Which city will win the olympics bid?

[Manton]

The UES changes character dramatically east of Third Avenue, especially north of 86th Street (with the exception of the East End Avenue area). There are even a lot of housing projects up there.

But, if you want, take the UWS (20th & 24th Precincts, all the way to 110th). Total pop, more like 300,000. It's more diverse, more poor people, more projects, etc. The Manhattan Valley area (96th to 104, CPW to Amsterdam) is historically quite rough, for instance. But still, crime is lower, both in terms of rates and totals.

Look, the only point I'm trying to get across is that crime is lower in New York than in London. It's lower citywide, and it's lower in the rich neigborhoods, and it's lower in the poor neighborhoods.

Don't get me wrong: the likelihood of getting killed in Midtown or Mayfair is roughly the same, i.e., about nil. But the likelihood of being robbed or assaulted in central London is much higher, according to the numbers.

 

[jmswentworth]

The UES changes character dramatically east of Third Avenue, especially north of 86th Street (with the exception of the East End Avenue area).  There are even a lot of housing projects up there.

But, if you want, take the UWS (20th & 24th Precincts, all the way to 110th).  Total pop, more like 300,000.  It's more diverse, more poor people, more projects, etc.  The Manhattan Valley area (96th to 104, CPW to Amsterdam) is historically quite rough, for instance.  But still, crime is lower, both in terms of rates and totals.

Look, the only point I'm trying to get across is that crime is lower in New York than in London.  It's lower citywide, and it's lower in the rich neigborhoods, and it's lower in the poor neighborhoods.

Don't get me wrong: the likelihood of getting killed in Midtown or Mayfair is roughly the same, i.e., about nil.  But the likelihood of being robbed or assaulted in central London is much higher, according to the numbers.

Yes.

 

[globetrotter]

JM,

I would add that the nature of crime in the UK is very specific, now. In NY city I would say you have a pretty good chance of meeting somebody who is armed, which in london is pretty close to nil. the most dangerous thing that can happen to you in new york is to be robbed by some idiot kid who got his hands on a gun which he isn't comfortable with, and that is not a typical crime in london. but it doesn't happen that often in ny,either.

in the UK now it seems that there is a significant rise in binge drinking related violence - when basically law abiding blue collar young people feel comfortable getting piss drunk and getting violent. Frankly, I may have a distorted picture, but about 5-6 times a year I end up on an airplane reading a stack of london broadsheets, and that seems to be a problem that is always in the news. also, I am assosiated with a forum of people who are involved in martial arts that includes some british cops, and that is something that they discuss very often.

another issue on the rise, it seems, in the UK, is the issue of anti-social behavior. this is really not touched by the international news, but seems to be very hot in the british news right now.

the third thing is the whole issue of hooliganism - which is basically a very nationalistic form of crime, and often incorporates the first two points - drinking driven crimes and anti-social behavior.


frankly, I get to london on a regular basis,and I have never had any trouble. I act more like I do in New York in london than I do in any city in europe, for instance - I really don't feel at risk in any city of western euope (well, mabye parts of palarmo) but in london I keep my eyes open.

I think that the nature of the problems in london make it a dangerous city for something like the olympics - the unpredictable nature of drink fueled violence, the xenophobic and nationalistic nature of hooliganism, the extreme violent nature of some anti-social behavior. I think introducing large numbers of non-english speaking, nationalistic young revelors into london for a 2-3 week period would be a recipe for disaster.

and let me clarify - for instance the nature of the problems in Tel aviv would be the danger of bombing, the nature if the problem in ny is getting shot during a robbery, the nature of the problem in london is getting bashed or slashed by a drunken citizen. all extremly unlikly, statistically speaking, all different, but all real.

 

[esquire.]

in the UK now it seems that there is a significant rise in binge drinking related violence - when basically law abiding blue collar young people feel comfortable getting piss drunk and getting violent.

I think that the nature of the problems in london make it a dangerous city for something like the olympics - the unpredictable nature of drink fueled violence, I think introducing large numbers of non-english speaking, nationalistic young revelors into london for a 2-3 week period would be a recipe for disaster.
the nature of the problem in london is getting bashed or slashed by a drunken citizen.

globetrotter-

i think i read something about that phenomenon, and it had something to do with closing time. once, closing time approached, those people would try to drink as much as possible to get hammered. and, i think that the bars would also kick everybody out as soon at closing time so you'd get all these drunk people out on the streets with ensuing fracas.

maybe this is naive, but i don't see why london couldn't pass a special law for that 2-3 period to avoid those problems. it seems that if you could control drunkness, you could control some of the problems you brought up.

the most drastic might be to simply shut down the bars. if nobody is going to get drunk, then that would avoid a lot of the alchol fued violence.

or, to limit the amount of liquor sold in a bar to a patron so the patron couldn't get hammered. or, do what some stadiums in america do when they don't sell beer past the 7th inning.

or, maybe, london could shift the bar hours where the english hooligans could get hammered at a time period where all the tourists have already returned to their hotel rooms.

