Go London!
July 6, 2005 5:01 AM Subscribe
Woohoo! Well deserved and I look forward to seeing the benefits it will bring to east London.
Bad luck Paris, commiserations...
(I had great pleasure watching their smug arrogant faces fall..)
posted by Meccabilly at 5:04 AM on July 6, 2005
Bad luck Paris, commiserations...
(I had great pleasure watching their smug arrogant faces fall..)
posted by Meccabilly at 5:04 AM on July 6, 2005
Sorry, not much context, well-researched history, etc., but I think this is exciting news...
vbfg - hehe
posted by altolinguistic at 5:04 AM on July 6, 2005
vbfg - hehe
posted by altolinguistic at 5:04 AM on July 6, 2005
Let me just reiterate how glad I am it's not coming to NYC. Not that we don't want you, Rest of the World, but the traffic! You understand.
posted by Eideteker at 5:06 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by Eideteker at 5:06 AM on July 6, 2005
This is excellent news. The one thing the olympics will do is improve some of the more run down areas of London. I lived in Barcelona for two years and as a direct result of hosting the games, many areas of the city underwent dramatic infrastructure improvements.
posted by bap98189 at 5:09 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by bap98189 at 5:09 AM on July 6, 2005
As a New Yorker, I am extremely, extremely pleased by this news. Oh, there will still be useless arguments over outer borough stadiums, but at least they'll restore the weird clock in above the Virgin Megastore in Union Square.
posted by incomple at 5:10 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by incomple at 5:10 AM on July 6, 2005
Great news. This will do wonders for the regeneration of a significant portion of London, and provide thousands of jobs in the process. But more importantly - WE BEAT THE FRENCH! 'avit indeed!
posted by chill at 5:10 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by chill at 5:10 AM on July 6, 2005
I agree Eideteker, most New Yorkers I know will be happy its not coming to NYC.
posted by R. Mutt at 5:10 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by R. Mutt at 5:10 AM on July 6, 2005
I'd like to be fly on the wall when Chirac and Blair meet this afternoon...
posted by johnny novak at 5:12 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by johnny novak at 5:12 AM on July 6, 2005
New York's billionaire land developers miss out on the chance to become trillionaire land developers. This is a sad day for America, indeed.
posted by solipse at 5:12 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by solipse at 5:12 AM on July 6, 2005
I'd like to be fly on the wall when Chirac and Blair meet this afternoon...
Cry me a river Paris...
posted by Meccabilly at 5:13 AM on July 6, 2005
Cry me a river Paris...
posted by Meccabilly at 5:13 AM on July 6, 2005
So what do you folks think this will do to Shadwell / Whitechapel?
I bought a property down there in late 2001, and I've almost had enough of the gritty, in your face urban experience that is East London.
I realise that they'll be putting in some new rail links and other facilities, but what's the general feeling about overall improvement for folks that will be living there after the party's over? I mean quality of life, not just property values.
posted by Mutant at 5:21 AM on July 6, 2005
I bought a property down there in late 2001, and I've almost had enough of the gritty, in your face urban experience that is East London.
I realise that they'll be putting in some new rail links and other facilities, but what's the general feeling about overall improvement for folks that will be living there after the party's over? I mean quality of life, not just property values.
posted by Mutant at 5:21 AM on July 6, 2005
As a Parisian, I am soooo pleased about this. (I'm also pleased to see Chirac with a little more jam on his face).
posted by TimothyMason at 5:22 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by TimothyMason at 5:22 AM on July 6, 2005
Amen, NinjaPirate.
Maybe the Olympics are actually worthwhile in person, but stateside, it's just one massive media whorefest. To hell with the Olympics - the IOC's flushed it down the drain.
posted by Floach at 5:22 AM on July 6, 2005
Maybe the Olympics are actually worthwhile in person, but stateside, it's just one massive media whorefest. To hell with the Olympics - the IOC's flushed it down the drain.
posted by Floach at 5:22 AM on July 6, 2005
Ninjapirate, I thought twice, but I think this is definitely worth discussing. Perhaps the link isn't 'best of the web' but the ensuing discussion has the opportunity of being just that. You don't have to watch.
posted by altolinguistic at 5:30 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by altolinguistic at 5:30 AM on July 6, 2005
This probably isn't good news for those of us who rent in the Hackney area.
/obligatory grumpy British reaction
posted by flashboy at 5:30 AM on July 6, 2005
/obligatory grumpy British reaction
posted by flashboy at 5:30 AM on July 6, 2005
Like Jackson trial, I happy finally over this is. /Putin English
posted by swift at 5:34 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by swift at 5:34 AM on July 6, 2005
Indeed, I dread to think what's going to happen to the Hackney rental market. In fact, I don't think this is really going to help London's housing market megainflation one little bit. Bedsit in Walthamstow for £700k anyone?
posted by influx at 5:37 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by influx at 5:37 AM on July 6, 2005
I look forward to seeing the benefits it will bring to east London.
Really? Do you have any basis for thinking that the Olympics have brought actual "benefits" to anyone anywhere other than contractors and politicians? As far as I know, ordinary taxpaying citizens always wind up getting screwed.
As for NYC, what Eideteker, incomple, and others said. It would have been awful for the city.
posted by languagehat at 5:40 AM on July 6, 2005
Really? Do you have any basis for thinking that the Olympics have brought actual "benefits" to anyone anywhere other than contractors and politicians? As far as I know, ordinary taxpaying citizens always wind up getting screwed.
As for NYC, what Eideteker, incomple, and others said. It would have been awful for the city.
posted by languagehat at 5:40 AM on July 6, 2005
I shouldn't be so frustrated, altolinguistic. I apologise.
I realise you took a quarter of an hour out after the official announcement in order to frame the post and add some interesting context. Thanks.
posted by NinjaPirate at 5:47 AM on July 6, 2005
I realise you took a quarter of an hour out after the official announcement in order to frame the post and add some interesting context. Thanks.
posted by NinjaPirate at 5:47 AM on July 6, 2005
Yeah, Languagehat, but at least for a few weeks the tube might run on time...
posted by flameproof at 5:48 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by flameproof at 5:48 AM on July 6, 2005
The IOC figured out you can't trust a people who think their cooking is so much better than everyone else's.
posted by kcds at 5:49 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by kcds at 5:49 AM on July 6, 2005
From the Daily News: We Weren't Even Close.
</Noo Yawk Filter>
posted by Eideteker at 5:54 AM on July 6, 2005
</Noo Yawk Filter>
posted by Eideteker at 5:54 AM on July 6, 2005
The IOC figured out you can't trust a people who think their cooking is so much better than everyone else's.
Well, then, no wonder they went with the British. :)
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:56 AM on July 6, 2005
Well, then, no wonder they went with the British. :)
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:56 AM on July 6, 2005
...most New Yorkers I know will be happy its not coming to NYC.
Count me as one of them--i'm thrilled it's not coming here. I guess we didn't bribe them enough this time? ; >
The benefits are totally debatable about hosting. If the housing helps locals afterwards, that's something tho. I've read that most cities don't see real benefits--only costs.
posted by amberglow at 5:59 AM on July 6, 2005
Count me as one of them--i'm thrilled it's not coming here. I guess we didn't bribe them enough this time? ; >
The benefits are totally debatable about hosting. If the housing helps locals afterwards, that's something tho. I've read that most cities don't see real benefits--only costs.
posted by amberglow at 5:59 AM on July 6, 2005
Tsk, and I thought the Miss Liberty in blueish-grey paint was such a stylish presentation, hmm, it was reason enough to give it to NYC.
(Poor woman, imagine being painted head to toe and having to keep your arm in that position for hours. A true testament to the American spirit of self-sacrifice...)
posted by funambulist at 6:01 AM on July 6, 2005
(Poor woman, imagine being painted head to toe and having to keep your arm in that position for hours. A true testament to the American spirit of self-sacrifice...)
posted by funambulist at 6:01 AM on July 6, 2005
Add me to the happy-it-aint-here-in-NYC. The world already comes here, but in bits and pieces.
