or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › Which city will win the olympics bid?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which city will win the olympics bid? - Page 3

post #31 of 63
I was disappointed when Beijing was given the games. But on reflection maybe it'll be a good thing. Same with Moscow. I feel, irrationally or no, that awarding it to them is condoning egregious violations of human rights and rewarding their oligarchy.
post #32 of 63
Quote:
Globetrotter- Cutting commute time is a legitmate goal, but why would you need to bring in the olympics to tackle it? Wouldn't you want to try to deal with it even if the olympics didn't come? Considering the huge costs that it took to bring the olympics, couldn't they have spent only a fraction of the money to try to deal with that commute? What I really object is all the huge stadiums left afterwards which cost like a million to upkeep even though there aren't any events to fill those stadiums either.
of course you are right... but it is very difficult for a city administration to take on a 10 year commitment to quality of life without a "sexy" cause. I have seen several cities, the best example is tel aviv, that should have had good mass transport years ago, but it just draws on and on, because no municipal adminitration will tackle it. the olympics gave athens a trigger to tackle several tough projects that should have been done years ago but were'nt. and a better cell network, better mass transport, better roads. better airport all contribute to economic growth.
post #33 of 63
Quote:
I've always been under the impression that the reason the LA Olympics was able to generate surplus funds was that there was a rather limited amount of expenses- LA tried to use existing stadiums whenver possible.
Well, private companies built a lot of the new stuff.  For instance, 7-Eleven built the velodrome.  McDonalds built the swimming and diving pool complex.  The city and county had to give them major incentives and cut a lot of regulation, however.
Quote:
And, its the things like the stadiums which are really expensive. Yes, you needed to build velodrome, etc. but the costs for that are a pittance compared to a brand new shiny stadium which nobody is going to use afterwards.
Those things are not a pittance.  Less than a stadium, perhaps, but not a pittance.  Arguably, they are in one sense more expensive, since they have little or no use afterwards, whereas a stadium has a number of uses. Remember, too, that there are a lot more things that need to be built than just what I mentioned, for a lot of esoteric events, and that have really no use at all once the games are over.  Plus, the inevtiable "Olympic Village" which is used for two weeks, and then generally torn down and redeveloped.
post #34 of 63
Quote:
You didn't fully understand, I'm not saying that there is not a problem, but defiantly nowhere near NYC, that's the overstatement of the century, to compare London's crime to NYC's.
By every statistical measure save one -- murders -- London's crime rate is currently much higher than New York's. Property crimes, robberies, assaults, etc. are all much higher.
post #35 of 63
Quote:
I was disappointed when Beijing was given the games.  But on reflection maybe it'll be a good thing.  Same with Moscow.  I feel, irrationally or no, that awarding it to them is condoning egregious violations of human rights and rewarding their oligarchy.
It's not irrational at all. That's exactly what giving the games to Beijing and Moscow amounts to. That's the whole point, really, to delegitmize criticism of those regimes.
post #36 of 63
Quote:
Quote:
(jmswentworth @ July 01 2005,13:11) You didn't fully understand, I'm not saying that there is not a problem, but defiantly nowhere near NYC, that's the overstatement of the century, to compare London's crime to NYC's.
By every statistical measure save one -- murders -- London's crime rate is currently much higher than New York's.  Property crimes, robberies, assaults, etc. are all much higher.
Please quote some stats, for comparable areas.. vis Upper-East in the lower 50ies to Mayfair, Brixton to Harlem.
post #37 of 63
Here are a couple of examples: in 2003, there were 24,000 street robberies in New York (citywide) and more than 38,000 in London (all areas patrolled by the Metropolitan Police, which is basically all of London, minus the City). The populations are comparable (about 7 mil in metro London versus 8 mil in the five boroughs), but if we break it out by population we get a similar result: about 549 robberies per 100,000 people in London v. 339 in NYC. Assualts: London: 42,000 (574 per 100K) ; New York 20,000 (259 per 100k). Even these may be under-reported because of the misleading way the Brits keep statistics.  For instance, if one guy robs five people in separate incidents, that goes on the book as one crime.  In New York, it counts as five. Also, despite being so small, the City of London (pop. 7,000 or so) has a horrible street crime rate.  Add that in, and the comparison would look even worse. Beyond that, however, it's not so easy to break out by area.  For instance, in New York the 19th Precint covers the entire Upper East Side, and it's easy to get precinct-by-precinct numbers.  For London, the breakdowns are not so precise.  You can get statistics for the City of Westminster as a whole, but not for Mayfair, e.g.. BTW, if you look at the numbers for Manhattan (esp. Manhattan South, where the offices, cultural institutions and tourists are), the are much, MUCH lower than comparable numbers for tourist London.  Most of the crime in NYC happens where tourists never go.
