City says Olympic organizers are snubbing city

[mr.x]

Looks like we've got another Kerry here, denying those who know more of their city, their province, and their country. Those who live in the culture know what is their culture and don't need to be dictated on what it is. Go and camp out in your frozen beaches and while you're at it, build yourself an Inukshuk, argentak.

I was actually thinking of a B.C. styled mine bulldozer.

[argentak]

You can all say the world is laughing, say who is an outsider, dictate what is symbolism and what isn't, and drag out sing-songed pictures as much as you want, but you're going to have to face the facts eventually. Sorry to burst your bubble of supremacy.

[argentak]

Nobody has to be a Vancouverite to know that the logo represents Vancouver.

Explain to us how this logo represents Vancouver.

The Vancouver inukshuk is a landmark. And yes, something can be a landmark if you don't think it is.

Tianenmen Square is a landmark, but government supporting locals think otherwise.  

[mr.x]

You can all say the world is laughing, say who is an outsider, dictate what is symbolism and what isn't, and drag out sing-songed pictures as much as you want, but you're going to have to face the facts eventually. Sorry to burst your bubble of supremacy.

The Vancouver inukshuk is a landmark. And yes, something can be a landmark if you don't think it is.

Tianenmen Square is a landmark, but government supporting locals think otherwise.

I think Vancouverites know better - they know a lot more about their city and what's a landmark, what suites and is their city's culture, and what's the best for their city.

Welcome to Vancouver b!tch!

[argentak]

You can all say the world is laughing, say who is an outsider, dictate what is symbolism and what isn't, and drag out sing-songed pictures as much as you want, but you're going to have to face the facts eventually. Sorry to burst your bubble of supremacy.

The Vancouver inukshuk is a landmark. And yes, something can be a landmark if you don't think it is.

Tianenmen Square is a landmark, but government supporting locals think otherwise.

I think Vancouverites know better - they know a lot more about their city and what's a landmark, what suites and is their city's culture, and what's the best for their city.

Welcome to Vancouver b!tch!

And you're absolutely wrong!

Locals don't dictate what is a landmark. Sure they can provide money to preserve certain places, build new ones, or keep them on maintained grounds, but it's not funding that makes a landmark a landmark. It's the attention that is paid to it, which includes formats such as being emblazoned in an Olympic logo.

When the Statue of Liberty arrived in New York many people thought it blocked the view, represented too much dependency on foreign nations, and looked too "European." The Sydney Opera House looked too modern and at one point it was questioned if the project was going to continue. The Eiffel Tower was ill received by planners and the public of Paris. The Washington Monument was viewed as too plain. Hallgrimskirkja in Reykjavik looked "obscene" and "frightening" to people. The Guggenheim in Bilbao had a dreadful time trying to be passed! But guess what? Even though some people didn't like them, they became an embodied figure of their city, and sometimes country.

Why? Because they became original and well-known landmarks not just amongst locals but by visitors and tourists. They became utterly synonymous. And while the Eiffel Tower, the Statue of Liberty, and the Sydney Opera House are not as widely known as Hallgrimskirkja OR the English Bay Inukshuk, they are all still testaments of peace, solidarity, friendship, strength, or whatever they were created for.

Let us not forget that the English Bay Inukshuk was created for Vancouver's Expo 1986 in the friendly and hospitable spirit of the city welcoming the world to not only Vancouver but Canada as well. Sounds familiar...

[baron-pierreIV]

Welcome to Vancouver b!tch!

:laughlong:   I'll always come to your city if that's the case.  I luv b*tches.   :laughlong:

P.S. Tienamen Square isn't exactly a "landmark."  Not quite as Red Square or Union Square (in SF) are.  It's the events that happpened in Tienamen Square of a few years ago that placed the site on 'legend' status.  But it's not a landmark the way the Leaning Tower of Pisa is; or the Eiffel or Seattle's Space Needle is.    It's sacred ground insofar as the common man's fight for 'freedom.'

The Inuksh*t that VANOC chose is just too simplistic.  I can't help but think of what Ripley said in ALIEN II:

Did I just hear your IQs drop by several notches?   :laughlong:

[Kenadian]

The Vancouver Games are barely making a blip on the radar of the world because they are more than 4 years away.  People are more interested in things that are happening now or soon.  Get over yourselves.  This isn't that important to anyone outside of Gamesbids or Vancouver.

[mr.x]

You can all say the world is laughing, say who is an outsider, dictate what is symbolism and what isn't, and drag out sing-songed pictures as much as you want, but you're going to have to face the facts eventually. Sorry to burst your bubble of supremacy.

