -- David Horne- www.davidhorne.net usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic wrote:
nitram writes: UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games. Since the Olympics are always a net loss, you have to try to link them to something, no matter how bogus. It's not bogus. What the hell do you know about it? -- David Horne- www.davidhorne.net usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Mxsmanic
wrote: nitram writes: UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games. Since the Olympics are always a net loss, you have to try to link them to something, no matter how bogus. This is how it works in practise, first comes the appeal to 'civic pride' then it's the 'needed' gentrification... a new roadway, new airport, new subway... then its the stadiums and all they bring and finally they float the idea that people when be coming to your city for the next 20 years because of what they saw "Games". jay Fri Jun 03, 2005 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Go Fig wrote:
In article , Mxsmanic wrote: nitram writes: UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games. Since the Olympics are always a net loss, you have to try to link them to something, no matter how bogus. This is how it works in practise, first comes the appeal to 'civic pride' then it's the 'needed' gentrification... a new roadway, new airport, new subway... then its the stadiums and all they bring and finally they float the idea that people when be coming to your city for the next 20 years because of what they saw "Games". Well, people will stlll be coming to London, Paris, Madrid, NYC or Moscow. They're hardly out of the way destinations. I don't see your point. The regeneration in Manchester just because of the _Commonwealth_ Games was pretty significant, and proved a real boost to the city. -- David Horne- www.davidhorne.net usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Go Fig wrote: In article , Mxsmanic wrote: nitram writes: UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games. Since the Olympics are always a net loss, you have to try to link them to something, no matter how bogus. This is how it works in practise, first comes the appeal to 'civic pride' then it's the 'needed' gentrification... a new roadway, new airport, new subway... then its the stadiums and all they bring and finally they float the idea that people when be coming to your city for the next 20 years because of what they saw "Games". jay Fri Jun 03, 2005 That would pretty much write off both London & Paris. I doubt that either would see much benefit from additional exposure. The left over facilities if they can get the rest of the country or even the EU to pay for them they might like. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Frank F.
Matthews wrote: Go Fig wrote: In article , Mxsmanic wrote: nitram writes: UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games. Since the Olympics are always a net loss, you have to try to link them to something, no matter how bogus. This is how it works in practise, first comes the appeal to 'civic pride' then it's the 'needed' gentrification... a new roadway, new airport, new subway... then its the stadiums and all they bring and finally they float the idea that people when be coming to your city for the next 20 years because of what they saw "Games". jay Fri Jun 03, 2005 That would pretty much write off both London & Paris. I doubt that either would see much benefit from additional exposure. How would you rate Los Angeles, seen daily in movies and TV around the entire world, for benefiting from additional exposure compared to London or Paris ? The left over facilities if they can get the rest of the country or even the EU to pay for them they might like. They will tell you corporations will underwrite much of the predicted costs, their are rumors a sports franchise will move because of your new stadium and your entire downtown will be gentrified by private investment to boot... but history shows its the taxpayers that will carry the load... let those local taxpayers vote on it. jay Fri Jun 03, 2005 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Guardian: Paris for a day | Kuacou | Europe | 8 | February 25th, 2005 11:10 AM |
RER and bus tariffs in Paris and around | Giovanni Drogo | Europe | 2 | February 23rd, 2004 08:18 PM |
need advice on european itinerary | sean | Europe | 7 | February 9th, 2004 03:12 PM |
American Restaurant in Paris | Earl Evleth | Europe | 387 | December 22nd, 2003 07:59 PM |
Paris metro: Carte Orange Vs Paris Visite | Eugene | Europe | 27 | October 17th, 2003 02:32 PM |