And those outer borough stadiums? Not meaningless arguments at all, not in the heart of Brooklyn, where Ratner aims to use eminent domain to secure enough land to screw up our smalltown/bigcity world
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 6:02 AM on July 6, 2005
And those outer borough stadiums? Not meaningless arguments at all, not in the heart of Brooklyn, where Ratner aims to use eminent domain to secure enough land to screw up our smalltown/bigcity world
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 6:02 AM on July 6, 2005
The cost of hosting the Olympic Games is more than US$1 billion higher than expected and the rewards less than Greece had hoped for, Greece's new finance minister said in an interview published Sunday.
posted by amberglow at 6:03 AM on July 6, 2005
As someone from Montreal, I'll congratulate the non-winning cities for having dodged that bullet...
posted by clevershark at 6:04 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by clevershark at 6:04 AM on July 6, 2005
"July 6 is President Bush's birthday, and I know what I am going to get him..." - Roland Betts
The Olympic Games is not a partisan birthday present, asshat! Choke on it...!
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:06 AM on July 6, 2005
The Olympic Games is not a partisan birthday present, asshat! Choke on it...!
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:06 AM on July 6, 2005
Jeez guys, possibly the most negative thread I've had the displeasure of reading in while. Cheer up for for fecks sake.
posted by MintSauce at 6:08 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by MintSauce at 6:08 AM on July 6, 2005
An unexpected benefit of the games in East London that I've only just been made aware of: All the moaning students clogging up bedsits in E17 & the like will get flushed out. Score!
The world already comes here, but in bits and pieces.
As it does London & Paris. The simple reason that NYC can't hold the games is that it's an overly-aggressive dump that can't organise itself. Fun place to visit tho'...
posted by i_cola at 6:08 AM on July 6, 2005
The world already comes here, but in bits and pieces.
As it does London & Paris. The simple reason that NYC can't hold the games is that it's an overly-aggressive dump that can't organise itself. Fun place to visit tho'...
posted by i_cola at 6:08 AM on July 6, 2005
Gah: I'm annoyed. more taxes, more tourists. Yes it will be nice to improve the transport... but if they've got the money to do that, why not just do it? Why build a bunch of pointless velodromes and stuff too?
Bloody useless French. I was sure they'd get it. How the hell did they manage to lose to us, even though our transport sucks, we don't have a stadium, we can't build stadia and everyone hates us for Iraq?
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:12 AM on July 6, 2005
Bloody useless French. I was sure they'd get it. How the hell did they manage to lose to us, even though our transport sucks, we don't have a stadium, we can't build stadia and everyone hates us for Iraq?
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:12 AM on July 6, 2005
clevershark, I come from Athens and I totally agree with you. Although, I really enjoyed the Games and the whole atmosphere of the city at the time....
posted by carmina at 6:19 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by carmina at 6:19 AM on July 6, 2005
I thought Paris would get it too. They have more room (open/greenspace-wise) to build stadiums and stuff, and their metro already goes all over and doesn't need to be expanded for it.
Maybe they sabotaged their own bid? I can't imagine most Parisians wanted the hassle, just like most of us didn't want it.
posted by amberglow at 6:22 AM on July 6, 2005
Maybe they sabotaged their own bid? I can't imagine most Parisians wanted the hassle, just like most of us didn't want it.
posted by amberglow at 6:22 AM on July 6, 2005
Maybe I'm sad about my town, Paris , but anyway I love London too and it's only 3 hours and 70 euros, by train, from here.
Bonne chance Londres, I'm sure it will be a big fiesta !!!
and one more thing, ( the small cherry on the top of the cake ), Chirac tonight at the airport in Scotland with Tony !
Maybe He don't like the Haggis...
posted by luis huiton at 6:22 AM on July 6, 2005
Bonne chance Londres, I'm sure it will be a big fiesta !!!
and one more thing, ( the small cherry on the top of the cake ), Chirac tonight at the airport in Scotland with Tony !
Maybe He don't like the Haggis...
posted by luis huiton at 6:22 AM on July 6, 2005
I agree, most negative whiney thread ever: it's great that London got the games, and I'm sure they'll do a great job hosting them. Congrats London!
posted by zeoslap at 6:23 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by zeoslap at 6:23 AM on July 6, 2005
Congratulations, NYC.
Like the USA needs to host another Olympics. This is a first time for London and the UK, no?
Los Angeles could probably use a third go at it though. That whole area is getting pretty damn beat down.
posted by loquacious at 6:25 AM on July 6, 2005
Like the USA needs to host another Olympics. This is a first time for London and the UK, no?
Los Angeles could probably use a third go at it though. That whole area is getting pretty damn beat down.
posted by loquacious at 6:25 AM on July 6, 2005
you can't trust a people who think their cooking is so much better than everyone else's.
Applebee's employee?
posted by pwedza at 6:25 AM on July 6, 2005
Applebee's employee?
posted by pwedza at 6:25 AM on July 6, 2005
This is a first time for London and the UK, no?
Third for London, it's just been a very long time. Last one was in 1946.
posted by vbfg at 6:28 AM on July 6, 2005
Third for London, it's just been a very long time. Last one was in 1946.
posted by vbfg at 6:28 AM on July 6, 2005
As a self-employed creative living in east London, I do wonder what the implications will be. People like myself come to this region for the slightly cheaper housing and concentration of creative outlets - Whitechapel Art Gallery, various bits and pieces around Brick Lane, Shoreditch, etc.
Spitalfields Market is one of the area's biggest attractions, creating something distinctive and unique in this end of the city. After many years, this is about to be destroyed by the arrival of Top Shop and Dorothy Perkins. Change was inevitable, but the homogeneity that money brings will reshape the city irreversibly - with various benefits and disadvantages. My hope is that the city planners will keep the vibrancy and identity alive while addressing the pressing socioeconomic problems. No easy task, I grant you.
i_cola: Slagging off students is easy. It's worth keeping in mind, for example, that the student jewelers who study in east London make a very important and direct contribution to one of the country's proudest creative industries.
posted by Kiell at 6:30 AM on July 6, 2005
Spitalfields Market is one of the area's biggest attractions, creating something distinctive and unique in this end of the city. After many years, this is about to be destroyed by the arrival of Top Shop and Dorothy Perkins. Change was inevitable, but the homogeneity that money brings will reshape the city irreversibly - with various benefits and disadvantages. My hope is that the city planners will keep the vibrancy and identity alive while addressing the pressing socioeconomic problems. No easy task, I grant you.
i_cola: Slagging off students is easy. It's worth keeping in mind, for example, that the student jewelers who study in east London make a very important and direct contribution to one of the country's proudest creative industries.
posted by Kiell at 6:30 AM on July 6, 2005
Stereotypes and Francophobia notwithstanding, a lot of average French people do and don't care about this, just like you do. The ones who do care are really upset since Paris was considered ahead on June 5 and it was on the homestretch that British lobbying (Blair met with 30 ICO members in the last 48 hours and visited 13 countries where ICO members are from; his wife, Sheryl, was sent to meet as well with members; and Seb Coe was a great lobbier as well). Whether all this is kosher or not, and Olympian in esprit, is a bigger question. But what's certain is that France has just lost 3 bids in a row (1992, '08, '12) and given their excellence in hosting the World Championships in Track and Field in '03 and other huge sporting events like the Tour de France, people who care about sports are bummed and deflated.
London had a great dossier, so it should be a great games. But, it's been suggested that they used the serendiptity of Blair winning his 3rd term, hosting the G8 in Gleneagles, being just named President of the EU for 6 months and the huge moral victory he got from France's defeat of the ratification of the EU Constitution to convince jury members that London is the future and Paris the past.
posted by faux ami at 6:33 AM on July 6, 2005
London had a great dossier, so it should be a great games. But, it's been suggested that they used the serendiptity of Blair winning his 3rd term, hosting the G8 in Gleneagles, being just named President of the EU for 6 months and the huge moral victory he got from France's defeat of the ratification of the EU Constitution to convince jury members that London is the future and Paris the past.
posted by faux ami at 6:33 AM on July 6, 2005
This is a first time for London and the UK, no?
London had it in 1908 and 1948 apparantly. Trivia about the 1908 olympics and the marathon distance...
The 1908 Olympic marathon in London was originally set to start at Windsor Castle and end at Olympic Stadium, but the race organizers chose to have the runners finish in front of the Royal Box. This made the distance 42.195 km (26.2 miles). Of the 6 Olympic games between 1900 and 1920, there were 6 different distances, including 2 new distances after the British games in 1908.
A fixed distance of 42.195 km was adopted in 1921 by the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) as the official marathon distance.
posted by chill at 6:33 AM on July 6, 2005
London had it in 1908 and 1948 apparantly. Trivia about the 1908 olympics and the marathon distance...