The Vancouver inukshuk is a landmark. And yes, something can be a landmark if you don't think it is.

Tianenmen Square is a landmark, but government supporting locals think otherwise.

I think Vancouverites know better - they know a lot more about their city and what's a landmark, what suites and is their city's culture, and what's the best for their city.

Welcome to Vancouver b!tch!

And you're absolutely wrong!

Locals don't dictate what is a landmark. Sure they can provide money to preserve certain places, build new ones, or keep them on maintained grounds, but it's not funding that makes a landmark a landmark. It's the attention that is paid to it, which includes formats such as being emblazoned in an Olympic logo.

When the Statue of Liberty arrived in New York many people thought it blocked the view, represented too much dependency on foreign nations, and looked too "European." The Sydney Opera House looked too modern and at one point it was questioned if the project was going to continue. The Eiffel Tower was ill received by planners and the public of Paris. The Washington Monument was viewed as too plain. Hallgrimskirkja in Reykjavik looked "obscene" and "frightening" to people. The Guggenheim in Bilbao had a dreadful time trying to be passed! But guess what? Even though some people didn't like them, they became an embodied figure of their city, and sometimes country.

Why? Because they became original and well-known landmarks not just amongst locals but by visitors and tourists. They became utterly synonymous. And while the Eiffel Tower, the Statue of Liberty, and the Sydney Opera House are not as widely known as Hallgrimskirkja OR the English Bay Inukshuk, they are all still testaments of peace, solidarity, friendship, strength, or whatever they were created for.

Let us not forget that the English Bay Inukshuk was created for Vancouver's Expo 1986 in the friendly and hospitable spirit of the city welcoming the world to not only Vancouver but Canada as well. Sounds familiar...

I couldn't help but laugh at your post.....you have some of Gamesbids' most warped and screwed up opinions......and heads.

Oh my. This lampost in Anchorage is soooooo unique and sooooooooo special. I am a foreigner, I think it's awesome, I declare it the landmark of Anchorage and I dictate that it defines the culture of Alaska and the United States of America!

[argentak]

Thank you for proving my point!

The lampposts in Victoria are landmarks. More specifically for their hanging baskets of flowers which does quite a bit to portray its Garden City nickname. You really can't smell anything else at the piers by the way. So, why can't any other city have landmark lampposts? Anchorage depends on lights and heavy electric bills as it sees the most darkness out of any US city (including summertime dusk.) It even has a City of Lights celebration (although I'm not sure if Paris has heard and gotten angry yet.  :oops: ) Anything can be a landmark. Depends on what you see in it.

Tianenmen Square IS a landmark. Historical events are part of what can be consituted as one. Only few landmarks are built just to be a landmark. Here is the trusty old Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of a landmark:

1 : an object (as a stone or tree) that marks the boundary of land

2 a : a conspicuous object on land that marks a locality b : an anatomical structure used as a point of orientation in locating other structures

3 : an event or development that marks a turning point or a stage

4 : a structure (as a building) of unusual historical and usually aesthetic interest; especially : one that is officially designated and set aside for preservation.

If people see any parts of those definitions in something wether it is the Space Needle, Tianenmen Square, the lamposts of Victoria (or Anchorage!), or the English Bay Inukshuk, then it has certain landmark status. Ones that have more tourism-geared money and government preservation funds pumped into them are just more popular, but it doesn't make the rest not landmarks.

Technically, everything that exists in a city or country or whatever could become a landmark. From the biggest building all the way down to a famous pile of dog whatsit. It's the amount of attention paid to it and how people associate them mentally is what makes it a potentially more popular landmark. Is the gift for Expo 86 explanation not historical or important enough?

I figure if Vancouverites thought the inukshuk was too non-local to be a landmark then surely it wouldn't be in a place with popular views, and the land wouldn't have been given to the government, and there wouldn't be a roped fence around it with an informational sign, and it wouldn't be one of the most photographed parts of the city. Surely it wouldn't have taken 19 years for it to have been taken down by now if it was in all senses not Vancouver. Might as well take down all of the Chinese signs and ship 'em over to Beijing. Didn't have any of those when Vancouver was beginning to incorporate.

Face it, the inukshuk does represent Vancouver even if you don't like it. Every city has things they don't like to be associated with, and are so anyways. Vancouver? Drugs. Anchorage? ... More drugs. Haha!

[mr.x]

Thank you for proving my point!

The lampposts in Victoria are landmarks. More specifically for their hanging baskets of flowers which does quite a bit to portray its Garden City nickname. You really can't smell anything else at the piers by the way. So, why can't any other city have landmark lampposts? Anchorage depends on lights and heavy electric bills as it sees the most darkness out of any US city (including summertime dusk.) It even has a City of Lights celebration (although I'm not sure if Paris has heard and gotten angry yet.  :oops: ) Anything can be a landmark. Depends on what you see in it.

