This is my understanding: The argument against the skyscrapers did have to do with environmental and architectural impact but also with the amount of new office space being superfluous to the actual needs of the city. There actually is a delicate balance when you consider that Roma is beautiful because the actual old buildings are needed and used for office space and therefore the large investment is made that keeps them in good repair. When you add huge office parks to the mixture, the risk is that it decreases the value of the older buildings and they fall into ill repair. Who knows exactly how true the claims are from both sides about this though since it's all "spun" from either direction. However, people keep comparing this unfavorably to how easy it is to build in the United States but the other side of that coin is that most urban and suburban areas in the USA are littered with unused (or super low rent and therefore hardly maintained) structures. So, seeing that it would be hard to get approval with the skyscrapers, the new proposal cuts them back. However, it also cut back the funding of public works (transportation) as well since the office space was where so much profit was to be gleaned. The newer project contained less office high rise space but also didn't pay for all the transportation related infrastructural improvements. This is why some are claiming that the new plan was destined (or even designed) for failure since many more legitimate arguments can be made against the transportation issues and how any expense to remedy them could/would now fall into the lap of taxpayers.
The bottom line is that a stadium hasn't been built on new grounds in Italy in almost 30 years. There isn't an industrialized county that can make that terrible claim. While you are correct there are a lot of derelict structures in the US (maybe too many) the option isn't to build none. Every other country seems to balance to one extent or another progress and urban management, only in Italy does it take years to get approval to build. Even if Pallotta wasn't paying for new infrastructure I'd wager he was paying for a higher percentage of stadium costs than just about any other private stadium. Most stadiums are subsidizes to some extent by taxpayer money, none of this would be and they would pay for transportation only because they refused to allow Pallotta the means to pay for it (office space). In the end whatever Italy is doing is obviously wrong. They have the worst per capita GDP of any G7 country. Their per capita GDP is something like 25th in Europe. The only unemployment rates among major European countries that is worse than Italy's is Greece and Spain. So whatever Italy is doing, it's obviously wrong.
Most realistic explanation is that some key government officials want JP to grease their palms. I call BS on any other reasons given. Numerous feasibility, economic and technical studies have already been conducted over the years, and if there were any other major issues that existed they would have been brought up a long time ago.
I agree with a lot of what you say about Italy. Even the more environmentally conscious and left-leaning architects I know in Italy all complain endlessly about the bureaucratic nightmare in getting larger projects approved. Just like we've seen in following this: there are so many "safeguards" that projects can be held up for ever due to motives other than the best interest of the public. However, on the other hand, none of us really know enough to say the exact profit margin Pallotta and the investors behind the project deemed "necessary." (Also, I would add that in the USA it only takes a drive through about any 10 mile stretch through any suburban or small town coast to coast to see 5 dilapidated or completely abandoned shopping centers, gas stations, and fast food stores etc immediately followed by a stretch of forest being clear cut to build a new shopping center, fast food chains and gas stations. Or, witness the breakneck speed with which cheaply constructed condos with chain stores with hardly matching architecture are replacing beautiful older buildings in any booming major city. I'm not convinced the Americans have found such a better method on the far opposite end of the spectrum).
I'm not suggesting that America is perfect by any means and certainly there is too much building. That said, if you drive through many small villages in Italy there are still remains of buildings destroyed during the war that have never been repaired or torn town. I could take you to the town my dad is from if you want to see abandoned buildings. The comment on the profit Pallotta "deemed necessary" is telling. Who cares? If he made 5% or made 50% it wasn't going to cost taxpayers a dime. He was building infrastructure. He was removing an already abandoned, dilapidated building that you want to avoid. This site is out of town and not near anything historical, the nearest buildings are all modern. The site already had a racetrack so any environmental concerns hogwash. Again, Italy is the only country that can't seem to build a new stadium. So again Pallotta's profit is telling, it's the Italian mentality. If somebody is making money and I'm not, something underhanded must be going on. The reality is the stadium would have created thousands of jobs and generated hundreds of millions into an Italian economy that has been struggling for decades. I love Italy and want the country and people to do better and their archaic government is dragging the country down.
Ino im off topic but does anyone know what channel the game is being shown on today, preferrably a channel in England, highly unlikely I know
How in the world can you say the profit margins are beside the point? They are the point; the bottom line of the entire debate. The public works, bridge etc, were slashed along with the high rise footage due to profit margin! So, anyone who doesn't have a pretty clear idea of the exact figures being debated--how much is being spent, projections of economic impact, how much rent in the future goes to investors, etc etc etc --- is really just picking sides. But again, people tend to talk politics on every issue without ever simply following the money trail as closely as possible. The money trail always tells you about 1000% more than everyone's banter and theories combined.
The profit margin doesn't matter in the context of approving it or not. If Pallotta was going build roads, bridges and rails and pay for it, and the stadium, himself who cares how much he made. He would be creating thousands of jobs, generate 100's of millions in tax revenue and it wasn't costing the tax payers a euro. Show me another owner that has done that when building a stadium. How in the world is it harming the citizens of Rome and Italy if Pallotta makes 10 million or 10 billion when they aren't paying a dime. Again, it's the Italian way of thinking. If this guy is going to make 200% profit and its not costing me anything.. something must be wrong and we should stop him. We can't have him making 1 billion because.. well, just because. So we will cut of our nose to spite our face, we will toss away millions in tax dollars, new infrastructure and thousands of jobs because we have an irrational fear/hatred of anybody making too much money. Like I said, every other country seems to be able to build stadiums and most do so with taxpayer help. Only in Italy is building a stadium impossible. Is the rest of the world wrong and Italy correct.. doubt it. Like I pointed out in another post, billionaires are buying up clubs all over Europe but in Italy. ACM one of the most successful clubs in Europe couldn't find a reasonable buyer, they have to sell to some clown who doesn't even have the money to buy them and borrows from a loan shark. It's pretty telling IMO.
Nacho talk again. http://www.forzaroma.info/calciomer...corti-col-real-ritorno-di-fiamma-con-la-roma/
Exclusive @ASRomaPress: #Castan has inquiries from Italy but he prefers to rescind his contract and return to Brazil https://t.co/0B0AbiTV1U— RomaPress (@ASRomaPress) August 10, 2017
Some Journo claims that Monchi has 50M to spend, he is waiting to sign the RW before spending the rest on a CB.
any chance this is the reporter who said roma would not make another bid for mahrez? maybe the reporter who said roma IS making another bid for mahrez? or is it the one that said mahrez had a thursday medical scheduled? or the one who said no contact has been made between roma and LCFC over mahrez? click - ad $ click - ad $ click - ad $ click - ad $ click - ad $
Castan was a warrior. I'll never forget his celebrations when he made a huge block, basically worth a goal. Really liked him as a player for us, I think he could have went down as somewhat of a legend for us with how his performance level was improving year on year so there will always be an if only memory of him. Hopefully he finds his form again but most importantly, lives a long happy life.
Yep , he was class on his day. He won't be remembered too vividly outside of Rome , but that's fine , we know what he was. All the best , Castan.
yea, yea, I know the chances of landing Boateng are slim and none but I'd take him instead of Mahrez. http://www.forzaroma.info/senza-cat...a-boateng-per-la-difesa-piace-anche-al-nizza/