Strands #301 “Festival Of Lights...
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
No best answer has yet been selected by Drusilla. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Hi Wendy. I was born and bred in Hackney and anything that can help to improve that place is worth paying by all Londoners.
I think Olympic bids have to include a plan to show the long term benefits to an area, post games. I remember the trouble in Barcelona and my father told me the people of Montreal suffered terrible financial hardship back in the eighties as a result of a winning bid.
I hope I'm not wrong on this.
Barcelona's doing fine: since the Olympics, and with the help of the tourism and the urban regeneration they provided it's become one of the most interesting world cities to visit. Montreal, on the other hand, is probably still being paid off. The turning point was LA in 1984: the whole thing was run by a businessman on business lines, and dedicated to the prospect of making money (this may sound like greedy commercialism, but it's better than losing money, which others did); and others have followed suit. To win the games, you're supposed to show that they will bring long-term benefit to local people. This doesn't often work out - even Sydney has white elephant stadiums left over - but there's no reason in principle why it shouldn't. I wish I trusted the UK government to do it right.
As to the fat-finger vote: who knows? Who cares? It could be true, but gary baldy is right - it just doesn't matter now.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.