Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn And

nitram <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:17:06 +0100, [email protected]
    > (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
    > wrote:
[]
    > >I think it could be done, and I support the bid- because I think the
    > >regeneration would be worth it.
    >
    > UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games.

No, but given the pressure on land in the south east, the area is going
to be developed in _some_ kind of way anyway. If hosting Olympics
accelerates that, or does it better, then that's fine with me.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Nitram

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:48:42 +0100, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
wrote:

    >nitram <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:17:06 +0100, [email protected]
    >> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
    >> wrote:
    >[]
    >> >I think it could be done, and I support the bid- because I think the
    >> >regeneration would be worth it.
    >>
    >> UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games.
    >No, but given the pressure on land in the south east, the area is going
    >to be developed in _some_ kind of way anyway. If hosting Olympics
    >accelerates that, or does it better, then that's fine with me.

I worried that without the Olympics nothing will happen.
--
Martin

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn And

nitram <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:48:42 +0100, [email protected]
    > (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >nitram <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:17:06 +0100, [email protected]
    > >> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
    > >> wrote:
    > >[]
    > >> >I think it could be done, and I support the bid- because I think the
    > >> >regeneration would be worth it.
    > >>
    > >> UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games.
    > >
    > >No, but given the pressure on land in the south east, the area is going
    > >to be developed in _some_ kind of way anyway. If hosting Olympics
    > >accelerates that, or does it better, then that's fine with me.
    >
    > I worried that without the Olympics nothing will happen.

There's a need for really good quality council housing in London. I'd be
worried that without the Olympics, it will just turn into lots of glitzy
docklands-style developments, with a convenient Eurostar terminal!

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Nitram

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:06:51 +0100, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
wrote:

    >nitram <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:48:42 +0100, [email protected]
    >> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >nitram <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:17:06 +0100, [email protected]
    >> >> (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
    >> >> wrote:
    >> >[]
    >> >> >I think it could be done, and I support the bid- because I think the
    >> >> >regeneration would be worth it.
    >> >>
    >> >> UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games.
    >> >
    >> >No, but given the pressure on land in the south east, the area is going
    >> >to be developed in _some_ kind of way anyway. If hosting Olympics
    >> >accelerates that, or does it better, then that's fine with me.
    >>
    >> I worried that without the Olympics nothing will happen.
    >There's a need for really good quality council housing in London. I'd be
    >worried that without the Olympics, it will just turn into lots of glitzy
    >docklands-style developments, with a convenient Eurostar terminal!

Full of French expatriates looking for a cool climate?
--
Martin

Derek McBryde

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:06:51 +0100, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
wrote:

    >> >>
    >> >> UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games.
    >> >
    >> >No, but given the pressure on land in the south east, the area is going
    >> >to be developed in _some_ kind of way anyway. If hosting Olympics
    >> >accelerates that, or does it better, then that's fine with me.
    >>
    >> I worried that without the Olympics nothing will happen.
    >There's a need for really good quality council housing in London. I'd be
    >worried that without the Olympics, it will just turn into lots of glitzy
    >docklands-style developments, with a convenient Eurostar terminal!

London and the South East are most likely to benefit. Who pays for
it?

Derek

Mxsmanic

nitram writes:

    > Except it has few suitable stadiums, inadequate public transport and
    > the area chosen needs to be bombed flat before they can start.

I don't care. I still think it's the perfect place. Much better than
Paris.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

nitram writes:

    > UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games.

Since the Olympics are always a net loss, you have to try to link them
to something, no matter how bogus.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn And

Derek McBryde <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:06:51 +0100, [email protected]
    > (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games.
    > >> >
    > >> >No, but given the pressure on land in the south east, the area is going
    > >> >to be developed in _some_ kind of way anyway. If hosting Olympics
    > >> >accelerates that, or does it better, then that's fine with me.
    > >>
    > >> I worried that without the Olympics nothing will happen.
    > >
    > >There's a need for really good quality council housing in London. I'd be
    > >worried that without the Olympics, it will just turn into lots of glitzy
    > >docklands-style developments, with a convenient Eurostar terminal!
    >
    > London and the South East are most likely to benefit. Who pays for
    > it?

The same people who pay for any massive regeneration in the UK?

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn And

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:

    > nitram writes:
    >
    > > UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games.
    >
    > Since the Olympics are always a net loss, you have to try to link them
    > to something, no matter how bogus.

It's not bogus. What the hell do you know about it?

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > nitram writes:
    >
    > > UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games.
    >
    > Since the Olympics are always a net loss, you have to try to link them
    > to something, no matter how bogus.