post #38 of 63
is there anything this guy doesnt know? manton - those 57 books in your bibliography must have been THICK, and with, like, hardly any pictures
post #39 of 63
I used to get paid to keep track of this stuff, so I know where to look. BTW, it's up to 68. None of them about crime, though.
post #40 of 63
Manton, I am somewhat suprised to hear this, but the 2 issues you bring up are quite major:
Quote:
Beyond that, however, it's not so easy to break out by area. For instance, in New York the 19th Precint covers the entire Upper East Side, and it's easy to get precinct-by-precinct numbers. For London, the breakdowns are not so precise. You can get statistics for the City of Westminster as a whole, but not for Mayfair, e.g..
Quote:
BTW, if you look at the numbers for Manhattan (esp. Manhattan South, where the offices, cultural institutions and tourists are), the are much, MUCH lower than comparable numbers for tourist London. Most of the crime in NYC happens where tourists never go.
I have never been victim of crime in my time in London, and I spend the majority of my time here, so perhaps this is why I'm so surprised to hear it.
post #41 of 63
Quote:
BTW, if you look at the numbers for Manhattan (esp. Manhattan South, where the offices, cultural institutions and tourists are), the are much, MUCH lower than comparable numbers for tourist London. Most of the crime in NYC happens where tourists never go.
This could be down to the fact, as stated by you, that the London stats are not broken down into specific enough areas. More so even, the overlap of the boroughs and the respective tourist attractions, I mean, they are all in the 'westend' but even if we look at theaterland this covers four boroughs, Westminster, Camden, Seven Dials, and City. Moreover, places like Paddington, Pimlico, and Shepherds Bush are in Westminster, this is certainly not going to represent the crime figures for Mayfair or even say Marylebone.
post #42 of 63
Quote:
I have never been victim of crime in my time in London, and I spend the majority of my time here, so perhaps this is why I'm so surprised to hear it.
Neither have I, but the numbers don't lie. At least, I don't think they do. London's crime rate passed New York's some time in the mid to late 1990s. When this was first reported in the American news media, the Brits went nuts, swore it was not so, and denounced the US media as liars. Then followed several statistical shoot-outs, in which the Brits were forced to admit that, indeed, it was so. In fact, these days nationwide crime rates in Britain are higher than those in the US, except for murder (which is higher pretty much everywhere in the US than in Britain) and in some areas rape. For instance, New York's murder rate is still about 3x that in London (>600 per year versus >200 per year). But in New York that is down from a peak of 2,200 in 1990, wheras London is flat or slightly increasing.
post #43 of 63
Quote:
Neither have I, but the numbers don't lie. At least, I don't think they do.
I agree, but it still has not reached a stage where it can be considered dangerous.
post #44 of 63
But compare the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (for which we do have stats) to the 19th Precinct (Upper East Side, south of 96th Street). Both are high income, largely residential, with a lot high-end retail. The London neighborhood's population is about 170,000; the UES is about 210,000. The Upper East side had fewer than half the number of total offenses for the entire year 2004 than Ken/Chelsea did for the first three months. The per 1,000 inhabitants rate is amazingly lower: about 6, versus more than 40. Now, that is driven in large part by property crimes, which vastly outnumber violent crimes in London. Which is no doubt why it largely feels safe on the street, most of the time. But people I talk to (and articles I have read) say that the London Police have largely given up even trying to do anything about property crime, so it's no wonder it's through the roof.
post #45 of 63
Not meaning to beat around the bush, but Ken & Chel has Earls Court, Hammersmith, Kensal Town, Wormwood Scrubs, and, Walham Green in it. I don't think you can name me one area like that in the Upper East.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › Which city will win the olympics bid?