The 1908 Olympic marathon in London was originally set to start at Windsor Castle and end at Olympic Stadium, but the race organizers chose to have the runners finish in front of the Royal Box. This made the distance 42.195 km (26.2 miles). Of the 6 Olympic games between 1900 and 1920, there were 6 different distances, including 2 new distances after the British games in 1908.
A fixed distance of 42.195 km was adopted in 1921 by the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) as the official marathon distance.
posted by chill at 6:33 AM on July 6, 2005
Well, most of my coworkers are pleased. The traitors!!
I'm with TimothyMason on this one -- shame about the regeneration stuff, though.
And an obligatory single link to save me the time: Olympic Bid Myths.
posted by gsb at 6:38 AM on July 6, 2005
I'm with TimothyMason on this one -- shame about the regeneration stuff, though.
And an obligatory single link to save me the time: Olympic Bid Myths.
posted by gsb at 6:38 AM on July 6, 2005
"No one could guarantee the athletes' security, even if our forces conducted extremely careful strikes on Moscow. But there should be no doubt that we have bombed and will bomb Moscow." -- Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev
So ended the Moscow bid.
posted by Ljubljana at 6:40 AM on July 6, 2005
So ended the Moscow bid.
posted by Ljubljana at 6:40 AM on July 6, 2005
That's true of all the cities tho--none of them are safe.
posted by amberglow at 6:43 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by amberglow at 6:43 AM on July 6, 2005
From the Daily News: We Weren't Even Close.
Yeah, the only person who thought we had a chance was Bloomberg and that was only so he could ram the west-side stadium through before anyone noticed.
Go London!
posted by bshort at 6:48 AM on July 6, 2005
Yeah, the only person who thought we had a chance was Bloomberg and that was only so he could ram the west-side stadium through before anyone noticed.
Go London!
posted by bshort at 6:48 AM on July 6, 2005
(I had great pleasure watching their smug arrogant faces fall..)
Gold medal of humour !!!
french = arrogant
german = panzer
italian = mafia
posted by luis huiton at 6:50 AM on July 6, 2005
Gold medal of humour !!!
french = arrogant
german = panzer
italian = mafia
posted by luis huiton at 6:50 AM on July 6, 2005
Here is London, giddy of London
Is it home of the free -
Or what ?
posted by The Jesse Helms at 6:51 AM on July 6, 2005
Is it home of the free -
Or what ?
posted by The Jesse Helms at 6:51 AM on July 6, 2005
(i love that song)
So, how much did London bribe the IOC members?
posted by amberglow at 6:53 AM on July 6, 2005
So, how much did London bribe the IOC members?
posted by amberglow at 6:53 AM on July 6, 2005
Speaking as a Londoner: what a load of bollocks.
a) Propaganda and misinformation, presenting the Olympics as a huge legend-rewriting telegenic battle of international whatever-the-fuck, obscuring any real facts. A lot of this bullshit is being spread nice and thoroughly all over the place by any minister/official involved. As a sporting event, the Olympics are important, I guess -- but are sporting events in general really so important that they need this much money and attention lavished on them? Especially since all the sports have been so perfected and refined that the winner is, from the perspective of most viewers, pretty arbitrary. And does success really say anything at all about the athlete's home country?
b) £££: Won't it just cost us tons of money? I heard predictions of sizeable long term local tax increases, but I honestly have no idea in terms of concrete facts, and I suspect nobody does. Any gargantuan project like this is bound to turn into a gigantic rollicking fudgefest of wasted money, missed deadlines and meaningless excuses.
c) Infrastructure improvement: Okay, this would obviously be a nice side-effect, not that London exactly has a bad infrastructure at the moment, compared to a lot of cities. But I feel like moaning about it anyway - would any improvements be too Olympic-area specific, too temporary?
d) Housing improvement: Obviously, this is desirable as well - places like Shadwell are really run-down and need renovation. But would being close to the Olympic site raise house prices disproportionately? Where will poor groups (including 'moaning students [wtf?]) go? And more importantly for these last two points, if we're capable of improving these things - as someone has said - why the fuck do we need the Olympics as an excuse to do so?
In short -- BAH HUMBUG!
posted by Drexen at 6:54 AM on July 6, 2005
a) Propaganda and misinformation, presenting the Olympics as a huge legend-rewriting telegenic battle of international whatever-the-fuck, obscuring any real facts. A lot of this bullshit is being spread nice and thoroughly all over the place by any minister/official involved. As a sporting event, the Olympics are important, I guess -- but are sporting events in general really so important that they need this much money and attention lavished on them? Especially since all the sports have been so perfected and refined that the winner is, from the perspective of most viewers, pretty arbitrary. And does success really say anything at all about the athlete's home country?
b) £££: Won't it just cost us tons of money? I heard predictions of sizeable long term local tax increases, but I honestly have no idea in terms of concrete facts, and I suspect nobody does. Any gargantuan project like this is bound to turn into a gigantic rollicking fudgefest of wasted money, missed deadlines and meaningless excuses.
c) Infrastructure improvement: Okay, this would obviously be a nice side-effect, not that London exactly has a bad infrastructure at the moment, compared to a lot of cities. But I feel like moaning about it anyway - would any improvements be too Olympic-area specific, too temporary?
d) Housing improvement: Obviously, this is desirable as well - places like Shadwell are really run-down and need renovation. But would being close to the Olympic site raise house prices disproportionately? Where will poor groups (including 'moaning students [wtf?]) go? And more importantly for these last two points, if we're capable of improving these things - as someone has said - why the fuck do we need the Olympics as an excuse to do so?
In short -- BAH HUMBUG!
posted by Drexen at 6:54 AM on July 6, 2005
Wow, you all are negative. I live in Atlanta and was here during the 96' olympics. I thought it was incredible! My family had tons of fun going to the paralympics. My brother also got to work security or something and got to meet and make friends from all over the world. Like everything else in the world, the Olympics is what you makes of it.
posted by jmd82 at 6:58 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by jmd82 at 6:58 AM on July 6, 2005
Blair: I've never seen as good an operation in anything I've been involved in as that.
That is quite a statement!
posted by Chuckles at 7:06 AM on July 6, 2005
That is quite a statement!
posted by Chuckles at 7:06 AM on July 6, 2005
Another New York resident very happy to see this. Well done London!
I'm given to understand that even though the host country has to compete in all events (hence the Greek baseball team last time around) but the UK isn't allowed field a football team. Is this right?
posted by jamesonandwater at 7:10 AM on July 6, 2005
I'm given to understand that even though the host country has to compete in all events (hence the Greek baseball team last time around) but the UK isn't allowed field a football team. Is this right?
posted by jamesonandwater at 7:10 AM on July 6, 2005
Like everything else in the world, the Olympics is what you makes of it.
Well, we Londoners will make of it pretty much what we make of everything - we will get drunk. And we will do so with dedication, and no little aplomb. I'm quite looking forward to it, actually.
Seriously, it could be great for the East End - true regeneration, progress that benefits the local population, rather than driving them out. Or it could be disastrous, forcing an ever greater number of people looking for affordable housing out into the gottier, more far-flung suburbs. Equally, the transport solutions could really help the London transport situation, or they could be a rushed job to put a sticking plaster on our overcrowding problems that'll flush money down the toilet to little effect.
But, hey. It could be wonderful. Here's hoping.
On preview: as regards the football team, I suspect that we will see, for the first time in (I think) a very long time, a GB football team. There seems to be a lot of will behind it, and they've got plenty of time to sort out the details.
posted by flashboy at 7:16 AM on July 6, 2005
Well, we Londoners will make of it pretty much what we make of everything - we will get drunk. And we will do so with dedication, and no little aplomb. I'm quite looking forward to it, actually.
Seriously, it could be great for the East End - true regeneration, progress that benefits the local population, rather than driving them out. Or it could be disastrous, forcing an ever greater number of people looking for affordable housing out into the gottier, more far-flung suburbs. Equally, the transport solutions could really help the London transport situation, or they could be a rushed job to put a sticking plaster on our overcrowding problems that'll flush money down the toilet to little effect.
But, hey. It could be wonderful. Here's hoping.