Tianenmen Square IS a landmark. Historical events are part of what can be consituted as one. Only few landmarks are built just to be a landmark. Here is the trusty old Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of a landmark:

1 : an object (as a stone or tree) that marks the boundary of land

2 a : a conspicuous object on land that marks a locality b : an anatomical structure used as a point of orientation in locating other structures

3 : an event or development that marks a turning point or a stage

4 : a structure (as a building) of unusual historical and usually aesthetic interest; especially : one that is officially designated and set aside for preservation.

If people see any parts of those definitions in something wether it is the Space Needle, Tianenmen Square, the lamposts of Victoria (or Anchorage!), or the English Bay Inukshuk, then it has certain landmark status. Ones that have more tourism-geared money and government preservation funds pumped into them are just more popular, but it doesn't make the rest not landmarks.

Technically, everything that exists in a city or country or whatever could become a landmark. From the biggest building all the way down to a famous pile of dog whatsit. It's the amount of attention paid to it and how people associate them mentally is what makes it a potentially more popular landmark. Is the gift for Expo 86 explanation not historical or important enough?

I figure if Vancouverites thought the inukshuk was too non-local to be a landmark then surely it wouldn't be in a place with popular views, and the land wouldn't have been given to the government, and there wouldn't be a roped fence around it with an informational sign, and it wouldn't be one of the most photographed parts of the city. Surely it wouldn't have taken 19 years for it to have been taken down by now if it was in all senses not Vancouver. Might as well take down all of the Chinese signs and ship 'em over to Beijing. Didn't have any of those when Vancouver was beginning to incorporate.

Face it, the inukshuk does represent Vancouver even if you don't like it. Every city has things they don't like to be associated with, and are so anyways. Vancouver? Drugs. Anchorage? ... More drugs. Haha!

This post just proves that there's a huge drug problem in America's Great White North.

[argentak]

This post just proves that there's a huge drug problem in America's Great White North.

This post just proves that...

MRREEEOWWW!!! Saucer of milk with that catty comment?

By the way, don't even get started about simplistic. The Washington Monument, people! Nothing could be more simplisitc but it has historical value, is recognized by people, is photograhed, etc. It's obviously a landmark.

[mr.x]

This post just proves that there's a huge drug problem in America's Great White North.

This post just proves that...

MRREEEOWWW!!! Saucer of milk with that catty comment?

By the way, don't even get started about simplistic. The Washington Monument, people! Nothing could be more simplisitc but it has historical value, is recognized by people, is photograhed, etc. It's obviously a landmark.

That's bloody different! It's been around since forever, its frickin huge, and it sticks out in the Washington skyline.

[argentak]

That's bloody different! It's been around since forever, its frickin huge, and it sticks out in the Washington skyline.

British swearing!  

Anyways.

Is the Blarney Stone of Cork, Ireland "frickin huge"?

Can you see Copenhagen's Little Mermaid statue in the skyline?

Has Taipei 101 been around "since forever"?

[baron-pierreIV]

This post just proves that there's a huge drug problem in America's Great White North.

This post just proves that...

MRREEEOWWW!!! Saucer of milk with that catty comment?

By the way, don't even get started about simplistic. The Washington Monument, people! Nothing could be more simplisitc but it has historical value, is recognized by people, is photograhed, etc. It's obviously a landmark.

It's really quite a dumb, unoriginal landmark if u ask me.  It's just another obelisk on steroids.  But as X said, it's been there forever since before most of us were born, so it's not like our opinion matters on whether we want it or not.

Arge, I don't know -- your logic is a little screwy.  Your arguments just seem to be a little off -- ya know, like an out-of-focus picture?  :oo:

[argentak]

It's really quite a dumb, unoriginal landmark if u ask me.  It's just another obelisk on steroids.  But as X said, it's been there forever since before most of us were born, so it's not like our opinion matters on whether we want it or not.

Arge, I don't know -- your logic is a little screwy.  Your arguments just seem to be a little off -- ya know, like an out-of-focus picture?  :Oo:

It doesn't matter if the Washington Monument has been there forever. What about when the World Trade Center memorial is constructed? Will that not be a landmark because it is new and hasn't been there "since forever"? What about the CN Tower? It was only made in 1976 and surely hasn't been around that long. The World Trade Center in New York itself was only completed in 1977. That hadn't existed for very long.

Please tell me why and how something shouldn't be considered a landmark if it is not all:

1. big enough.