 

[globetrotter]

Quote:

(globetrotter @ July 02 2005,11:29) in the UK now it seems that there is a significant rise in binge drinking related violence - when basically law abiding blue collar young people feel comfortable getting piss drunk and getting violent. I think that the nature of the problems in london make it a dangerous city for something like the olympics - the unpredictable nature of drink fueled violence, Â I think introducing large numbers of non-english speaking, nationalistic young revelors into london for a 2-3 week period would be a recipe for disaster. the nature of the problem in london is getting bashed or slashed by a drunken citizen.
globetrotter- i think i read something about that phenomenon, and it had something to do with closing time. once, closing time approached, those people would try to drink as much as possible to get hammered. and, i think that the bars would also kick everybody out as soon at closing time so you'd get all these drunk people out on the streets with ensuing fracas. maybe this is naive, but i don't see why london couldn't pass a special law for that 2-3 period to avoid those problems. it seems that if you could control drunkness, you could control some of the problems you brought up. the most drastic might be to simply shut down the bars. if nobody is going to get drunk, then that would avoid a lot of the alchol fued violence. or, to limit the amount of liquor sold in a bar to a patron so the patron couldn't get hammered. or, do what some stadiums in america do when they don't sell beer past the 7th inning. or, maybe, london could shift the bar hours where the english hooligans could get hammered at a time period where all the tourists have already returned to their hotel rooms.
esquire, you may be right - I am sure somebody with better background in government policy might very well have an informed opinion on how those laws work, and I know that many countries have specific laws to control the supply of liquor at certain times and locations. My feeling is that in the UK, though, over the past few years it has become socially acceptable to binge drink and get violent, for large parts of society, including people who are normally law abiding and productive members of society for most of the week.

 

[Manton]

My feeling is that in the UK, though, over the past few years it has become socially acceptable to binge drink and get violent, for large parts of society, including people who are normally law abiding and productive members of society for most of the week.

I know some people with direct experience with the British criminal justice system, and they report that this is exactly what has happened. It doesn't explain 100% of the rise in crime, but maybe 25%.

 

[jcusey]

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.

One small quibble: the total number of murders per year in NYC has dipped below 600 the past couple of years, and it's on pace to dip below 500 this year.

 

[Manton]

Oops, I reversed the symbols. I meant to say "less than" in both cases. There were 572 murders in New York in 2004. In London there were, so far as I can tell (the Metropolitan Police does not make it easy to compile this number) 186.

 

[Brian SD]

People who lived in LA during the '84 Olympics universally report that those two weeks were the best driving, with the lowest traffic, since the freeway system was built. Public officials and the media had people in such terror of traffic jams, and were so forceful in scolding about "unecessary trips" that no one went anywhere. Then the athletes left, and the traffic situation promptly reverted to disaster status, in which state it has been ever since.

Reminds me of a line from Futurama: "No one ever drove in old New York City - there was too much traffic."

 

[Manton]

Reminds me of a line from Futurama: "No one ever drove in old New York City - there was too much traffic."

Which is cribbed from an old Yogi Berra quip: "No one ever goes to that restaurant any more. It's too crowded."

 

[jmswentworth]

Globetrotter, you bring up very valid points, esp. the nature of the crime, but there is one thing you have not considered in your argument.

London nightlife culture differs oh so vastly from the rest of the UK alongside with the binge drinking.

For one thing, a blue-collar citizen is not going to go drinking in Central London, be it a nice bar or club, or even a local pub. Therefore, unless you are suggesting that a tourist is going to go out to Hackney for a pint, there are very unlikely to encounter any such problems.