On preview: as regards the football team, I suspect that we will see, for the first time in (I think) a very long time, a GB football team. There seems to be a lot of will behind it, and they've got plenty of time to sort out the details.
posted by flashboy at 7:16 AM on July 6, 2005
The important question, however, is what will happen to the congestion charge when all these people turn up?? :-)
posted by Chunder at 7:19 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by Chunder at 7:19 AM on July 6, 2005
I haven't gone link trawling but my understanding is that Sydney broke at least even and it cost tax payers little if any (I'm not certain) and we of course got the usual transport/infrastructure benefits and I must say that IMHO it was the BEST time ever to have lived here. It was A-grade Number-1 good time from start to finish. Happy people everywhere. Brilliant memories. And I went to a whole bunch of events/sports to boot.
That said, despite having a lifelong serious interest in the Olympics, this whole merrygoround wankfest obsequeousness that's required by bidding cities in terms of masturbating IOC delegates and the attendant fuckup of the winning city by massive construction work and all the associated megacorp feeding frenzy and mediablitzkriegs and $$-grab lobbying etc etc etc have convinced me that the Olympics should just be held in the same freaking venue each time. Pick some place - Athens I suppose - and leave it there for 20 years or something. It has just become an outrageous business venture and sport trails a long way behind.
But congrats to those in London who are happy. Commiserations to the also-rans.
posted by peacay at 7:23 AM on July 6, 2005
That said, despite having a lifelong serious interest in the Olympics, this whole merrygoround wankfest obsequeousness that's required by bidding cities in terms of masturbating IOC delegates and the attendant fuckup of the winning city by massive construction work and all the associated megacorp feeding frenzy and mediablitzkriegs and $$-grab lobbying etc etc etc have convinced me that the Olympics should just be held in the same freaking venue each time. Pick some place - Athens I suppose - and leave it there for 20 years or something. It has just become an outrageous business venture and sport trails a long way behind.
But congrats to those in London who are happy. Commiserations to the also-rans.
posted by peacay at 7:23 AM on July 6, 2005
I'm given to understand that even though the host country has to compete in all events (hence the Greek baseball team last time around) but the UK isn't allowed field a football team. Is this right?
I have no idea. What I do know is we compete as Great Britain in the games. In football, and all other domestic team sports with some history in this country, we compete seperately as England, Wales and Scotland (and Northern Ireland, assuming they incorrectly get lumped in with GB too).
posted by vbfg at 7:32 AM on July 6, 2005
I have no idea. What I do know is we compete as Great Britain in the games. In football, and all other domestic team sports with some history in this country, we compete seperately as England, Wales and Scotland (and Northern Ireland, assuming they incorrectly get lumped in with GB too).
posted by vbfg at 7:32 AM on July 6, 2005
...The Auditor-General of New South Wales found the eventual cost of Sydney 2000 was over twice the budget costs estimated by the bid committee.
When Sydney bid for the 2000 Games, the bid committee estimated a total cost of $AUS 3.0 billion (£1.0 billion), of which just $AUS 363.5m (£125m) would be borne by the public. By 1998, however, when the Auditor-General of New South Wales was called in to review the Games's budget, it became clear that this figure was a huge understatement. He estimated that the true cost of the Games was more like $AUS 5.9 billion (£2.1 billion), of which the public would be paying $AUS 2.3 billion (£800m)[1] ...
posted by amberglow at 7:34 AM on July 6, 2005
When Sydney bid for the 2000 Games, the bid committee estimated a total cost of $AUS 3.0 billion (£1.0 billion), of which just $AUS 363.5m (£125m) would be borne by the public. By 1998, however, when the Auditor-General of New South Wales was called in to review the Games's budget, it became clear that this figure was a huge understatement. He estimated that the true cost of the Games was more like $AUS 5.9 billion (£2.1 billion), of which the public would be paying $AUS 2.3 billion (£800m)[1] ...
posted by amberglow at 7:34 AM on July 6, 2005
I'm with flashboy. I was glad when New York got knocked out of the running and I'm disappointed that London's won it. Those two places are where I have my current homes and I don't want the massive bullshit that goes with this event in either place.
Of course, 2012 is a long way off. Chances are I won't be in London the anyway...
posted by Decani at 7:35 AM on July 6, 2005
Of course, 2012 is a long way off. Chances are I won't be in London the anyway...
posted by Decani at 7:35 AM on July 6, 2005
Why do cities want to host a competition where out-of-control costs are the rule?
posted by amberglow at 7:37 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by amberglow at 7:37 AM on July 6, 2005
I am genuinely confused by the number of Americans expressing delight that Paris lost. Either the Games are a prize worth winning, or they are not. If they are, then the fact that New York lost out even to Paris seems to have been conveniently forgotten. If they are not, then those Francophone Americans should have being hoping that Paris won.
Yay for London! I'm about 60 miles from London - close enough that the Games will be local - but far enough not to be paying through increased council tax. The best of both worlds!
Personally, I don't understand the nagativity here. For two weeks in 2012, London will be the single most important city on earth. You can't buy that sort of prestige. The legacy of the Games will last many years - not just in the facilities left behind, but in the way the city is perceived by the rest of the world. All those sour grapes can't disguise the fact that this will undoubtably be good for London.
posted by salmacis at 7:40 AM on July 6, 2005
Yay for London! I'm about 60 miles from London - close enough that the Games will be local - but far enough not to be paying through increased council tax. The best of both worlds!
Personally, I don't understand the nagativity here. For two weeks in 2012, London will be the single most important city on earth. You can't buy that sort of prestige. The legacy of the Games will last many years - not just in the facilities left behind, but in the way the city is perceived by the rest of the world. All those sour grapes can't disguise the fact that this will undoubtably be good for London.
posted by salmacis at 7:40 AM on July 6, 2005
I don't think most of us are expressing delight that Paris lost at all--i think they should have won. Most of us didn't want it here in NY.
posted by amberglow at 7:46 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by amberglow at 7:46 AM on July 6, 2005
I think the NYC glee at not being picked is only partly about avoiding the hassle. Most of it is about saying "Up yours, Bloomberg!" The smokers are still angry, it's still illegal to dance in most bars, and no one wanted that damn stadium. Of course, we'll still reelect him.
Yay London! Do it better than we would have.
posted by emjaybee at 7:47 AM on July 6, 2005
Yay London! Do it better than we would have.
posted by emjaybee at 7:47 AM on July 6, 2005
If they are, then the fact that New York lost out even to Paris seems to have been conveniently forgotten. If they are not, then those Francophone Americans should have being hoping that Paris won.
It's not as contradictory as it seems. New Yorkers, by and large, did not want the Olympics. So not getting them is a sort of a win. Parisians did want the Olympics, so not getting them is a loss.
posted by unreason at 7:48 AM on July 6, 2005
It's not as contradictory as it seems. New Yorkers, by and large, did not want the Olympics. So not getting them is a sort of a win. Parisians did want the Olympics, so not getting them is a loss.
posted by unreason at 7:48 AM on July 6, 2005
Congrats! I just yesterday came back from an 8-day visit to London. Things coming to my mind in order of appearance:
1) Cool. Great city, comfortably reachable for me by train or one of the cheap airlines.
2) Where will Londoners possibly fit the additional CCTV cams the are going to have to install without doubt (you know, increasing security)? Seems like every possible space for a camera is already taken ;)
3) Does this mean that your real estate bubble will not stop growing before 2013? Good luck with that. I fell flat on my back several times when looking into estate agent's shop windows.
posted by uncle harold at 7:55 AM on July 6, 2005
1) Cool. Great city, comfortably reachable for me by train or one of the cheap airlines.
2) Where will Londoners possibly fit the additional CCTV cams the are going to have to install without doubt (you know, increasing security)? Seems like every possible space for a camera is already taken ;)
3) Does this mean that your real estate bubble will not stop growing before 2013? Good luck with that. I fell flat on my back several times when looking into estate agent's shop windows.
posted by uncle harold at 7:55 AM on July 6, 2005
You can't buy that sort of prestige
Yes you can, the Olympics is exactly where to buy it, and the cost is billions.
Not worth it.
posted by Joeforking at 7:57 AM on July 6, 2005
Yes you can, the Olympics is exactly where to buy it, and the cost is billions.
Not worth it.
posted by Joeforking at 7:57 AM on July 6, 2005
..except the Olympics aren't awarded to the highest bidder.
posted by salmacis at 7:59 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by salmacis at 7:59 AM on July 6, 2005
Not at all: ...During a year long investigation, BBC's Panorama went undercover to find out what it takes to get the Games, and it aired a video suggesting that the answer is simple - cash.
