Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
(nb - this is for the 2012 olympics)
not paying that to get in
for getting sarky fit enough for the women's rowing team.
hope they've got an emergency reserve fund
go fuck yourself.
How I laugh at Londoners
outside the GLC is marvellous.
won't somebody please think of the children?!
britain shouldn't be trusted with this sort of thing, we're too lazy to do it right
but only after quadrupling the budget and postponing it 5 times.
the olympics is pointless. if i wanted to watch amateurs playing i'd watch the shit teams in the cricket world cup and then get setanta and watch gaelic football.
[note to self: go home and watch the cricket then get setanta so as to watch gaelic football]
We did pick it specifically to give a reason to do up NE London so it's possible that the direct cost isn't entirely accurate compared to money we should have spent there ages ago in any case.
"money we should have spent there ages ago"
what do you mean?
for a very neglected area.
can regenerate itself. just relax planning regulations ...
and if we're going to start bidding for the olympics to 'regenerate' areas, presumably hartlepool will be bidding at some point in the near future?
people building what they want where they want isn't 'regeneration'...
what regeneration means, then ....
smartening up parks and things?
building new attractive buildings which will benefit the local community?
I don't claim to be an expert, but that's what I would think regenerating an area means, and it seems like a good thing to put money in to.
I don't want them smartened up!
in the worst parts of london could be rectified by demolishing old buildings and relaxing the rules on building on the land ... the demand for space in in London is so immense, that I would have thought it's capable of regenerating itself.
As for building things of benefit to "the community", I really don't know what kind of buildings these would be. leisure centres? Either way, I don't see why Londoners should be made a national priority in that way when there are equally pressing needs in other parts of the country.
also - see the millenium dome and all the supposed amazing regeneration that was meant to bring. sorry, what? it didn't? oh yeah.
don't think any of these things are in London's interest.
You constantly hear that one of London's biggest problems is the scarcity of affordable homes and yet so much land is taken up with things like the Dome and the new Wembley etc.
wouldn't the site of Wembley have been ideal for building affordable homes?
regeneration is more about creating jobs in quangos & local authorities than anything else ....
if you allowed london to sprawl all over the entire south east, there would be plenty of affordable homes.
but obviously nobody wants that to happen.
planning laws, there wouldn't be a problem with affordability.
there would be all sorts of other problems, but affordability wouldn't be one of them...
basically what happens anyway.
the new king's cross development is a perfect example of this - over 2,000 new homes are being built, and about 40% will be sold as "affordable" properties, the rest being sold off by developers for probably £250,000+.
via taxes. So I don't know what you mean by a 'national priority'.
All I mean is that area is fairly underfunded. Hackney's one of or possibly THE poorest borough in London so a regeneration, i.e. the building of public buildings like leisure-centres, yes, is a good idea.
Regeneration is not just knocking down everything and letting big Thatcherite coporations come in and build housing estates for yummy mummies with locked fencing, as you seem to believe.
to the needs of the community innit (schools, parks, amenities). You can't just whack up an apartment block and expect it to solve problems, regeneration needs careful planning to make it work.
think that all the costs will be met by London taxpayers in the end? I am certain that won't be the case.
And, like i said in another post, I think london's biggest problem is that it's an expensive place to live if you have a low income. Cramming it full of national projects makes the problem worse and so, frankly, i'm not that sympathetic...
We fucking DESERVE some extra money.
There are some facilities that remain. Man City play in the stadium. erm ... that's it really...
and that big swimming pool
and the bus station
and that square in the city centreI'm sure that was all to do with the Commonwealth Games?
swimming pool was to be built anyway.
i don't know what square you mean....
it looks a bit like East Germany and it's near the train station and fat kids paddle in fountains?
that was done ages ago ... and was a catastrophe. how would you feel in manchester unleashed something like that on london?
I thought that was quite new though, my mistake.
It is new. It was created in the aftermath of the IRA bomb in 1995, though it took bloody ages.
The Corn Exchange was awesome before, like a big building full of Camden Lock but afterwards they filled it with shit chain shops.
know what the corn exchange is, frankly.
but squirrel is talking about piccadilly gardens
I didn't notice the fountains, though last time I was there I think they still had that bloody funfair parked on top of it. :D
I think a lot of it was a general desire to improve the city.
Also they could technically be thought of as for the Olympics in 2000 since they were bidding for that too.
what do you mean by 'underfunded'?
because my friend (die-hard Manc I'd like to point out) moved down to London and then joined a lobbying group whose sole aim was to get London the funding it deserved from the Government.
The fact is that compared to the number of people who live here, the amount of money London gets is less than the rest of the country tends to get. However, people are so prejudiced against London that it's hard to get it more funding as it's obviously quite unpopular with areas outside London.
say 'London' what do you mean? You mean London boroughs? Don't they tend to be wealthier than their provincial counterparts because people pay more council tax?
as a whole city (as I understood it). I believe it was connected to the GLA but yeah, the boroughs presumably get stuff from the government.
I'm not really sure about the individual Council Tax payments. You would have to find a list somewhere. But it sounds more like you have a chip on your shoulder about London but no evidence to back it up, to me.