2. been there long enough.

3. visible from a skyline.

If my logic is screwy then prove it, don't just putz around and declare so.

[Vancouver_rocks]

Well your comparing a pile of rocks to those huge landmarks which the whole world does know about. If you go anywhere out of Vancouver no one will know what the pile of rocks on English Bay is.

[mr.x]

It's really quite a dumb, unoriginal landmark if u ask me.  It's just another obelisk on steroids.  But as X said, it's been there forever since before most of us were born, so it's not like our opinion matters on whether we want it or not.

Arge, I don't know -- your logic is a little screwy.  Your arguments just seem to be a little off -- ya know, like an out-of-focus picture?  :oo:

It doesn't matter if the Washington Monument has been there forever. What about when the World Trade Center memorial is constructed? Will that not be a landmark because it is new and hasn't been there "since forever"? What about the CN Tower? It was only made in 1976 and surely hasn't been around that long. The World Trade Center in New York itself was only completed in 1977. That hadn't existed for very long.

Please tell me why and how something shouldn't be considered a landmark if it is not all:

1. big enough.

2. been there long enough.

3. visible from a skyline.

If my logic is screwy then prove it, don't just putz around and declare so.

You remind me of the supercomputer, Vicky, in the Vancouver made movie, I, Robot.

You are making a mistake. My logic is Undeniable. My logic is Undeniable. My logic is Undeniable. My loooogic is Undeniable. My logic is Undeniableeeeee.

Your logic is being killed Argentak by Vancouverites, British Columbians, and Canadians.

I think most people will agree with me on this.

[argentak]

Well your comparing a pile of rocks to those huge landmarks which the whole world does know about. If you go anywhere out of Vancouver no one will know what the pile of rocks on English Bay is.

It doesn't matter if many people don't know about it.

It's still a landmark.

And mr.x, you and your likeminded gamesbids cohorts HARDLY represent Vancouver, BC, or Canada. I know this for a fact.

[baron-pierreIV]

Well your comparing a pile of rocks to those huge landmarks which the whole world does know about. If you go anywhere out of Vancouver no one will know what the pile of rocks on English Bay is.

Precisely.  I didn't know what the damned thing was until this whole thing erupted; and much as I like Vancouver, it's not going to make me find it even more.

argentak writes:

It doesn't matter if many people don't know about it.

Then what's the point?  Oh, actually, I have a pile of bird dung in my backyard.  No one else knows about it.  But going by your reasoning, Arge - it is hereby declared a landmark because I so decree it!!

argentak also previosuly wrote:

Please tell me why and how something shouldn't be considered a landmark if it is not all:

1. big enough.

2. been there long enough.

3. visible from a skyline.

Addressing:

2 - how long is long enough, arge?  By your standards?  

3.  I didn't know the little pile of stones was visible from the Vancouver skyline,  The Washington dick certainly isn't visible from the New York skyline nor from our skyline here in SF.  So how can that fall under your definitions of "landmark"?  

Oh, and I did say that your line of reasoning is screwy,  But I won't belabor the point.

[Kenadian]

Vancouver doesn't have any internationally recognized landmarks.

[argentak]

2 - how long is long enough, arge?  By your standards?  

3.  I didn't know the little pile of stones was visible from the Vancouver skyline,  The Washington dick certainly isn't visible from the New York skyline nor from our skyline here in SF.  So how can that fall under your definitions of "landmark"?  

Oh, and I did say that your line of reasoning is screwy,  But I won't belabor the point.

Baron you misunderstood. Those are three things that x suggested as what is necessary to make a landmark. I said it doesn't have to be old, visible from a skyline, or big. Hence my examples. By the way, the pile of bird dung can be a landmark. If it has a historical background, is biologically unique, or whatever and you took it upon yourself to preserve it then it would be a landmark.

But if objects are moved like traveling museum exhibits they lose (sometimes only temporarily) landmark status and then become just famous or noteworthy objects. Why? Because landmark means a feature of the land, of course.

As with Kendegra's view, Vancouver really doesn't have any internationally recognized landmarks. It's unlikely anything would be globally known and pop out and say "Vancouver!" without spelling it out. But it does not mean Vancouver isn't dotted with various historical and unique points of interests, buildings, pieces of art, etc.

[mr.x]

2 - how long is long enough, arge?  By your standards?  

3.  I didn't know the little pile of stones was visible from the Vancouver skyline,  The Washington dick certainly isn't visible from the New York skyline nor from our skyline here in SF.  So how can that fall under your definitions of "landmark"?  

Oh, and I did say that your line of reasoning is screwy,  But I won't belabor the point.