Bulgaria's member at the International Olympic Committee was then showed agreeing to help a fake bid to bring the 2012 Olympics to London for cash.
Bulgarian Ivan Slavkov was secretly filmed by the television program discussing how the votes of other IOC members could be "bought". Four sports agents are also filmed saying they can secure nearly half the total votes needed, for a fee. ...
posted by amberglow at 8:07 AM on July 6, 2005
Bulgaria's member at the International Olympic Committee was then showed agreeing to help a fake bid to bring the 2012 Olympics to London for cash.
Bulgarian Ivan Slavkov was secretly filmed by the television program discussing how the votes of other IOC members could be "bought". Four sports agents are also filmed saying they can secure nearly half the total votes needed, for a fee. ...
posted by amberglow at 8:07 AM on July 6, 2005
So because the BBC show it *could* be done, implies that is *was* done, eh, Amberglow? Every link you've posted to this thread has been about how the costs have been far greater than the bidders predicted, yet you think someone would pay even more money in bribes to put themselves in a position of potential bankruptcy?
I say congratulations to London. I'm glad I'm not living the any more, but the (positive) effects of the Olympics held here 13 years ago are still mightily apparent - the same will hold true for (East) London in 2025...
posted by benzo8 at 8:25 AM on July 6, 2005
I say congratulations to London. I'm glad I'm not living the any more, but the (positive) effects of the Olympics held here 13 years ago are still mightily apparent - the same will hold true for (East) London in 2025...
posted by benzo8 at 8:25 AM on July 6, 2005
New Yorkers: time to aim our guns at the Ratner stadium monstrosity in Brooklyn.
Over a thousand people (far more than Ratner's "count") will be evicted by eminent domain for what is basically a private high-rise real estate project. Hundreds of millions of tax dollars will be spent on infrastructure and more will be given as tax breaks. Let's make sure that the Brooklyn stadium plan meets the fate of other successfully resisted aspirational neighborhood-destroying, publicly-subsidized arenas.
posted by Dukebloo at 8:40 AM on July 6, 2005
Over a thousand people (far more than Ratner's "count") will be evicted by eminent domain for what is basically a private high-rise real estate project. Hundreds of millions of tax dollars will be spent on infrastructure and more will be given as tax breaks. Let's make sure that the Brooklyn stadium plan meets the fate of other successfully resisted aspirational neighborhood-destroying, publicly-subsidized arenas.
posted by Dukebloo at 8:40 AM on July 6, 2005
amberglow, thanks for that VERY bright yellow correcting of my understanding of the Sydney budget. The article you linked is based on a 2002 report - the link for which actually takes one to Sydney Olympic Park homepage ironically. But the original obscure report is still around.
On the one hand I stand corrected. But it's contentious as with all bloody accounting documents. There's some stuff I'd disagree with (ongoing maintenance etc etc that to me gets borne by subsequent events/sports/licensing and other boring stuff) and also, that article is 3 years old and I'd also wonder about further revenues raised from housing and land sales etc.
But on the other hand, I was lied to by the government (and that would be a tabloid headline unusal occurrence *cough*) and what I remembered is basically how it was told to us. Either way, it didn't really ruffle the economy too badly -- the opposite is probably true by anecdotal reckonings.
posted by peacay at 8:40 AM on July 6, 2005
On the one hand I stand corrected. But it's contentious as with all bloody accounting documents. There's some stuff I'd disagree with (ongoing maintenance etc etc that to me gets borne by subsequent events/sports/licensing and other boring stuff) and also, that article is 3 years old and I'd also wonder about further revenues raised from housing and land sales etc.
But on the other hand, I was lied to by the government (and that would be a tabloid headline unusal occurrence *cough*) and what I remembered is basically how it was told to us. Either way, it didn't really ruffle the economy too badly -- the opposite is probably true by anecdotal reckonings.
posted by peacay at 8:40 AM on July 6, 2005
It's been done for every modern Olympics, and the "cleanup" after Salt Lake City wasn't one. Why would it be different now? It's a corrupt process run by unaccountable people--that's common knowledge.
"The IOC's in-house 'reform' of 1999 was a fig-leaf, largely for media consumption. Corruption can be checked only by bringing in an external agency that has the clout to sanction such clear abuses of power. The IOC ethics commission is clearly a smokescreen. Reform must be implemented, and it must be implemented immediately."
posted by amberglow at 8:42 AM on July 6, 2005
"The IOC's in-house 'reform' of 1999 was a fig-leaf, largely for media consumption. Corruption can be checked only by bringing in an external agency that has the clout to sanction such clear abuses of power. The IOC ethics commission is clearly a smokescreen. Reform must be implemented, and it must be implemented immediately."
posted by amberglow at 8:42 AM on July 6, 2005
more: Money offered night before Sydney won Olympics
There are tons of these stories every time and soon we'll hear the London ones. It's how it works.
posted by amberglow at 8:50 AM on July 6, 2005
There are tons of these stories every time and soon we'll hear the London ones. It's how it works.
posted by amberglow at 8:50 AM on July 6, 2005
Dear Paris,
Why the fuck couldn't you win?
Yours sincerely,
London.
posted by dodgygeezer at 9:01 AM on July 6, 2005
Why the fuck couldn't you win?
Yours sincerely,
London.
posted by dodgygeezer at 9:01 AM on July 6, 2005
You see, Paris was always primarily a city of royalty and government, as can be seen in its long, stately boulevards, majestic vistas and celebratory architecture. London, however, grew through trade and the exchange of money, in the twisting, confused streets of East London and the docks.
As such, we have a long and noble history of being among the best in the world at bribery, something of which we are justly proud. In fact, we may well make it our demonstration sport in 2012. In your face, Paris!
posted by flashboy at 9:03 AM on July 6, 2005
As such, we have a long and noble history of being among the best in the world at bribery, something of which we are justly proud. In fact, we may well make it our demonstration sport in 2012. In your face, Paris!
posted by flashboy at 9:03 AM on July 6, 2005
XQUZYPHYR writes " I was actually reading some right-wing blogs this morning celebrating the fact that Paris lost"
Ah, what else does one expect from the usual purveyors of hate?..
posted by clevershark at 9:05 AM on July 6, 2005
Ah, what else does one expect from the usual purveyors of hate?..
posted by clevershark at 9:05 AM on July 6, 2005
Chuckles writes " That is quite a statement!"
That says more about his government and the war in Iraq than it does about the bid, no?
posted by clevershark at 9:14 AM on July 6, 2005
That says more about his government and the war in Iraq than it does about the bid, no?
posted by clevershark at 9:14 AM on July 6, 2005
This is pretty far from being a totally 'whiney' or negative thread, so quit whining about the whiners.
That said, as with any large project of this kind the jobs will be temporary, the highest bribing firms will get the contracts and the non-rich will lose out as their voices are drowned out by the lobbyists and other short term thinkers.
The only thing that would impress me would be if they could do it all in the Milennium Dome folly, which already has the infrastructure around it and cost us a fortune.
The Olympics is the Eurovision of the sport world. Costs alot for the host country with no tangible benefits.
posted by asok at 9:14 AM on July 6, 2005
That said, as with any large project of this kind the jobs will be temporary, the highest bribing firms will get the contracts and the non-rich will lose out as their voices are drowned out by the lobbyists and other short term thinkers.
The only thing that would impress me would be if they could do it all in the Milennium Dome folly, which already has the infrastructure around it and cost us a fortune.
The Olympics is the Eurovision of the sport world. Costs alot for the host country with no tangible benefits.
posted by asok at 9:14 AM on July 6, 2005
salmacis writes "If they are not, then those Francophone Americans should have being hoping that Paris won."
The *what* Americans? You gotta be joking.
posted by clevershark at 9:20 AM on July 6, 2005
The *what* Americans? You gotta be joking.
posted by clevershark at 9:20 AM on July 6, 2005
As someone from Montreal, I'll congratulate the non-winning cities for having dodged that bullet...