You can't compare a London borough directly with somewhere in the wilds of Yorkshire because the amount of use of things like dustcarts, streetsweeping, etc. is totally different.
having a chip on my shoulder ... that's ridiculous. i love london and hope to move there.
i'm saying that it's a bad thing for britain to spend such a huge amount of money on trying to make such a dysfunctional city work. if you could quantify an operational capacity for every city in the UK, London operates beyond its whereas there is enormous unused capacity (in terms of office space, affordable house, transport infastructure) in the provincial cities.
It would be in london's interests to decentralise things like government and to share national projects with the rest of the country, in order to reduce the demands placed upon to it to a more sustainable level, I think. Does that make sense?
that all makes sense. But they'd need money for that still, wouldn't they? They can't just change the laws and build new buildings without any funding, so I thought that's what the government was doing.
Yes, the buildings for the community will be things like swimming pools and sports halls won't they - it's the Olympics!
I don't think London is particularly a priority more than other places, there are regeneration projects all over, aren't there? Just London is big enough to host the Olympics...
would be more efficient if it didn't hog national things, is basically my point. There'd be more room for homes if Wembley was in Birmingham and more office space to let if the Civil Service was in, i dunno, Leeds...
not sure I buy it though. Decentralisation is a nice idea, it's good that lots of the BBC is moving to Manchester and stuff because it means people aren't forced into moving for London for opportunities.
But if Wembley was in Birmingham, there'd be less rooms for homes in Birmingham, wouldn't there! They'd have to knock some down, in fact. Where could they put it?
reading that birmingham has something like 80,000 empty homes ...
but if it's true, I would imagine they're not all together, so you'd have to force people to move house before bulldozing their estates!
the birmingham bid for the national stadium was for a site near the NEC, so it was to be built on unoccupied land anyway...
sorry, I just thought this was your suggestion. That would have been a good idea then, yes.
Absolutely none. I think the Gherkin is still half-empty even now. Tonnes of it around all over the place.
existing office space would become cheaper if supply was more plentiful...
It'll be at different prices because of location and the building.
I know there's no shortage of office space because we have an entire building standing empty at knock-down rates because you can't shift it.
i should fuck off to russia really. or maybe iran
you should do your dissertation ? :p
*shuts door behind him*
about the same as a single tube fare will be in 2012, ha ha ha
be on Have I Got News For You. That post was just the tip of my satirical iceberg.
I bet they have really good bands at rota in 2012 and there's no way I'm moving to Notting Hill.
I'm sure you'll still be able to sneak onto buses.
or i might just change my password to some random typings and bin my computer...
is to go to RoTa.
So what if it costs us money? We have a woeful lack of sporting facilities in the UK. Sheffield benefitted a little from the World Student games in the 90's, and Manchester from the Commonwealth Games a few years back.
why not let London have one now?
And in terms of the money, if it was £9bn being put into improving the music facilities and venues around London, I'm fairly sure you lot would be lining up to say how good an idea it is.
i probably wouldn't to be fair...
ludicrous sum of money
he's an arbitration lawyer for building disputes and site management issues and his company has the exclusive contract for all 2012 olympics-related gubbins
job's a gooddun!
compare with the costs of other olympic games?
i got espana '92 on the amiga for £24.99
i want a real answer. Everytime this thread gets bumped, i excitedly have a look, hoping that someone will have answered my question, but i'm always painfully disappointed.
apparently past olypics cost as follows:
Barcelona - £8.1bn
Atlanta - £1.5bn
Sydney - £2.5bn
Athens - £3.9bn
I've no idea what Beijing is costing but i gather it's quite a lot
ours is costing lots because we have to build loads of stuff. if you've built the stuff before, you don't need to buy it again, and the cost isn't in the statistics. suspect this is why atlants was so comparatively cheap. they have big fuck-off 'football' and baseball stadia and massive roads and stuff in americay
each host nation to be allowed to introduce a new guest sport, at which they will proceed to pwn all comers.
we'd still lose.
We hate losing at sports, but when the government says 'let's invest some money and build some sports facilities', everyone says 'Money? ohhhh no. What a waste!'
It's ridiculous. GB used to be GREAT at swimming (which used to be my big sport when i was younger), and now we get whooped by Australia.
Australia has more Olympic sized pools in ONE place - their academy - than we have in the south of England.
Dire. That's why we can't win at anything.
i was just interested to know how much olympic games cost in general. Hearing figures like £9bn doesn't really mean a lot to me unless it's in some context - for all i knew that could be 10x more expensive, or cheaper, than other games.
Barcelona stands out in that list though. £8.1bn in 1992 = a whole fuckload of money in 2007.
still a big fat waste of money
i hate sports and i hate the olympics.
they should pay me for having to put up with fucking stupid sports on every channel constantly while it goes on.
...well hardly any
it just annoyed me last time.
for all your non-sporting needs :-)
best website ever....
and just, television is a waste of time
apparently the extra money isn't going to be paid for through london council tax increases! yay.