I'm not digressing at all, put the goal posts back. The legacy was part of the initial bid, and it hasn't been totally delivered, so the original plan is probably way below 95% fulfilled. Other aspects of the bid were only fulfilled at the expense of other schemes.
Were any events impacted on and were all the Olympic venues open on time to host the specific Olympic events?
It's an interesting discussion. Your post raises two questions: 1. What was the timetable on the legacy that would make it not delivered at way below 95%? 2. What are those 'other aspects of the bid that were fulfilled' and, more pertinent, what were the other schemes that paid the price?
The events were only one part of the scheme. Other elements of the scheme didn't get carried out, or have yet to be carried out.
The Legacy was always going to be less than straight forward due to legal challenges for stadium occupation etc. The primary focus is and would always have been to deliver all the Olympic venues on time, the semantics of the legacy is largely academic as it wasn't the purpose for building the venues - the purpose was the Olympics. You only have to visit the areas to see the truly positive impact that has been made in East London.
The legacy has fallen short on a number of elements, I have no idea by what percentage. It was sold as the 'legacy Olympics' but the House of Lords Report after the event said the $15 billion Olympic legacy is "in danger of faltering" because of squabbling over major projects and "little evidence" of a postgames boost in sports participation. Unemployment actually rose in host boroughs during the Olympics. Despite a commitment to ensure that 20,000 Olympics jobs went to locals, fewer than half actually did. Other areas of funding, such as some of the transport infra-structure for other areas had funds reduced, and schemes were altered in such a way that they were of benefit to the Olympics (and should have come from that budget) but the original schemes delayed.
But it was sold as the legacy Olympics. It was a key part of the bid. You can't just ignore bits of it. You're effectively agreeing that it fell short of the original scheme. Edit. Just to be clear, I'm not saying it was a failure, it was far from that. There were and are many excellent things to come from the Olympics and its legacy, I'm simply pointing out that schemes such as these rarely hit every target from the original bid concept. Hull's is no different. We will see many benefits from the City of Culture, and these are what should be the focus, rather than other elements that may end up changing.
The new venue has been dropped from the plans for CoC2017, it was the single biggest cost item in those plans, it would be more comparable with the Olympics if the committee had decided to drop the Olympic Stadium. I don't really think it's that important if we complete 90/95/100% as long as we put on a good show, though to make sure we do, we really need to make sure we don't drop any further major works due to be completed by 2017.
You can accept change and flexibility throughout the project, but acceptance of less than 100% is like aiming for 4th place in a 100m race. The only real legacy issues I can see is the investment and participation in grass roots sport. That responsibility is also the job of the parents - most seem happy to let children play on bloody computer games. School sports is a postcode lottery - our village school doesn't even have a PE Teacher!! They have an outsourced PE Type company in 2 days a week to run PE activities.
It's a bit of an exaggeration to say it's like losing the olympic stadium, or really that it has been dropped, given it is going ahead. For over a year it's only really been described as a legacy development.
If you're ignoring the legacy, you're not looking at 100% of the concept anyway. The olympic concept failed by your standards, but not by mine.
No, not at all. We're talking bricks and mortar delivery - not the subsequent legacy bollocks, most of which is impossible to measure. Olympic delivery was a success. In my household sports participation is up too - I'm coaching football and GLP jr is playing football and tennis. Hull City Council COC 17 a failure - they can't even deliver the music venue which would surely have been a centre piece.
Well as that particular music venue has been described as a legacy element for quite a while now, I guess it's excluded from your percentages.
It was surely intended as the centre piece. But let's ignore that and pretend it was always scheduled for 2018.
Ah, but it's a legacy element now, so no need to count it. We can just focus on all the many, many successful elements that will bring good things to this fair City, in 2017 and beyond. Like the Olympics and other schemes, legacy is a key element. Positive mental attitude, and broader thinking are all part of the City of Culture ideal.
Maybe they can delay the City of Culture to 2018? I mean they only applied in early 2013 and awarded it at the back end of 2013. The speed at which 2017 looms on the horizon must have caught them off guard. I'm not sure why it took 8 months of floundering to appoint a chief executive.
I'm sure you're right, it's an absolute failure. You'd be best avoiding it. Mind you, looking through the literature associated with the bid, the other failure seems to be mentioning much of this centre piece you talk of. They keep saying the City is the Venue and the fabric is the centre piece. How remiss of them.