As someone from Vancouver (2010), I'll congratulate the non-winning cities for having dodged that bullet...
posted by btwillig at 9:41 AM on July 6, 2005
As someone from Vancouver (2010), I'll congratulate the non-winning cities for having dodged that bullet...
posted by btwillig at 9:41 AM on July 6, 2005
Benzo8 : Yes, because any minister/official would have their career boosted by having brought about/presided over/made shiny happy press statements about the grand great 'Historic Event'. Also it's not their money. And the public will enjoy the Olympics so much that'll they'll class it as a 'success' regardless of any negative trifling articles about the budget.
Perhaps they figure that if they can more-or-less get away with the Millenium Dome, they can get away with any pork barrel.
posted by Drexen at 9:44 AM on July 6, 2005
Perhaps they figure that if they can more-or-less get away with the Millenium Dome, they can get away with any pork barrel.
posted by Drexen at 9:44 AM on July 6, 2005
Well doesn't this mean they may finally have a use for the Millenium Dome?
posted by jamesonandwater at 9:53 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by jamesonandwater at 9:53 AM on July 6, 2005
btwillig writes "As someone from Vancouver (2010), I'll congratulate the non-winning cities for having dodged that bullet..."
Isn't it odd that they sent the winter Olympics to the one place in Canada where the temperature rarely falls below freezing in the winter?
posted by clevershark at 10:01 AM on July 6, 2005
Isn't it odd that they sent the winter Olympics to the one place in Canada where the temperature rarely falls below freezing in the winter?
posted by clevershark at 10:01 AM on July 6, 2005
Yes it is, clevershark, and February is one of our wettest months. It could be a disaster, but, you know, you can't let a little thing like the weather get in the way when there's all those public dollars to profit from.
posted by btwillig at 10:20 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by btwillig at 10:20 AM on July 6, 2005
ok, poor taste, but c'mon, it had to be done.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:23 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by Smedleyman at 10:23 AM on July 6, 2005
I'm disappointed that they still haven't even considered Africa or South America. When are we going to get a Rio or Buenos Aires games? What about Nairobi or Johannesburg? Think of the economic benefit, not to mention moral boost, that something like this would have for Africa or Latin America.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:44 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by Pollomacho at 10:44 AM on July 6, 2005
I wouldn't have minded the Olympics here. I take the subway so traffic is irrelevant to me. And the pool in the park down the boulevard from me would've been used for swimming & diving. I coulda watched from a rooftop.
posted by jonmc at 11:03 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by jonmc at 11:03 AM on July 6, 2005
I know this will undoubtedly mark me as deeply cynical (which is OK by me, 'cos I am...) but the moment I heard the news I thought one thing: I bet the phrase "increased terrorist threat due to hosting the Olympics" will soon work its way into another government position paper on why we need ID cards ...
posted by kaemaril at 11:13 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by kaemaril at 11:13 AM on July 6, 2005
Blair: I've never seen as good an operation in anything I've been involved in as that.
Mmmm. Should have put Lord Coe in charge of the war.
I live in Hackney. I'll be keeping an eye on rent. I'll be keeping an eye on tax. Most people probably won't mind paying a little more tax to host the Olympics. It beats spending money on the Millennium Dome. The British really love their sport, so to have the Olympics in town really is quite a big deal for a lot of people. Judging by the cheer in the sizeable office I work in this afternoon, most Londoners are more happy than not about it.
Any news story that puts Denise Lewis on my television is fine by me. I love the French very much, but the way Chirac has carried on lately... it made it all the sweeter. After the war and a third election win, Blair's approval should really be low; but after standing up to Europe on CAP, and with Chirac's Anglophobia, I expect he's having a relatively easy time of it.
posted by nthdegx at 11:22 AM on July 6, 2005
Mmmm. Should have put Lord Coe in charge of the war.
I live in Hackney. I'll be keeping an eye on rent. I'll be keeping an eye on tax. Most people probably won't mind paying a little more tax to host the Olympics. It beats spending money on the Millennium Dome. The British really love their sport, so to have the Olympics in town really is quite a big deal for a lot of people. Judging by the cheer in the sizeable office I work in this afternoon, most Londoners are more happy than not about it.
Any news story that puts Denise Lewis on my television is fine by me. I love the French very much, but the way Chirac has carried on lately... it made it all the sweeter. After the war and a third election win, Blair's approval should really be low; but after standing up to Europe on CAP, and with Chirac's Anglophobia, I expect he's having a relatively easy time of it.
posted by nthdegx at 11:22 AM on July 6, 2005
Why should the choice of the host of the Olympics be about Chirac? For that matter, why should it be about the charisma of Coe? It's conceivable, but ridiculous, that France lost because of its low international standing (why is that, by the way, since they seem to be most in line with what the world's citizens thought of the Iraq situation?) or perceived smugness. Ironically, it's France that was by far the sweetest and least arrogant in this contest, with a presentation for the IOC (by the way, some members don't even read the presentation summaries before making a vote) that was exceptional and largely publicly supported, with a cost substantially less than Britain's project. France lost out to Britain's presentation which tugged at the heartstrings (by showing pictures of children metamorphised into Olympic champions, with heartfelt music) and 7 people lobbying the vote, compared to France's 4. Plus, most IOC members as well as international members of sport commissions are Anglophone. It was a 4-vote difference (and only 2-vote difference between Spain and France in the 3rd round).
All that to say that the French feel a bit like the rug was pulled from under them, and that the rules weren't scrupulously followed. But I guess fairplay doesn't apply to the Olympics. Ripping on Chirac or French arrogance doesn't change the fact that the Spanish and French feel subsumed in and outmaneuvered by the monstrous machine that is the Anglo-Saxon world. You may not care, and probably you shouldn't, but that's how they feel.
posted by faux ami at 11:44 AM on July 6, 2005
All that to say that the French feel a bit like the rug was pulled from under them, and that the rules weren't scrupulously followed. But I guess fairplay doesn't apply to the Olympics. Ripping on Chirac or French arrogance doesn't change the fact that the Spanish and French feel subsumed in and outmaneuvered by the monstrous machine that is the Anglo-Saxon world. You may not care, and probably you shouldn't, but that's how they feel.
posted by faux ami at 11:44 AM on July 6, 2005
I guess the last ideological thought was mostly mine, and not necessarily the French and Spanish peoples'. Oops.
posted by faux ami at 11:47 AM on July 6, 2005
posted by faux ami at 11:47 AM on July 6, 2005
Faux ami says the "French feel subsumed in and outmaneuvered by the monstrous machine that is the Anglo-Saxon world."
But hang on deux minutes, mon brave! Isn't French still the "second language" of the Olympics - weren't the Oz Olympic results always given in English - then again in French - which seemed to me a case of one country punching considerably above its cultural weight since it's a very long time since French was, for example, even the official language of diplomacy?
No tears here for hurt Gallic feelings over apparently unscrupulous tweaking of rules. Pot, meet kettle, frankly.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 12:07 PM on July 6, 2005
But hang on deux minutes, mon brave! Isn't French still the "second language" of the Olympics - weren't the Oz Olympic results always given in English - then again in French - which seemed to me a case of one country punching considerably above its cultural weight since it's a very long time since French was, for example, even the official language of diplomacy?
No tears here for hurt Gallic feelings over apparently unscrupulous tweaking of rules. Pot, meet kettle, frankly.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 12:07 PM on July 6, 2005
'the Spanish and the French feel subsumed and outmanoeuvred'
Please speak for yourself. I'm not the only Parisian to feel relieved today. I don't suppose that I'm in a majority, but neither are those who are in no way perturbed by the IOC's decision any less French than those who are. (oh -pardon faux pas - t'as déjà rectifié)
In any case, the whole thing is topsy-turvy; it is the IOC that should go cap in hand to such prestigious cities as Paris, Athens, New York, Beijing (choose your own city) and beg them to be allowed to stage their seedy extravaganza there. They could show that they are cleaning up their act, and that they are able and willing to make good any expenditures that the city has to incur. The fawning attitude of the Blairs, Chiracs and others towards the Olympic circus is yet another measure of the decadence of modern politics. Gladstone would never have stood for it.
posted by TimothyMason at 12:08 PM on July 6, 2005
Please speak for yourself. I'm not the only Parisian to feel relieved today. I don't suppose that I'm in a majority, but neither are those who are in no way perturbed by the IOC's decision any less French than those who are. (oh -pardon faux pas - t'as déjà rectifié)
In any case, the whole thing is topsy-turvy; it is the IOC that should go cap in hand to such prestigious cities as Paris, Athens, New York, Beijing (choose your own city) and beg them to be allowed to stage their seedy extravaganza there. They could show that they are cleaning up their act, and that they are able and willing to make good any expenditures that the city has to incur. The fawning attitude of the Blairs, Chiracs and others towards the Olympic circus is yet another measure of the decadence of modern politics. Gladstone would never have stood for it.
posted by TimothyMason at 12:08 PM on July 6, 2005
Why is that, by the way, since they seem to be most in line with what the world's citizens thought of the Iraq situation?
