It's London!

[Provost Harrison]

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by paiktis22
The costs actually werent so much if you think that such costs as new metro extensions, tram lines, a rather attractive Athens facelift and a brand new bridge in.... Peloponese were included.

I was actually thinking along the same lines. You can't just look at an outlay/direct revenue comparison, you have to factor in lasting improvements that may have been done to facilitate the Games. Granted, not every place gets all or even any of these benefits, but if they do come, they can mean a lot. I look at Vancouver's upcoming 2010 Winter Games, for example. For it, they are going to build a new rapid transit line from the airport to downtown, improve the highway to Whistler and redevelop part of south False Creek. These are all things that need to be done badly and have been talked about for years, but would never have actually happened had they not gotten the kick in the ass in the form of the Olympics. Once the Games are gone, these things will still be around and very useful.

Similarly, Toronto's failed 2008 bid called for a massive redevolpment of completely derelict port lands. Once they lost the bid, all these plans were shelved indefinitely. It would have been a huge benefit to the city as a whole if these improvements could have been made.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
What does the expression "dizzied our eros" mean?

Ah, that's one of my favorite expressions as well
How can I expain.... I'll try.
I will assume you already know what eros means. It's love/infatuation/coup de foudre quoi.

You have dizzied our eros, means something like you have tired our balls, it's when one goes blah blah blaaaaaaaaaah about something, and it's such a drag and you just say quite dizzying my eros. change your tune, quit boring me.

[Bereta_Eder]

So let's say you love a girl right?
And you are in love with her.
So if she goes nag nag nag all the time she is dizzying your eros. That goood feeling

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

I agree. I would have laughed my ass off as well if we had lost to anybody but the bloody rosbifs

[Provost Harrison]

*bump*

I think it is a shame that we are only focussing on the bad things that happen but forget the rest. So, how much is this whole bleeding thing going to cost us? *grumble, grumble*

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
*bump*

I think it is a shame that we are only focussing on the bad things that happen but forget the rest. So, how much is this whole bleeding thing going to cost us? *grumble, grumble*

Well the value of my bijou residence in the East End has risen, thanks.

And anything that improves Stratford and Leytonstone is fine by me.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Kontiki


I was actually thinking along the same lines. You can't just look at an outlay/direct revenue comparison, you have to factor in lasting improvements that may have been done to facilitate the Games. Granted, not every place gets all or even any of these benefits, but if they do come, they can mean a lot. I look at Vancouver's upcoming 2010 Winter Games, for example. For it, they are going to build a new rapid transit line from the airport to downtown, improve the highway to Whistler and redevelop part of south False Creek. These are all things that need to be done badly and have been talked about for years, but would never have actually happened had they not gotten the kick in the ass in the form of the Olympics. Once the Games are gone, these things will still be around and very useful.

Similarly, Toronto's failed 2008 bid called for a massive redevolpment of completely derelict port lands. Once they lost the bid, all these plans were shelved indefinitely. It would have been a huge benefit to the city as a whole if these improvements could have been made.

Perhaps the redevelopment of the port lands wasn't worth it in the first place and that's why it wasn't done. I agree that a profit/loss shouldn't be the only factor to look at, but it's a very good place to start in orienting your thinking. Using the olympics as an excuse to misinvest public funds doesn't seem like a good way of governing. Likewise, if the investment is a good one, you shouldn't need the olympics in order to make it happen.

(This is coming from someone who is supportive of infrastructure spending generally.)

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by DanS


Perhaps the redevelopment of the port lands wasn't worth it in the first place and that's why it wasn't done. I agree that a profit/loss shouldn't be the only factor to look at, but it's a very good place to start in orienting your thinking. Using the olympics as an excuse to misinvest public funds doesn't seem like a good way of governing. Likewise, if the investment is a good one, you shouldn't need the olympics in order to make it happen.

(This is coming from someone who is supportive of infrastructure spending generally.)

In Toronto, it's way more complicated than something being "worth it". We have had so much bureaucratic gridlock over the port lands, it's rediculous. The area is controlled by a motley assortment of municipal, provincial (I think) and federal agencies and no one seems to want to work with anyone else. Add in to the mix the issue of what type of development. There has been a commission set up for a number of years on how best to develop the land, but every interested party keeps changing their mind. Not to mention that Toronto has a history of brutal development and a completely impotent planning board. The Olympics would have forced all the parties to come together, put a plan in place (they had one) and take action on it. Now that there's no time constraints (and no venues to be built) , everyone wants more out of their piece of the pie with less responsibility.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by DanS


Perhaps the redevelopment of the port lands wasn't worth it in the first place and that's why it wasn't done. I agree that a profit/loss shouldn't be the only factor to look at, but it's a very good place to start in orienting your thinking. Using the olympics as an excuse to misinvest public funds doesn't seem like a good way of governing. Likewise, if the investment is a good one, you shouldn't need the olympics in order to make it happen.

(This is coming from someone who is supportive of infrastructure spending generally.)

Docklands redevelopement was a flop to begin with but now the area has developed into a major financial area...so don't knock it just yet.

[Provost Harrison]

And anything that improves Stratford and Leytonstone is fine by me.

Aerial bombardment?