London Olympics

By the way, and not knowing your particular perspective on whether it's good
news or not :^), congrats to our British friends for being selected the
Olympic host for 2012.

I like nothing more than a come-from-behind-victory!

Hardly! London and Paris have been the front-runners for ages.

I wonder when I can book tickets. 2010? Last went to the Olympics in 1972
(Munich).

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Ross Garrett" > wrote in message
...
[...]
>
> I like nothing more than a come-from-behind-victory!
>

"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
> Hardly! London and Paris have been the front-runners for ages.

Maybe in UK, but the rest of the world was convinced Paris had this thing in
the bag. This is a massive surprise, not that London beat out NY, Moscow,
Madrid, but that they beat out Paris. Given that France hasn't seen this
thing since, what the 1920's, and that the games are essentially the idea of
a Frenchman, it is a total shock that the games went Anglo-Saxon
again....first.

Truth is: Paris deserved it. And there is probably more than a slice of
political bull**** responsible for denying them. London was the safe choice.

But congrats to London. I think the UK is a wonderful place to host the
games.

In article >,
Ross Garrett > wrote:
> Truth is: Paris deserved it. And there is probably more than a slice of
> political bull**** responsible for denying them. London was the safe
> choice.

> But congrats to London. I think the UK is a wonderful place to host the
> games.

Certainly the area in East London where they intend to have the majority
of the facilities is pretty run down and with poor transport links, so
well ready for some serious investment.

--
*No husband has ever been shot while doing the dishes *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...

> Certainly the area in East London where they intend to have the majority
> of the facilities is pretty run down and with poor transport links, so
> well ready for some serious investment.

Which is one of the things the IOC looks for. They want a city transformed
after the games. A legacy of improvement, to some degree, resulting from the
games. And I think that hurt Paris a bit since they already had some of the
major infrastructure in place.

I read somewhere that the French presentation, in regard to their ability
and commitment to organizing a games for the world rather than glorifying
France, ended with the words: "you can trust France, you can trust us".

Boy, my thought is if you have to actually say it, them maybe you yourself
aren't convinced. The IOC has said the difference in the bids came down to
the voting day presentations. I don't buy that fully, but that's what they
have said.

I'm just glad they didn't come here. It'd just be more criticism of the US,
and the American way of life, no matter what we did. It's better we don't
spend a pile of money just to add fodder for the anti-Americanism so
fashionable in the world today.

Ross Garrett wrote:
> By the way, and not knowing your particular perspective on whether it's good
> news or not :^), congrats to our British friends for being selected the
> Olympic host for 2012.
>
> I like nothing more than a come-from-behind-victory!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In that case, it should have been in Greece again...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

-Fred W

This will save money to lotta French people who won't get any benefit from
the olympic games !
I mean anybody who hasn't a company or a shop or involved in related
business.

OTOH, let see what happened in Grenoble Dec. 1968. Lots of small villages
made public loans and spent huge amounts of money. The consequence is that
they went into bankrupt and the installations are still rusting if not
destroyed ten years later. People had to pay for.
Good luck to the rosbifs !


"Ross Garrett" > a écrit dans le message
news: ...
>
> "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hardly! London and Paris have been the front-runners for ages.
>
> Maybe in UK, but the rest of the world was convinced Paris had this thing
in
> the bag. This is a massive surprise, not that London beat out NY, Moscow,
> Madrid, but that they beat out Paris. Given that France hasn't seen this
> thing since, what the 1920's, and that the games are essentially the idea
of
> a Frenchman, it is a total shock that the games went Anglo-Saxon
> again....first.
>
> Truth is: Paris deserved it. And there is probably more than a slice of
> political bull**** responsible for denying them. London was the safe
choice.
>
> But congrats to London. I think the UK is a wonderful place to host the
> games.
>
>

"Pierre" > wrote in message
...
> This will save money to lotta French people who won't get any benefit from
> the olympic games !
> I mean anybody who hasn't a company or a shop or involved in related
> business.
>
> OTOH, let see what happened in Grenoble Dec. 1968. Lots of small villages
> made public loans and spent huge amounts of money. The consequence is that
> they went into bankrupt and the installations are still rusting if not
> destroyed ten years later. People had to pay for.
> Good luck to the rosbifs !
>

Taken from BBC News website:

"News of London's victory delighted flag-waving supporters who had gathered
in Trafalgar Square and Stratford in the East End of London, where the new
Olympic park will be built.

Shares of British construction companies soared, while mortgage lenders
predicted house prices in the capital would rocket.

But raindrops began falling on disappointed Parisians outside the Hotel de
Ville in the French capital shortly after the result. "

In article >,
Ross Garrett > wrote:
> > Certainly the area in East London where they intend to have the
> > majority of the facilities is pretty run down and with poor transport
> > links, so well ready for some serious investment.

> Which is one of the things the IOC looks for. They want a city
> transformed after the games. A legacy of improvement, to some degree,
> resulting from the games. And I think that hurt Paris a bit since they
> already had some of the major infrastructure in place.

I dunno Paris that well - especially the suburbs - but the problem with
London is that the majority of it (and suburbs) is old with narrow streets
already at capacity traffic wise. So the only sensible way forward is with
good public transport links - underground or overground. Because although
you could provide decent roads round the Olympic development, there's no
way the public would allow major demolition in the rest of London to link
them to motorways, etc.

Although a certified car nut, I use public transport when I need to go
into central London, or visit a suburb on the other side. It's faster and
of course you don't have to find a parking space - or pay for it.

--
*I used up all my sick days so I called in dead

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...

> Although a certified car nut, I use public transport when I need to go
> into central London, or visit a suburb on the other side. It's faster and
> of course you don't have to find a parking space - or pay for it.


I have been dieing for good public transport, other than buses, for use here
in Denver. We have a light rail system but it doesn't yet travel the I-25
corridor of the city. I live just south of Denver in Greenwood Village and
we should have our light rail leg up and running sometime in 2006. I will
certainly use to to get to hockey, football and soccer games. Taking a car
on I-25 to any of those venues can be a pain.

It's been close to 6 years now they have been widening the highway and
adding light rails and all I think it has done is keep up with the growth. I
don't suspect it will render a faster safer drive than we had 5 years ago
when the city had fewer people. So the public transport will probably be a
better option than the highway, even with it's new added lanes. For US
cities, if they haven't thought ahead, it becomes awfully hard to catch-up,
unless the city isn't growing...which presents a whole other host of
problems.