Paris the world's choice for the 2012 Olympics

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

In article , says...
On 2/06/05 22:29, in article ,
"Runge" wrote:

next topic will be Paris restrooms tested by e and d evleth

Another job might be to some non-reactive original postings, Grunge.
You are a reactive poster, and lack originality.

As opposed to the dazzling inventiveness and originality of someone who
copies and pastes news stories into Usenet posts..?

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.

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