Baron you misunderstood. Those are three things that x suggested as what is necessary to make a landmark. I said it doesn't have to be old, visible from a skyline, or big. Hence my examples. By the way, the pile of bird dung can be a landmark. If it has a historical background, is biologically unique, or whatever and you took it upon yourself to preserve it then it would be a landmark.

But if objects are moved like traveling museum exhibits they lose (sometimes only temporarily) landmark status and then become just famous or noteworthy objects. Why? Because landmark means a feature of the land, of course.

As with Kendegra's view, Vancouver really doesn't have any internationally recognized landmarks. It's unlikely anything would be globally known and pop out and say "Vancouver!" without spelling it out. But it does not mean Vancouver isn't dotted with various historical and unique points of interests, buildings, pieces of art, etc.

No, those are not the things I suggested that makes a landmark. Those are the things I suggested that makes the Washington Monument a landmark.

Each landmark is different, and each landmark has different classes. The Wash. monument is a first rate world class landmark. The inukshuk at English Bay is a third rate municipal class landmark. Canada Place at Coal Harbour is a second rate national class landmark.

I don't have that much of a problem with an inukshuk being the logo, but I do have a problem with it being a design that is way too simple.

And mr.x, you and your likeminded gamesbids cohorts HARDLY represent Vancouver, BC, or Canada. I know this for a fact.

Because I don't have the same opinions as you? I know for a fact that I as well as other Vancouverites here in GamesBids know a lot more about our own city, our own province and country than you............and for a fact, YOU hardly represent the municipality of Vancouver, province of British Columbia, and the nation of Canada. I also know for a fact that you don't represent common sense and logic, Vicky.

Science World

Canada Place

[baron-pierreIV]

OK.  But wait if the landmark doesn't appear on a stamp, then it can't be a postmark.  And if it's not used on stationery as a watermark, then it can't be a landmark either.  So, either way, the pile of dung in my backyard is a 1st-class landmarked mine!!  - Descartes, 1521   :wwww:

[argentak]

Both of Vancouver's Science World and Canada Place are more recognizable, but they are obviously not internationally recognizable. (In fact, when I showed pictures of Canada Place to people when I was out of town they thought I was at the Sydney Opera House.) Even so, they don't somehow use subtraction to take value away from other landmarks even if they are more popular. Like I said, Vancouver has MANY recognizable buildings, places, and features. Even if there was some sort of international regulation regarding the classes of landmarks first class examples wouldn't detract status from other landmarks simply because the other landmarks would still exist.

I think a good example of landmarks being obvious landmarks without being very internationally known is the much referred to Mole Antonelliana. Although most people in the world couldn't tell you about it off hand, it is agreed that is a landmark of Torino.

And thank you for pointing out that I do not represent the majority! I never said I did, unlike yourself. If the majority of Vancouver was completely pissed off (and not generally ambivalent as they really are) something would have happened by now. I'm dying to know about this so called lack of common sense I have. Please enlighten me. If you are referring to the definition of a landmark, look in the dictionary please! And be sure to re-read the list of examples I've provided thus far. One cannot say any is not a point of unique, artistic, or historical interest and therefore a landmark.

As for your opinion on the design, I don't really have dispute with that. While I would have liked something a bit more constructed myself I can't help but agree the simple "flatness" of the look reflects nature a bit more. Like pebbles from a stream. The great design-fight is based on personal preference, but I do take dispute with the subject-fight. As I'm everybody already knows.

And Baron, huh?   I only said the thing about objects being moved because it helps explain the technically immobile nature of a landmark. For instance, the Statue of Liberty didn't become a landmark until it arrived in New York although it was created beforehand.

[fireandice]

I think a good example of landmarks being obvious landmarks without being very internationally known is the much referred to Mole Antonelliana. Although most people in the world couldn't tell you about it off hand, it is agreed that is a landmark of Torino.

But at least Torino's emblem has other elements that tells the story of the Olympics besides being a landmark:

It has snow (the white circles)

It has ice (the blue diamond like shapes)

It has the olympic flame (which is also the shape of the Mole)

It shows movement and excitment (the flame and Mole twisting upwards)

In Vancouver's emblem, where is the rest of the story? OK, a Inukshuk is a directional marker and it means freind. SO WHAT. Where is the movement and excitment? Where is a element that says winter? Where is a element that says Olympic?

Saying that a Inukshuk is a landmark for Vancouver is WRONG. Landmarks are unique to the area or city they are found: Sydney Opera House, Mole Antonelliana, Statue of Liberty etc. Inukshuks can be found anywhere, they are not unique to Vancouver.