This is how it works in practise, first comes the appeal to 'civic
pride' then it's the 'needed' gentrification... a new roadway, new
airport, new subway... then its the stadiums and all they bring and
finally they float the idea that people when be coming to your city for
the next 20 years because of what they saw "Games".

jay
Fri Jun 03, 2005
mailto:[email protected]

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn And

Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > nitram writes:
    > >
    > > > UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games.
    > >
    > > Since the Olympics are always a net loss, you have to try to link them
    > > to something, no matter how bogus.
    >
    > This is how it works in practise, first comes the appeal to 'civic
    > pride' then it's the 'needed' gentrification... a new roadway, new
    > airport, new subway... then its the stadiums and all they bring and
    > finally they float the idea that people when be coming to your city for
    > the next 20 years because of what they saw "Games".

Well, people will stlll be coming to London, Paris, Madrid, NYC or
Moscow. They're hardly out of the way destinations. I don't see your
point. The regeneration in Manchester just because of the _Commonwealth_
Games was pretty significant, and proved a real boost to the city.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Charles Hawtrey

In article <BEC5C6E6.687E1%[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > On 2/06/05 22:29, in article [email protected],
    > "Runge" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > next topic will be Paris restrooms tested by e and d evleth
    >
    > Another job might be to some non-reactive original postings, Grunge.
    > You are a reactive poster, and lack originality.

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

Frank F. Matthews

Go Fig wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>nitram writes:
    >>>UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games.
    >>Since the Olympics are always a net loss, you have to try to link them
    >>to something, no matter how bogus.
    >
    >
    > This is how it works in practise, first comes the appeal to 'civic
    > pride' then it's the 'needed' gentrification... a new roadway, new
    > airport, new subway... then its the stadiums and all they bring and
    > finally they float the idea that people when be coming to your city for
    > the next 20 years because of what they saw "Games".
    >
    > jay
    > Fri Jun 03, 2005
    > mailto:[email protected]


That would pretty much write off both London & Paris. I doubt that
either would see much benefit from additional exposure. The left over
facilities if they can get the rest of the country or even the EU to pay
for them they might like.

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, Frank F.
Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Go Fig wrote:
    >
    > > In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>nitram writes:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>UK should not have to link regeneration to the Olympic Games.
    > >>
    > >>Since the Olympics are always a net loss, you have to try to link them
    > >>to something, no matter how bogus.
    > >
    > >
    > > This is how it works in practise, first comes the appeal to 'civic
    > > pride' then it's the 'needed' gentrification... a new roadway, new
    > > airport, new subway... then its the stadiums and all they bring and
    > > finally they float the idea that people when be coming to your city for
    > > the next 20 years because of what they saw "Games".
    > >
    > > jay
    > > Fri Jun 03, 2005
    > > mailto:[email protected]
    >
    >
    > That would pretty much write off both London & Paris. I doubt that
    > either would see much benefit from additional exposure.

How would you rate Los Angeles, seen daily in movies and TV around the
entire world, for benefiting from additional exposure compared to
London or Paris ?


    > The left over
    > facilities if they can get the rest of the country or even the EU to pay
    > for them they might like.

They will tell you corporations will underwrite much of the predicted
costs, their are rumors a sports franchise will move because of your
new stadium and your entire downtown will be gentrified by private
investment to boot... but history shows its the taxpayers that will
carry the load... let those local taxpayers vote on it.

jay
Fri Jun 03, 2005
mailto:[email protected]



    >
    >
    >
    >

Earl Evleth

On 4/06/05 3:07, in article [email protected],
"Charles Hawtrey" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

Pretty much, it depends on the response to a posting. For instance,
this particular posting sequence "Paris the world's choice for the 2012
Olympics" has 30 hits, a mild yield but it will only be super topical
in a month when the decision is made. When the actual decision
is published, I might post that news item.

So the inventiveness and originality comes partly from posting
a subject which will get other people posting. I am what I call
mainly a "primary poster", most people are "reactive".

The other issue is whether a primary post is particularly useful
to most or is merely entertainment directed?

I had a conversation with the desk editor of the International
Herald Tribune years ago. He said that only about 1% of the stuff
which comes over the wires ends up in the paper, his work is
selecting items. He had to select items which mostly
attracted readers but always in the back of his mind was the
idea of informing them on important issues. It is a really successful
article which can do both.

I think the information that Paris is the primary world's choice for the
Olympics interesting and the kind of information which you might not
normally get. Whether it was interesting to you or not is another matter
but to some it was.

Earl