Jump to content

Image Of Madrid


Recommended Posts

I don't know. Gertrude Stein? Eugene O'Negin..err, O'Neill? Proust? Josephine Baker?

I've done a quick search and apparently it was Thomas Jefferson and the actual quote was,"Everyone has two countries,his own and France".

Came from an American though,that was my point.Americans have always had an intensely romantic love affair with the French capital,more so than other nations in my humble opinion and it goes all the way back to Jefferson!

As American soldiers used to sing during WWI,"How yer gonna keep 'em,down on the farm,now that they've seen ParEEEEE!!!!" ;)

Personally,I've always liked Paris,but my favourite European city is Roma,the Eternal City,which is the mother of many European cities,including both Paris and London! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Hi Mainad! :)

Well, it seemed, during the final weeks of the race, that London really did a great marketing effort to win... and they were succesful. That's great for the marketing professionals and maybe, Mr. Coe's personal curriculum.

But, let me be honest... It was not the best bid. At that moment, its virtuality was, at least, shocking, compared with strength of Paris or Madrid ones. I would never have chosen London because Paris deserved much more. Compact concept, historical reasons, one of the most beautiful cities in the whole world (if not the most), low investments needed... Anyway, if you ask for emotional reasons, I would love have seen Madrid chosen, as I lived there during that time.

Ah,that's different! Earlier you said you thought the 2012 race was "dirty" and seemed to imply that London had won it by cheating,that's why I asked you to elaborate on your reasons for implying this! If it's just your opinion that London's bid was not the best one,that's okay,because it's just your opinion which you are entitled to like everybody else!

Having said that,London presented its bid to the IOC just like Paris and Madrid,and the IOC voted fair and square to go with London's bid rather than with Paris's.They decided they liked London's bid better than Paris or Madrid's and we must accept that whether we agree with their decision or not. There was nothing unfair about it!

As an Englishman,I'm naturally pleased that London won but I was also sorry that Paris lost! It was unfortunate,in my view,that both these great cities had to compete against each other to win the honour given that both cities,in my view,were equally deserving and both had history on their side!

I do understand though that for Paris to be knocked back on THREE successive occasions is a bitter pill for such a proud city to have to swallow and I fully understand why they will refrain from any further Olympic bids for the foreseeable future! But Paris (and Madrid) will undoubtedly come back.Both cities are fully capable of hosting a great Olympic Games!

In the meantime,let's look forward to how the 2016 competition will shape up and accept that,barring any dramatic upsets,this is one Olympiad that seems destined to end up in the hands of an American or an Asian city!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about metros, what's you favourite? The most modern I think it's Madrid's. Paris metro is very old-fashioned and cutre, horrorful. London's isn't that bad, but not very good. Lisbon's normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about metros, what's you favourite? The most modern I think it's Madrid's. Paris metro is very old-fashioned and cutre, horrorful. London's isn't that bad, but not very good. Lisbon's normal.

I've never been to Lisbon (or Portugal, for that matter), but I have been to the other 3 cities you've mentioned.

I was actually last in those 3 cities in 1994, so I don't know what the situation is like now, but I'll agree with you based on my experience, Madrid's metro is the most modern of the 3. Paris' metro always smelled like burning rubber and had no air conditioning, London's subways had no air conditioning either. I don't know if it has it now. I was in those cities during summer, too, so that just made the air conditioning issue worse, particularly Paris... on those trains, I smelled burning rubber, and many of the people smelled like they rubbed onions into their armpits!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah,that's different! Earlier you said you thought the 2012 race was "dirty" and seemed to imply that London had won it by cheating,that's why I asked you to elaborate on your reasons for implying this! If it's just your opinion that London's bid was not the best one,that's okay,because it's just your opinion which you are entitled to like everybody else!

Having said that,London presented its bid to the IOC just like Paris and Madrid,and the IOC voted fair and square to go with London's bid rather than with Paris's.They decided they liked London's bid better than Paris or Madrid's and we must accept that whether we agree with their decision or not. There was nothing unfair about it!

As an Englishman,I'm naturally pleased that London won but I was also sorry that Paris lost! It was unfortunate,in my view,that both these great cities had to compete against each other to win the honour given that both cities,in my view,were equally deserving and both had history on their side!

I do understand though that for Paris to be knocked back on THREE successive occasions is a bitter pill for such a proud city to have to swallow and I fully understand why they will refrain from any further Olympic bids for the foreseeable future! But Paris (and Madrid) will undoubtedly come back.Both cities are fully capable of hosting a great Olympic Games!

In the meantime,let's look forward to how the 2016 competition will shape up and accept that,barring any dramatic upsets,this is one Olympiad that seems destined to end up in the hands of an American or an Asian city!

No, I also don't think that London election process was unfair. I referred to the final result because Paris (for all the reasons you explain) deserved the most.