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in Britain, chirac has been portrayed as behaving like a petulant teenager the last couple of months. This last week for instance, he's even resorting to critising our food. Don't get me wrong, the quality of food in most of our restaurant is bad, but the President of France resorting to critising our food to get at us is comparable to someone like Blair trying to get the upper hand with Bush on climate change by saying "Yeah, well if you used less gas by driving less, maybe you wouldn't all be so fat, you big spaz".
There's also the issue of his strict adherance to the Common Agricultural Policy, at a time when most of the rest of the western world are trying to (or claim to be trying to) do something about poverty in Africa.
posted by chill at 12:15 PM on July 6, 2005
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in Britain, chirac has been portrayed as behaving like a petulant teenager the last couple of months. This last week for instance, he's even resorting to critising our food. Don't get me wrong, the quality of food in most of our restaurant is bad, but the President of France resorting to critising our food to get at us is comparable to someone like Blair trying to get the upper hand with Bush on climate change by saying "Yeah, well if you used less gas by driving less, maybe you wouldn't all be so fat, you big spaz".
There's also the issue of his strict adherance to the Common Agricultural Policy, at a time when most of the rest of the western world are trying to (or claim to be trying to) do something about poverty in Africa.
posted by chill at 12:15 PM on July 6, 2005
Frankly, there's something more than slightly weird about this. Do you notice how Madrid managed to actually lose a vote when it was ahead of everybody else? Surely, if the final vote would have been between London and Madrid, I don't think many of the Paris votes would have ventured over the Channel.
Don't get me wrong: I'm actually glad Madrid dodged the bullet. But London's candidacy was by no means the best one: most facilities remain to be built, whereas Paris and Madrid were both nearly ready. And I won't even mention the infrastructures, or the prices. I do like London. More than Madrid or Paris, in fact, but I just don't think it's the right place for the Olympics. Plus, Tony Blair was already smug enough as it was...
posted by Skeptic at 12:33 PM on July 6, 2005
Don't get me wrong: I'm actually glad Madrid dodged the bullet. But London's candidacy was by no means the best one: most facilities remain to be built, whereas Paris and Madrid were both nearly ready. And I won't even mention the infrastructures, or the prices. I do like London. More than Madrid or Paris, in fact, but I just don't think it's the right place for the Olympics. Plus, Tony Blair was already smug enough as it was...
posted by Skeptic at 12:33 PM on July 6, 2005
Why is that, by the way, since they seem to be most in line with what the world's citizens thought of the Iraq situation?
Apart from Russia, who in the rest of the world were objecting to the war in order to protect their oil interest? Did you think Chirac was a conscientious objector? Je suis désolé, mais non.
posted by nthdegx at 12:41 PM on July 6, 2005
Apart from Russia, who in the rest of the world were objecting to the war in order to protect their oil interest? Did you think Chirac was a conscientious objector? Je suis désolé, mais non.
posted by nthdegx at 12:41 PM on July 6, 2005
I'm with TimothyMason--let them reverse this whole process and prove they're clean. Let them even stage an Olympics in some impoverished third-world country and build an infrastructure out of nothing, and pay for it themselves and with ticket fees. Let Addis Ababa or Abidjan host or something.
posted by amberglow at 12:42 PM on July 6, 2005
posted by amberglow at 12:42 PM on July 6, 2005
Sydney during the *2000* Olympics was fantastic. The weather was great, the atmosphere was just superb. I'll never forget the beach volley ball.
I reckon the first world countries should chip in and let a third world country host the games, not charity just sharing the economics benefits and lifting the countries exposure to the rest of the world.
......... congratulations London
posted by Chimp at 2:19 PM on July 6, 2005
I reckon the first world countries should chip in and let a third world country host the games, not charity just sharing the economics benefits and lifting the countries exposure to the rest of the world.
......... congratulations London
posted by Chimp at 2:19 PM on July 6, 2005
All that to say that the French feel a bit like the rug was pulled from under them, and that the rules weren't scrupulously followed. But I guess fairplay doesn't apply to the Olympics.
With all due respect, mon faux ami, but (and I say this as a committed francophile Londoner) that's exactly the kind of reaction that's provoking rampant two fingered salutes in the general direction of France. I've heard the "didn't play fair" complaint all day today (from the Mayor of Paris, most notably) but still haven't heard even a hint of what London was supposed to have actually done that counts as playing dirty. As far as I can see, they simply campaigned harder, and genuinely made a better case for hosting the event.
And bribed people, I've no doubt, but equally I've no doubt the other four cities did as well...
posted by flashboy at 2:46 PM on July 6, 2005
With all due respect, mon faux ami, but (and I say this as a committed francophile Londoner) that's exactly the kind of reaction that's provoking rampant two fingered salutes in the general direction of France. I've heard the "didn't play fair" complaint all day today (from the Mayor of Paris, most notably) but still haven't heard even a hint of what London was supposed to have actually done that counts as playing dirty. As far as I can see, they simply campaigned harder, and genuinely made a better case for hosting the event.
And bribed people, I've no doubt, but equally I've no doubt the other four cities did as well...
posted by flashboy at 2:46 PM on July 6, 2005
Look, it's easy to end every argument by saying everyone cheats and the pot and kettle, because ultimately everything conceivably comes down to Raiders vs. 49ers or Red Sox vs. Yankees, All Blacks vs. the English side, right? When you root for a team or a country, you innately think that they are right, or more fair-play and that the other guy is full of it. And you can even trump that argument by saying sports are decadent in modern times, and that the Olympics should just go to an African city (which they most obviously should). But, in the meantime, shouldn't rich countries (and don't they endlessly claim to) play by and adhere to some existing set of rules - so at least we rich, smug bastards have some guidelines to live by which don't change every time we gluttonously go after some new fanciful prize? I'm not questioning the Brits, who I love, nor the French, who I've learned to love... but the hypocrisy of the particular British delegation who were either clearly cheating or else participating in the new, updated but non-codified, lobbying-intensive version of post Salt Lake City Olympic candidacy. (And to think Sebastian Coe was a childhood hero of my mine when I ran my 4:30 mile before I hurt my leg.)
posted by faux ami at 2:48 PM on July 6, 2005
posted by faux ami at 2:48 PM on July 6, 2005
Flashboy, I mentioned above a number of the things they did (such as Blair meeting with 30-some IOC officials, his wife meeting with them, trips to IOC reps' countries, using public relations type lobbying in a traditionally Olympic atmosphere, Coe chatting up IOC members). The more I write, the more I sound silly, so I'll stop.
Congratulations, London!
posted by faux ami at 2:52 PM on July 6, 2005
Congratulations, London!
posted by faux ami at 2:52 PM on July 6, 2005
But that's campaigning; it's what you do to make your case. That's not playing dirty. That's just playing.
Either way, our cities are so close (in all senses) - those who wanted to enjoy it would have had pretty much equal opportunity, whichever city hosted it (and a Paris games would have been magnificent, no doubt). Let's hope it lives up to its possibilities, rather than confirming its critics' worst fears.
posted by flashboy at 3:17 PM on July 6, 2005
Either way, our cities are so close (in all senses) - those who wanted to enjoy it would have had pretty much equal opportunity, whichever city hosted it (and a Paris games would have been magnificent, no doubt). Let's hope it lives up to its possibilities, rather than confirming its critics' worst fears.
posted by flashboy at 3:17 PM on July 6, 2005
Think of the economic benefit... that something like this would have for Africa or Latin America.
