|
On October 08 2006 11:50 warding wrote: [removed quote within quote] spending billions on funny looking buildings is hardly good for economic growth.
If that is all this was, I'm sure you would be correct.
|
On October 08 2006 11:50 warding wrote: [removed quote within quote] Erm... no.
EDIT: Most constructive post I've made so far. But no, spending billions on funny looking buildings is hardly good for economic growth. It's not like China needs to go faster than 10% a year tho. Perhaps building such an expensive building isn't wise economically, but I'm pretty sure hosting the olympics in general IS good for economic growth. There's so much money from private investments, tourism, etc.
|
this is such a stupid idea
|
Wow, that building looks awesome.
|
As far as the economics of the specific building go... did any of you read the articles that said the Weaire-Phelan structure is the most economical (economical in a non-money sense here) way to divide space. The structure has a lot of benefits. It doesn't need the same supports other buildings would need, like Pillars. It will conserve heat (of major importants to all the pools)... to name a few.
Plus... it looks awseome, and has many cool ideas that went into it's building. It is a tribute to Chinese motifs and theoretical Physics at the same time.
|
It's far from clear whether hosting the olympics is good for the economy. It's really hard to measure such a thing.
|
On October 08 2006 11:59 sdpgposd wrote: this is such a stupid idea
Your opinion is wrong.
|
On October 08 2006 12:11 Servolisk wrote: [removed quote within quote]
Your opinion is wrong.
Such an intelligent argument, and what a brilliant retort. Thanks for sharing your wisdom with us.
|
The allianz arena looks cooler than that stadium
|
On October 08 2006 12:10 warding wrote: It's far from clear whether hosting the olympics is good for the economy. It's really hard to measure such a thing. google yields: So how have the economics of the Olympics stacked up in the past? According to Holger Preuss, professor of sports economy and management in Cologne, all games over the past 30 years have turned an operational profit (see chart), unlike most other sporting events. http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1566955
|
On October 08 2006 12:14 warding wrote: The allianz arena looks cooler than that stadium
I like them both, but I far prefer the water cube concept. To me, the differences in their architecture are as different as a good tesselation to Kelvin's foam.
edit: and why is the money spent on Allianz not a waste, but this is?
|
It has nothing to do with olympics even. People will come to china just to see those buildings. Very good investment.
|
On October 08 2006 11:11 warding wrote:"Construction is set to start in December 2003, with the target being to complete the build by the end of 2006. It is the overall aim of the Chinese government that all Olympic stadia be completed by 2007 in order to run a number of trial competitions to test all facilities." -From first link in first post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_National_Aquatics_CentrePicture of it in construction. It's right next to that freaky stadium with all the wires. It just looks silly.
That picture is HARDCORE photoshopped. I was in Beijing just a month ago, and there is NO WAY you can see blue in the sky.
|
hmm.. what color is the sky in beijing might i ask?
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
finally odd architecture I think actually appears visually appealing.
Gogo chinamen!
|
edit: and why is the money spent on Allianz not a waste, but this is? Didn't say Allianz Arena was or wasn't a waste.
On October 08 2006 12:20 0_0 wrote: [removed quote within quote]google yields: So how have the economics of the Olympics stacked up in the past? According to Holger Preuss, professor of sports economy and management in Cologne, all games over the past 30 years have turned an operational profit (see chart), unlike most other sporting events.http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1566955 And what does it say about the overall profit? Fancy cherry picking there.
|
On October 08 2006 13:20 warding wrote: And what does it say about the overall profit? Fancy cherry picking there. Most of the countries who have hosted after the introduction of broadcasting and sponsorships have managed to pull even at least, with Australia being the obvious exception, and it didn't really lose that much either.
Coagulation, I think it's pretty grey and there's lots of smog.
|
On October 08 2006 13:20 warding wrote: Didn't say Allianz Arena was or wasn't a waste.
I know, but like this post, your last didn't offer much information so I guessed. I will ask if you prefer.
Do you think the Allianz arena is a waste? Do you think the Empire State building or the Petronas towers (taller buildings in Kuala Lumpur)? What is your opinion on how much money should be spent on landmark buildings such as these?
|
Do you think the Allianz arena is a waste? Do you think the Empire State building or the Petronas towers (taller buildings in Kuala Lumpur)? What is your opinion on how much money should be spent on landmark buildings such as these?
I do not dare comment on whether private investments are good or bad. The money is theirs, they do whatever they want.
State funded investments however are made with everyone's money and tend to become white elephants, probably the case with the Allianz Stadium. My position is that sports and culture is not an area the government should put the finger in.
|
On October 08 2006 13:14 Coagulation wrote: hmm.. what color is the sky in beijing might i ask?
Yellowish grey all day.
|
|
|
|