When I talked about a "dirty" race I was actually talking about the sour words ones threw to the others during the whole process. London was quite bitter with Paris and both Paris & New York did the same towards UK. It became a ridiculous fight based on such light items as weather, people's arrogancy or even the number of movies filmed on the roads of each city :blink:

Having said that, I really hope London will host the best games ever, even recognising that I don't find London a city much attractive as a major sport city. In any case, I agree again in seeing extremely slight options for Europe to host in 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most modern I think it's Madrid's.

Sorry to contradict you, mikel, but I think the world's 3 most modern metro systems are probably Los Angeles, Athens and Kuala Lumpur -- being the most recently built. So these would be the state-of-the-art metros. Paris' stations were being upgraded when I was there -- but its accessbility and the beauty of its entrances that make it for me, a classic metro.

And if you want chandeliers, then go to Moscow's -- where all that underground beauty was built on slave labor of that beastly Stalin and Soviet regimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to contradict you, mikel, but I think the world's 3 most modern metro systems are probably Los Angeles, Athens and Kuala Lumpur -- being the most recently built. So these would be the state-of-the-art metros. Paris' stations were being upgraded when I was there -- but its accessbility and the beauty of its entrances that make it for me, a classic metro.

And if you want chandeliers, then go to Moscow's -- where all that underground beauty was built on slave labor of that beastly Stalin and Soviet regimes.

What about the "Tunnelbana" in Stockholm? Wonderful. And Bilbao one is also great, very modern, but maybe unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the "Tunnelbana" in Stockholm? Wonderful. And Bilbao one is also great, very modern, but maybe unnecessary.

I rode the subways in Stockholm, and honestly I didn't find them to be all that. Many of the stations looked literally like caves. But the city of Stockholm itself is BEAUTIFUL. One of my favorite cities of Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally,I've always liked Paris,but my favourite European city is Roma,the Eternal City,which is the mother of many European cities,including both Paris and London! B)

I think Paris and London would've evolved with or w/o Rome and/or I assume you mean the Roman empire.

My well-travelled Latin teacher in high school used to say: Rome is like a lady but Paris is like a tart -- all painted up. Not having seen these 2 cities myself then, I just sort of accepted his opinion blindly. But when I finally got to see the 2 cities for myself, I said (to myself): how wrong you were, Mr. Estrera!! Give me the painted tart anytime.

I mean I like Rome, and FLorence AND Venezia -- but Rome is just a little better than AThens in it's nothing but a bunch of ruins. For Jove's sake, fix up those ruins so at least I, in the 21st century, can indeed see what you mean when you say 'The Glory that Was Rome..." And it has nothing but a bunch of dirty, decaying ruins to prove it. At least they're fixing up Venice; and Paris does not revel in its ruins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how can you brain Rome as "nothing but a bunch of ruins" ???

and don't say it's a personal opinion.. Rome has been The City, the first city.. every capital or main city in the world own a trionphal arch, a pantheon, fountains etc... Rome has been for century the point reference for urbanism and architecture.. the classic, the baroque and also the modern style (see rationalism)

and yes the ruins.. I can't demand you to understand what these "ruins" still represents today

turn back to Rome and open wide your eyes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how can you brain Rome as "nothing but a bunch of ruins" ???

and don't say it's a personal opinion.. Rome has been The City, the first city.. every capital or main city in the world own a trionphal arch, a pantheon, fountains etc... Rome has been for century the point reference for urbanism and architecture.. the classic, the baroque and also the modern style (see rationalism)

and yes the ruins.. I can't demand you to understand what these "ruins" still represents today

turn back to Rome and open wide your eyes!

I said I liked Rome; but not as much as Paris -- didn't I?

Rei, don't claim too much credit. Rome 'borrowed' a lot from Greece. Please, the Greeks were around before Rome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said I liked Rome; but not as much as Paris -- didn't I?

Rei, don't claim too much credit. Rome 'borrowed' a lot from Greece. Please, the Greeks were around before Rome.

you can like everything you want but the way you settled Rome deserved a reply..

and the only thing the romans borrowed to the greeks were some statues, and thank them for that otherwise we wouldn't have the pleasure to know the greek sculpture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can like everything you want but the way you settled Rome deserved a reply..

and the only thing the romans borrowed to the greeks were some statues, and thank them for that otherwise we wouldn't have the pleasure to know the greek sculpture.

Calling PYRROS and ThrillosAG!! Your patrimony is being short-changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Rei @ Aug 29 2006, 07:00 PM)

how can you brain Rome as "nothing but a bunch of ruins" ???

and don't say it's a personal opinion.. Rome has been The City, the first city.. every capital or main city in the world own a trionphal arch, a pantheon, fountains etc... Rome has been for century the point reference for urbanism and architecture.. the classic, the baroque and also the modern style (see rationalism)

and yes the ruins.. I can't demand you to understand what these "ruins" still represents today

turn back to Rome and open wide your eyes!

