Is it just me or is Atlanta still hung up on hosting the Olympics twenty years ago? (Boston: cost, stadium)

[Mutiny77]

I rarely hear it mentioned and when it is, it's usually in response to folks who like to insinuate that Atlanta is some podunk backwater.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

I rarely hear it mentioned and when it is, it's usually in response to folks who like to insinuate that Atlanta is some podunk backwater.

In other words, on City-Data.

[jeoff]

Originally Posted by ncoflin

I mean no disrespect here. I love Atlanta. Heck I love the 1996 Summer Games. It was the first Olympic Games I can remember seeing as a kid, and I loved everything about it. The women's gymnastics team, the opening ceremony....even the weird Izzy mascot. However is it just me or does Atlanta still seem to reference the games a lot? I get that it is/was a source of pride and the underdog story of Atlanta hosting the games to be a great one. However are most other former Olympic game host cities so hung up on former Olympic glory like Atlanta? I just see it mentioned a lot even on this board and throughout the city by locals and such. Atlanta has so much to offer in my eyes and I'd be lying if I didn't say the constant mention of the games seems a little off to me (for lack of a better word). It happened, it was great, it should be acknowledged in history but I feel like the city clings to it too hard. I wasn't in Atlanta when the games occurred and was just a kid, so am I wrong here? Perhaps I can get another perspective.

Maybe it's just seen as some turning point of the city arriving on the world stage. The only other city I have been to that I am aware hosted an Olympic Games was Munich (the 1972 games) and I never really heard anyone mention or saw reference to games with the exception of at the Olympic park that they preserved from the games themselves.

Cities and states are always in competition, competition to bring in businesses, competition to bring in new events. No other city in the South, and only a handful in the world have hosted an Olympics. So, of course, it is mentioned as part of the City's resume.

As far as the comparison with Munich goes (even taking Atlanta's own bombing into account)-maybe having 11 Israeli Olympians massacred in a nation that was trying to deemphasize that it was responsible for the extermination of 6,000,000 Jews, is the reason why the Olympics is not "resume material" for Munich.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

In other words, on City-Data.

Precisely.

[JPD]

I hear more references to Sharky's Machine than the olympics in my day-to day life.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by JPD

I hear more references to Sharky's Machine than the olympics in my day-to day life.

It's all because of Burt.

[residinghere2007]

I haven't heard anyone in Atlanta outside of these boards mention the Olympics since 2000-2001

[pugsnotdrugsmang]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Show me an Olympic game since that generated a profit, built venues that are still in use, and used corporate sponsorship to fund the infrastructure.

um...Vancouver 2010 and London 2012 both ended up debt free, made profit, and built some spectacular new venues that are definitely still commonly in use...

East London is booming with new modern housing developments and a recently built mall that puts Lenox Square to shame. Jobs and businesses have increased dramatically in areas that were previously considered tourist-free zones.

Vancouver revitalized it's public transit system and built another monorail line, making the dense city even more accessible without the need of a vehicle. Think Boston/San Francisco walkability.

Sochi from what I heard was a complete disaster, so I understand where you're coming from. Corporate funded infrastructure is also pretty impressive

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Show me an Olympic game since that generated a profit, built venues that are still in use, and used corporate sponsorship to fund the infrastructure.

Amen.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugsmang

um...Vancouver 2010 and London 2012 both ended up debt free, made profit, and built some spectacular new venues that are definitely still commonly in use...

East London is booming with new modern housing developments and a recently built mall that puts Lenox Square to shame. Jobs and businesses have increased dramatically in areas that were previously considered tourist-free zones.

Vancouver revitalized it's public transit system and built another monorail line, making the dense city even more accessible without the need of a vehicle. Think Boston/San Francisco walkability.

Sochi from what I heard was a complete disaster, so I understand where you're coming from. Corporate funded infrastructure is also pretty impressive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games
Vancouver:

A final audit conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers released in December 2010 revealed total operation cost to have been $1.84 billion and came in on budget resulting in neither surplus nor deficit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_W...ics#Financials
London:
Made $52M pounds but cost the taxpayers $4.4B pounds.