You haven't been paying attention, have you? Economic benefit: billions in rakeoffs to contractors, politicians, and suchlike. For normal residents: mess, traffic, many driven out of their homes to make way for stadiums and other boondoggles, and increased taxes to pay for it all. Oid mortales el grito sagrado...
posted by languagehat at 3:21 PM on July 6, 2005
You haven't been paying attention, have you? Economic benefit: billions in rakeoffs to contractors, politicians, and suchlike. For normal residents: mess, traffic, many driven out of their homes to make way for stadiums and other boondoggles, and increased taxes to pay for it all. Oid mortales el grito sagrado...
posted by languagehat at 3:21 PM on July 6, 2005
But for 3rd-world cities that don't have a transit system or good roads/infrastructure, even overbudget and kickback/corrupt things would have helped, and the housing alone would have been of a higher quality. It at least would have really been built and not simply diverted into Idi Amin Jr's pocket or whatever.
posted by amberglow at 3:30 PM on July 6, 2005
posted by amberglow at 3:30 PM on July 6, 2005
nthdegx writes "who in the rest of the world were objecting to the war in order to protect their oil interest?"
And who was pushing for the war in order to increase what is perceived as their long-term oil interest?
Only 3 out of 5 of countries putting in a bid...
posted by clevershark at 3:34 PM on July 6, 2005
And who was pushing for the war in order to increase what is perceived as their long-term oil interest?
Only 3 out of 5 of countries putting in a bid...
posted by clevershark at 3:34 PM on July 6, 2005
Hmmm, the Barcelona olympics really catapulted Spain into the EU with style and did wonders for the city itself. I'm not sure if there was much corruption then, I'm sure there was.
The big difference is that Barcelona was in desperate need of an overhaul as it still hadn't clawed its way out of the 40 year gray nightmare of Franco dictatorship. However, none of the finalists, save perhaps Moscow, is in need of such an infrastructure overhaul; not in the sense that Barcelona - a second-class city at the time - needed it. I think that it would have been more a nuisance for NY, Paris and Madrid, and probably will be so for London. Except of course those two weeks of glory which may be fun.
on preview: what Amberglow just said.
posted by sic at 3:51 PM on July 6, 2005
The big difference is that Barcelona was in desperate need of an overhaul as it still hadn't clawed its way out of the 40 year gray nightmare of Franco dictatorship. However, none of the finalists, save perhaps Moscow, is in need of such an infrastructure overhaul; not in the sense that Barcelona - a second-class city at the time - needed it. I think that it would have been more a nuisance for NY, Paris and Madrid, and probably will be so for London. Except of course those two weeks of glory which may be fun.
on preview: what Amberglow just said.
posted by sic at 3:51 PM on July 6, 2005
I live in Jacksonville, Florida... and as anti-sport as I am and as anti-Super Bowl as I was, these things do bring good change to Good Ole' Boy southern towns. People tend to clean up when given multiple year notices of an impending spotlight. I don't know what this means for ancient European cities, though. The beaches they installled in Barcelona were a nice add... cloudy sunbathing on the Thames, maybe?
posted by trinarian at 3:52 PM on July 6, 2005
posted by trinarian at 3:52 PM on July 6, 2005
Good thing the Olympics will be in the summer, 'cause later that year will be the end of the world.
posted by zardoz at 5:58 PM on July 6, 2005
posted by zardoz at 5:58 PM on July 6, 2005
I'll second and third peacay and chimp. I'm not a big sports fan but the buzz was irresistible. That said, the Olympic venues have turned into white elephants.
posted by tellurian at 6:23 PM on July 6, 2005
posted by tellurian at 6:23 PM on July 6, 2005
It was the Fins !!
"Blair took a gamble by flying to Singapore, and glad-handed an estimated 30 IOC members himself.
"Meanwhile, his French counterpart Jacques Chirac laid into British and Finnish food.
Chirac was left eating his words. And one suspects revenge may have been sweet for the two delegates from Finland, whose votes will have been important in a tight contest."
posted by doogyrev at 11:15 PM on July 6, 2005
"Blair took a gamble by flying to Singapore, and glad-handed an estimated 30 IOC members himself.
"Meanwhile, his French counterpart Jacques Chirac laid into British and Finnish food.
Chirac was left eating his words. And one suspects revenge may have been sweet for the two delegates from Finland, whose votes will have been important in a tight contest."
posted by doogyrev at 11:15 PM on July 6, 2005
Good for London.
New Yorkers don't deserve it since most believe every dollar should go into social programs. They'd happily see the city rot into Detroit.
posted by HTuttle at 11:31 PM on July 6, 2005
New Yorkers don't deserve it since most believe every dollar should go into social programs. They'd happily see the city rot into Detroit.
posted by HTuttle at 11:31 PM on July 6, 2005
tellurian it's funny, that article (a year old) notes that it was bandied around that the Sydney games were kind of prepaid - but the article doesn't say anything about dissent on that point. I would have thought that if there was mileage in asserting that the economics of staging the olympics were fucked up then an article about there being a funding deficit each year of $46M for upkeep of unused facilities would be the place to voice it.
I'm not being all gung-ho nationalistic or the like but I'm still of the opinion that Sydney was probably a fair model for how to run these shenanigans in a semi-sensible manner. There will never be a definitive answer about the bottom line on budgets though. All interested parties will paint it whichever which way.
posted by peacay at 11:54 PM on July 6, 2005
I'm not being all gung-ho nationalistic or the like but I'm still of the opinion that Sydney was probably a fair model for how to run these shenanigans in a semi-sensible manner. There will never be a definitive answer about the bottom line on budgets though. All interested parties will paint it whichever which way.
posted by peacay at 11:54 PM on July 6, 2005
Heh. seanyboy at least you're a fair way from the bulk of the hassles. But I tell you, no matter how cynical etc such events seem to be - just wait. When it gets to 2011, the country will start buzzing. If you get an opportunity to get tickets, do it. Your mind may change and if not, well you can dole them out to family/friends.
posted by peacay at 12:35 AM on July 7, 2005
posted by peacay at 12:35 AM on July 7, 2005
If the American Congress can flip out over a Chinese company buying Unocal, I think we can allow the French a little hyperbole and hurt feelings:
-The choice of London is political… IOC’s shocking decisions which no longer have anything to do with sport and still less with the exigencies of the application for candidature.
-The French overly used the Olympic candidature process as an opportunity to mask the national malaise.
-France is no longer internationally popular, it’s prestige faded. After the May 29 ‘no’ vote, the IOC’s decision falls on France like the guillotine.
-London took advantage of these weaknesses, using an aggressive marketing campaign as well as pure demagoguery, which consisted of promises of providing for the future of the world’s underprivileged youth. Barely acceptable behavior…
-The modern “Blair model” imposes itself on the aging ‘French model’ in Europe.
-The British hard-won victory symbolizes and accelerates Anglo-Saxon predominance in Europe and around the world – their language, their diplomacy and their economic ‘model.’
posted by faux ami at 2:10 AM on July 7, 2005
-The choice of London is political… IOC’s shocking decisions which no longer have anything to do with sport and still less with the exigencies of the application for candidature.
-The French overly used the Olympic candidature process as an opportunity to mask the national malaise.
-France is no longer internationally popular, it’s prestige faded. After the May 29 ‘no’ vote, the IOC’s decision falls on France like the guillotine.
-London took advantage of these weaknesses, using an aggressive marketing campaign as well as pure demagoguery, which consisted of promises of providing for the future of the world’s underprivileged youth. Barely acceptable behavior…
-The modern “Blair model” imposes itself on the aging ‘French model’ in Europe.
-The British hard-won victory symbolizes and accelerates Anglo-Saxon predominance in Europe and around the world – their language, their diplomacy and their economic ‘model.’
posted by faux ami at 2:10 AM on July 7, 2005
Sorry to wait so long to chime in, but obviously I am delighted that Paris and France LOST; sort of analogous to feeling about as good when the Yankees lose as when the Mets win (almost as good...almost....)
New Yorkers don't really care much about the Olympics happening here; the coolest thing would be for New York to have won, and then for massive "We Don't Want the Olympics" protests to have broken out.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:47 AM on July 7, 2005
New Yorkers don't really care much about the Olympics happening here; the coolest thing would be for New York to have won, and then for massive "We Don't Want the Olympics" protests to have broken out.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:47 AM on July 7, 2005
ParisParamus writes "obviously I am delighted that Paris and France LOST"
Why?
posted by peacay at 7:06 AM on July 7, 2005
Why?
posted by peacay at 7:06 AM on July 7, 2005
Why? French arrogance. French smoking.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:34 PM on July 7, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 9:34 PM on July 7, 2005
« Older First Americans | Chevre, Chia Seed, Chifferi ... No Chi Chi's? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
So ended the Paris bid.
posted by vbfg at 5:03 AM on July 6, 2005