For another, even in an unreal scenario, licensing laws in the City of Westminster differ a great deal from anywhere else in the UK. Unlike other areas, the 'last call' for drinks varies from establishment to establishment, thus one in desperate need of a drink will almost certainly be able to go elsewhere. Moreover, although most districts do state in their legislation that if a patron is visibly intoxicated, it is illegal to serve them, it is not normally practiced. However, in City of Westminster this is very strictly enforced; I've seen people being a little chatty with the bar staff and being refused a drink. Of course, I cannot say for every place, because it depends on the staff on an individual basis, but from what I've seen it is the case.

Therefore, in summary, London is more dangerous than NY, as far as figures go. However, you're not going to die in London, you'll get bruised. However, I do not agree that London is not suitable in this respect, perhaps traffic, or even infrastructure, but as far as crime goes;

1. Olympic spectators are likely to be relatively decent, sure there not your The Races at Ascot, Henley Regatta, or Windsor Polo crowd, but they certainly aren't your Wembley/ Loftus Road crowd. I maintain that they will be seldom different from the Lords/Twickenham/Wimbledon crowd.

2. I would sooner be alive and victim of abuse than shot, perhaps dead, and passport less.

 

[globetrotter]

Globetrotter, you bring up very valid points, esp. the nature of the crime, but there is one thing you have not considered in your argument.

London nightlife culture differs oh so vastly from the rest of the UK alongside with the binge drinking.

For one thing, a blue-collar citizen is not going to go drinking in Central London, be it a nice bar or club, or even a local pub. Therefore, unless you are suggesting that a tourist is going to go out to Hackney for a pint, there are very unlikely to encounter any such problems.

For another, even in an unreal scenario, licensing laws in the City of Westminster differ a great deal from anywhere else in the UK. Unlike other areas, the 'last call' for drinks varies from establishment to establishment, thus one in desperate need of a drink will almost certainly be able to go elsewhere. Moreover, although most districts do state in their legislation that if a patron is visibly intoxicated, it is illegal to serve them, it is not normally practiced. However, in City of Westminster this is very strictly enforced; I've seen people being a little chatty with the bar staff and being refused a drink. Of course, I cannot say for every place, because it depends on the staff on an individual basis, but from what I've seen it is the case.

Therefore, in summary, London is more dangerous than NY, as far as figures go. However, you're not going to die in London, you'll get bruised. However, I do not agree that London is not suitable in this respect, perhaps traffic, or even infrastructure, but as far as crime goes;

1. Olympic spectators are likely to be relatively decent, sure there not your The Races at Ascot, Henley Regatta, or Windsor Polo crowd, but they certainly aren't your Wembley/ Loftus Road crowd. I maintain that they will be seldom different from the Lords/Twickenham/Wimbledon crowd.

2. I would sooner be alive and victim of abuse than shot, perhaps dead, and passport less.

JM,

I think that you are basically right on your points - like I said, I get to london on a regular basis, and have never had a problem.

but, again I may differ with you on the nature of the olympics - I would suggest that for olympic summer games you would have tens of thousands of visitors in subhurbs of london, and even farther away, due to the great influx of crowds for the games. although these will be basically decent people, many won't speak English, many will be young and nationalistic (proud of their own countries) and often niave. My first gut reaction when I thought of london for the games was violent interaction between local youths and these type of tourists, and I think that that gut reaction still is a realistic expectation.

once, a few years ago, I went to london for a training for a company. the office of this company was in "london" - but it was actually in a suburb that wasn't very nice, not to far from heathrow (I can't remember the name now, not too far from wimbleton, either). from the corporate HQ's perspective, this was "london", but when I got their the pubs and shops all had wire over their windows, which I was told was due to a spate of robberies where the perpetrators through dust bins through the windows of shops. needless to say, this wasn't such a nice part of town.

my point being that from far away, this looked like london- for the olympic games, tens of thousands of people will end up billeted in places like that, without speaking the language, and potentially in the middle of danger.

aside from that, I think that london would be a great place for the games, and is a great place in general. In the same way that I was very happy that athens made it easier to get from the airport to town (and imporved the airport) in order to get the games, I'd like to see the UK address this recent problem in order to prepare for the games.

 

[chorse123]

I think it's going to Paris.... oh wait.

Shocking. Have any IOC members ridden the tube during rush hour, when not just stations but whole lines go out of service? London can barely handle the traffic from a normal business day; they'll have to shut the regular life down for a fortnight.

Good luck.

Also, and some of the English on here I'm curious what you think, but when I was in London it didn't seem like there was much popular support for the games.

 

[Kent Wang]

London wins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_2012_Olympic_bid

 

[globetrotter]

congradulations to London. this is an olympics that I would like to get to, if just for a few days.