In message , James Farrar
writes

The Dome had two possible purposes, between which the government
compromised, leading to something pointless. The purpose of sporting
facilities is self-defined.

The purpose of sporting facilities is defined primarily in terms of
value for money, and that includes demand and longevity. The 28 days of
the Olympics is a mere (if brilliant) flash in the pan.

I certainly agree that the London bid has given more thought to long
term use than those Olympics that have resulted in concrete
monstrosities that saw little or no use after the games ended.

However, is the public demand to see cyclists going round in circles so
overwhelming that we really need a permanent velodrome in the Lea Valley
that will accommodate thousands of spectators? Will venues such as Horse
Guard's Parade or Hyde Park really be re-dedicated to improving the
sporting prowess of our young? If the Dome is so good for indoor sport,
why is it not already being used for that purpose? Whatever happened to
our "National Sports Centre" at Crystal Palace?

As a former teacher (one who taught sport in earlier days) I would
rather see the money being used to restore all of the swimming pools,
ice rinks and school sports facilities that have been lost or sold off
in London over the last 30 years, than being expended on a publicity
stunt that will be as short-lived as a glorious firework display.

--
Paul Terry