Jump to content

City says Olympic organizers are snubbing city


Recommended Posts

And what does stone have to do with Winter Sports?  I mean, other than a skier stubbing his skis against some covered rock, and thereby destroying his run, and possibly causing injury and/or death.  Which means the event is marred by tragedy; a whole family's life is ruined; and that the family can sue VANOC for putting up these rock formation facsimiles everywhere and people tripping over it.   See how wrong it is?   :wwww:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Furlong welcomes Green's call for more co-operation

VANOC boss sees public plea 'as a positive'


Clare Ogilvie

The Province

Thursday, June 16, 2005

WHISTLER -- A top 2010 Olympic official says he welcomes any moves to bring Games organizers and the City of Vancouver closer together.

"I am happy to think the City of Vancouver wants to play a greater role and be more involved," said John Furlong, CEO of the 2010 Vancouver Organizing Committee. "I don't see this as a negative. I saw it as a positive."

His statements come in the wake of comments by Vancouver Coun. Jim Green, who said the city is not getting promoted enough by Games organizers.

"It is my job to stand up for Vancouver, to co-operate with VANOC, but to stand up for Vancouver," said Green.

One way to accomplish this, he said, is to form closer working relationships between VANOC officials and Vancouver councillors.

"We need to build those relationships now, so that we don't have problems down the road," said Green. "We have very little relationship as a council with VANOC and there might be some face-to-face talks that need to be done there. Now is the time to build relationships, not later."

Furlong, who was in Whistler to speak at a Chamber of Commerce lunch, welcomed that idea. "I consider the relationship we have with the City of Vancouver to be extremely healthy and positive but we always have to keep working and be looking for ways to be better partners," he said.

Furlong also encouraged the more than 130 business people who attended the lunch to do what they can to finalize accommodations in Whistler for the Games. International Olympic officials are concerned that some spectators may come to the resort and want to stay but rooms will be scarce.

Part of the solution is getting the hundreds of condo owners, many of whom don't live nearby, to sign on for the Games.

Furlong also said the organizing committee needs to raise $1.7 billion before the Games.


© The Vancouver Province 2005


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logos don't have to express winter in an obvious format, but what does represent winter is not really disputable. My own opinion is that it does represent winter as it is an example of a type of art that originates in the polar regions. You could argue forever about the winterness of it, if that is a word. :o If you mean the colours, it's just showing Vancouver's natural and supernatural surroundings as well as the different parts of Canada. I don't think the palette should be limited to cool colours for the winter games or warm colours for the summer games. Because they're just colours for crying out loud. :P

As for the Olympic element, what do you mean? At least the stones representing 5 parts of Canada coming together is similar to the rings representing the 5 parts of the world coming together. It's pretty Olympic to me.

Although I was only referring to the Mole Antonelliana itself and not the Torino logo, the inukshuk is still a landmark, sorry to say! "Inukshuks can be found anywhere"? HMM!

There are opera houses in other cities, not just Sydney. There are synagogues in other cities, not just Torino. There are statues in other cities, not just New York. It doesn't matter if it's a kind of art that isn't ubiquitous enough for certain examples to be known by titles, but by just mediums. Surely at one point of time in ancient history what we call sculptures, or calligraphy, or oil paintings only existed in one area of the world. After all, the original purpose of an inukshuk was to literally mark land. Argue that. :P Even if inukshuks look similar or use the same number of stones etc., you cannot deny that each one is individual as much as you cannot deny there is a difference between the statues of David created by Michaelangelo or Donatello.

As for the stones, stone is part of what represents the earth. It's part of nature. So... huh? Are stones not natural or something? :o For me it's not really an argument on "what stones have to do with it" considering all of the emphasis on nature. The inukshuk stones, if you think about it, are in a style of art that is the most natural with as little human interference as possible. Another example of Vancouver's appreciation for nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...