Comments on: Greenwich Park: YouTube If You Want To

By: GORN61

GORN61 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:14:50 +0000

Damned right they should be consulting everyone. If by PERSONALLY you mean they should be making sure eveyone gets to know what’s going on, and gets to have their views heard, then yes they should.
Why should people have their views ignored just because they aren’t part of some cabal that gets to find out about these things?
I found out about this stuff last Saturday.

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:35:27 +0000

Ahhhh they’ve put it back up again
without the comments.

By: Pete

Pete — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:28:21 +0000

Ha ha seems Locog have taken down their
advert on YouTube
I wonder if it was anything to do with the last
comment suggesting people should follow
the map of the proposed route to find
the sprouting stumps of the supposed
dead trees cut down six months ago

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:13:45 +0000

I feel like this is now unstoppable so maybe the campaign should be for a better legacy than is currently on the table. My suggestion is a subscription to Horse & Hound for every child in the borough. No child left behind (when it comes to equestrian news).

By: Rod

Rod — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:03:52 +0000

“The simple fact is the majority of these are far from compelling and are of little value to the campaign. Including all of them confuses the message.
If you present a list of 10 concerns and 7 of them get quickly discounted, it gives the impression that 70% of your argument has disappeared. But if the real weight of your argument lies in the remaining 3, you’d be much better off taking only those into battle with you.”
The closure of the park to local residents?
The potential damage to local businesses?
The impact on traffic in the area?
The risk of fatalities from the ground collapsing?
The risk of damages to archaelogical sites?
The risk of damage to the environment?
The limited space available resulting in a poor experience for competitors and spectators?
The lack of any legacy for the local area?
The impact on tourism?
The cost compared to alternatives?
The lack of consultation with local residents?

Which of these can in your considered opinion be quote “easily discounted”?

Surely the real question is not “What is the single overwhelming argument against holding the equestrian events in Greenwich Park?”, but rather, “What is the justification for holding them there, in the face of so many legitimate issues against?”
This isn’t just nimby-ism (and your list isn’t even complete, by the way – you don’t include the intolerable strain that these events will put on the local infrastructure, particularly transport ) – all of the issues that Boris Johnson has raised in the last few days with regards to erecting temporary, legacy-free, venues at Woolwich and the Peninsula apply with even more force to Greenwich Park.

By: Paul G

Paul G — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:11:00 +0000

@indigo
I was just looking through my LOCOG fanclub newsletter and loved the article where Judy MBE tells us how much her girls loved playing in the playground, flower garden and any other areas that LOCOG have said will be least effected by closures. Apparently good community minded children have no interest in any part of the park that may be closed for the building of the Olympic Stadium
I also found myself agreeing with Bob Harris’ comments that culture and the creative industries are an important driver in regeneration. I can’t wait until Greenwich actually start doing something to support the creative industries in the borough. The only radical action I have seen happen in the culural sector in the borough recently were the cuts they made to their funded arts organisations (savings to go to the Olympics of course!)

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:40:14 +0000

Blisset’s right. The youtube ad is a blizzard of nimby arguments, which are assembled randomly – the point that individual residents haven’t been consulted, which is the payoff of the piece, is irrelevant. Do we expect people to knock on our doors?

The most convincing argument against the use of the park is contained in Tim Hadawy’s youtube video, which is even more vacuous and unconvincing. The fact that they’re having vague conversations about incorporating some sort of cross-country jump into the children’s playground underlines, in a quite stunning way, how the equestrian games will leave no legacy whatsoever.

By: Indigo

Indigo — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:29:42 +0000

Blisset pwned.

By: Blissett

Blissett — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:09:25 +0000

1. @Indigo In your delightfully patronising reply, you seem to have ignored the key word. I said “PERSONALLY consulted”. It really irritates me when people say “well they haven’t asked me” as though LOCOG should be going door to door, canvassing every individual opinion and only go ahead once they’ve cleared it with Mrs N Imby. As with the market development, people have wildly exaggerated expectations of what a public consultation actually means.

2. @Indigo Sorry, I didn’t realise that bats and stag beetles existed outside of “the environment” (see I can be patronising too).

3. Both Paul and Indigo have completely missed my point. There may be 11/15/100 reasons why people don’t think the Olympics should use Greenwich Park. The simple fact is the majority of these are far from compelling and are of little value to the campaign. Including all of them confuses the message.

If you present a list of 10 concerns and 7 of them get quickly discounted, it gives the impression that 70% of your argument has disappeared. But if the real weight of your argument lies in the remaining 3, you’d be much better off taking only those into battle with you.

I firmly believe that any good campaign should have a clear, concise and compelling message. There could be one for NOGOE but at the moment it’s buried under a mountain of NIMBYist irrelevance.

By: Paul G

Paul G — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:29:37 +0000

Can anyone tell me, what is the single compelling argument against the plans? Is it:
The closure of the park to local residents?
The potential damage to local businesses?
The impact on traffic in the area?
The risk of fatalities from the ground collapsing?
The risk of damages to archaelogical sites?
The risk of damage to the environment?
The limited space available resulting in a poor experience for competitors and spectators?
The lack of any legacy for the local area?
The impact on tourism?
The cost compared to alternatives?
The lack of consultation with local residents?

Or C – All of the above?