I said I liked Rome; but not as much as Paris -- didn't I?

Rei, don't claim too much credit. Rome 'borrowed' a lot from Greece. Please, the Greeks were around before Rome.

I'm sorry, but Civis Romanus Sum, :) and so I know I have a kind of "conflict of interest".

Before romans there were greeks around, and before greeks Pharaohs...

The relevant is the role of Rome in that time. After many civilizations one after the other in the Mediterranean Sea, Rome succeded in unification of all those people; the Med Sea became the cradle of the modern civilizationa and Rome was the nest of this cradle and then the engine of what is common known today as Western Civilization, mixing the culture, the laws, the arts and ....

The best civilization is nothing if it dies leaving only monuments ( only ? lucky who at least have them; I like very much US -and SF as European bit in USA- but when I went there I didn't find many ruins or monuments): see pharaohs, or indians in north or indios in central/south americans pre Columbus civilizations, you will never find something of those people culture in the modern civilization, though with its wrong sides, too ;) ....

Beside, do you remember:

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum una incolunt Belgae

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Rei @ Aug 29 2006, 07:00 PM)

The best civilization is nothing if it dies leaving only monuments ( only ? lucky who at least have them; I like very much US -and SF as European bit in USA- but when I went there I didn't find many ruins or monuments): see pharaohs, or indians in north or indios in central/south americans pre Columbus civilizations, you will never find something of those people culture in the modern civilization, though with its wrong sides, too ;) ....

Beside, do you remember:

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum una incolunt Belgae

We're really not 'into' ruins. ;) We tend to live in the present. Remember, the USA is just a little over 2 hundred years old. We go to Europe to see the 'ruins.' We prefer clean, whole monuments rather than parts and remnants of something of a whole.

Yes, Gaul is divided into 3 parts -- but so what, logic? So what? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're really not 'into' ruins. ;) We tend to live in the present. Remember, the USA is just a little over 2 hundred years old. We go to Europe to see the 'ruins.' We prefer clean, whole monuments rather than parts and remnants of something of a whole.

Last november I met a very nice, polite and clever woman from USA: she went in Rome for an International Referee Refresher Course. She told me that in Rome people not just find old monuments, but "breathes" the history and the human being, and this helps in better understanding the actual life, even in USA.

Yes, Gaul is divided into 3 parts -- but so what, logic? So what? :blink:

Nothing nothing, sorry, but you said you studied latin, as I did, so... just to remember

Nothing nothing, sorry, but you said you studied latin, as I did, so... just to remember

Sorry again, I made some mistake in my reply, I think you will understand the right construction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Athens was founded by the Ancient Greeks.

Rome by the Etrurians.

London by the Romans.

Paris by the Celts.

Madrid by the Moors.

Did you know that Cordoba was the biggest city in Europe during the Middle Ages with 1,000,000 people?? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paris was founded by celts and is the biggest celtic city of the world and has nothing to do with Rome or Athens and even less London, it's why the city is so magical and play in another field :D

Paris originated as a Roman settlement called,"Lutetia".It was only later re-named "Paris" after the Celtic Parisii tribe that originally inhabited the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paris originated as a Roman settlement called,"Lutetia".It was only later re-named "Paris" after the Celtic Parisii tribe that originally inhabited the area.

You right

Wikipedia>

"The earliest signs of permanent habitation in the Paris area date from around 4200 BC. Celtic migrants began to settle the area from 250 BC, and the Parisii tribe of these, known as boatmen and traders, established a settlement near the river Seine from around then."

romans came only in 52 BC ... So really nothing to do with Rome ! also the city is better planned that any city of the world :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I've never herd anybody say anything about, I'm really surprised. I was hoping that Madrid would win ther 2016 Games bescuase there the only Euorpian city that bid that hadn't prevously hosted. And of course New York wouldn't win because Vancouver had just won the 2010 Winter Games, so like DUH! :o But I really don't think that Madrid will win the 2016 Games, even thou I hope that they will host in the near future, I don't think it's Europe's time to host. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never herd anybody say anything about, I'm really surprised. I was hoping that Madrid would win ther 2016 Games bescuase there the only Euorpian city that bid that hadn't prevously hosted. And of course New York wouldn't win because Vancouver had just won the 2010 Winter Games, so like DUH! :o But I really don't think that Madrid will win the 2016 Games, even thou I hope that they will host in the near future, I don't think it's Europe's time to host. :(

If you arew talking about the so called "continental rotation", it is really very difficult for Europe to host Olympic Games after Athens 2004 and London 2012,

That rotation's "not written rule" says it is the turn of America. My favourite are San Francisco ( I went there in 1981, wonderful city) and Rio (but it is a very difficult bid).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...