Reflections on Atlanta article in Conde Nast I: Is it true that the Olympics 'backfired' on Atlanta? (Washington: crime, credit)

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by RainyRainyDay

Neil, I really didn't mean to suggest that hosting the Olympics isn't a big deal. What I was trying to express was just skepticism about the long-term impact on a host city's reputation. To people like me who aren't big sports buffs, the fact that at some time in the past, a city hosted the Olympic games, may not contribute much to our evaluation of the place. When I was offered a job transfer to Atlanta, I just didn't think "Wow, it had the Olympics in the 90s; must be a happening place." Maybe that's just me.

(In case anyone wonders what I did think, I'm afraid it was more "Isn't it incredibly hot there? Do they still have that awful racism? Aren't southern schools supposed to be abysmal, and if so, how do educated people educate their kids?")

I think the idea of the long-term impact of the Olympics is meant more from a business perspective than an individual one. There is intense competition to attract foreign investment here in the US and I'm sure it helps when decision makers in other countries have at least heard of you. Atlanta has been very successful in that respect since the Olympics. At least thats the way I see it.

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by J2rescue

I think the idea of the long-term impact of the Olympics is meant more from a business perspective than an individual one. There is intense competition to attract foreign investment here in the US and I'm sure it helps when decision makers in other countries have at least heard of you. Atlanta has been very successful in that respect since the Olympics. At least thats the way I see it.

Exactly. The real impact is so pervasive that an uninformed observer might not even notice it w/o knowing the historical particulars. Of course, in case of Atlanta the 'impact' of the Olympics may have been greater than it will be for example in the case of London, the next host city, bec. the Olympics was one of the big things that put Atlanta on the map. Likewise, in case of Los Angeles '84 hosting the games may not have had quite as significant an effect on that city (which already at that time had quite an established reputation), but I would still suspect that even then the influence was significant in terms of boosting that city's general profile, with a resulting upsurge in interest and investment in it from abroad.

Btw, I guess my critique of the Conde Nast author's judgment of Atlanta's Olympics 'backfiring' is that to be able to make such a judgment you almost need to know what the city's precise motives were in seeking the games. Which, let's face it, in Atlanta's case was really just an attempt to barge into the front ranks of cities and get its name out there whatever the cost (one's almost tempted to say, for better or worse). And that might have been naive and a little cynical, but you can't quite argue that it was unsuccessful, in my view. A fairer judgment perhaps is to say that Atlanta's whole effort was largely driven by its business boosters (marketing/PR folks from head to toe) who in fact - and a little naively - maybe came to believe a bit too much in their own hype. That tends to be an achilles heel of marketing folks in general, I'm guessing.

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by J2rescue

I think the idea of the long-term impact of the Olympics is meant more from a business perspective than an individual one. There is intense competition to attract foreign investment here in the US and I'm sure it helps when decision makers in other countries have at least heard of you. Atlanta has been very successful in that respect since the Olympics. At least thats the way I see it.

Exactly. The real impact is so pervasive that an uninformed observer might not even notice it w/o knowing the historical particulars. Of course, in case of Atlanta the 'impact' of the Olympics may have been greater than it will be for example in the case of London, the next host city, bec. the Olympics was one of the big things that put Atlanta on the map. Likewise, in case of Los Angeles '84 hosting the games may not have had quite as significant an effect on that city (which already at that time had quite an established reputation), but I would still suspect that even then the influence was significant in terms of boosting that city's general profile, with a resulting upsurge in interest and investment in it from abroad.

Btw, I guess my critique of the Conde Nast author's judgment of Atlanta's Olympics 'backfiring' is that to be able to make such a judgment you almost need to know what the city's precise motives were in seeking the games. Which, let's face it, in Atlanta's case was really just an attempt to barge into the front ranks of cities and get its name out there whatever the cost (one's almost tempted to say, for better or worse). And that might have been naive and a little cynical, but you can't quite argue that it was unsuccessful, in my view. A fairer judgment perhaps is to say that Atlanta's whole effort was largely driven by its business boosters (marketing/PR folks from head to toe) who in fact - and a little naively - maybe came to believe a bit too much in their own hype. That tends to be an achilles heel of marketing folks in general, I'm guessing.

[ss20ts]

The Conde Naste writer sounds like a snob......guess it goes with the magazine. not every city has a big wow factor for everyone. I live 2 1/2 hours north of NYC and I HATE that place. I LOVE LOVE LOVE Boston however. A totally different city with a totally different feeling. Just as Atlanta is a totally different city with a totally different feeling....young, fresh, happening, moving forward....that's what I got out of Atlanta.

As someone who visited Atlanta last year and plans on going back in a few months, I didn't go for the memories of the Olympics from 12 years ago! I don't care about the Olympics. I'm not into sports except for NASCAR and there's many who argue that it's not a sport. It's entertainment to some and an annoyance to others.

I was 21 and geting married in 1996. So most of 96 is a blur for me anyway. How can a writer say that a sporting event from 12 years ago did nothing for an area? At that time it DID do something! It brought people to the city. The city was announced to the world. Lake Placid is 4 hours from me and I've never been there. They've had 2 - yes 2 - Olympics and it's still a hole in the wall. It didn't grow by leaps and bounds. that whole region is very stagnant.....partially an NY issue (thanks high tax and cost of living) and an Adirondack Park issue (don't destroy the beauty, but you have to fond your own way to survive).

I did go to downtown to the aquarium and Coca Cola. I've wanted to see Coca Cola for years. While resesarching the area with AAA, I discovered the Olympic Park across the street. I never even heard of it before. What do you want? I live 1000 miles away and those Olympics were 12 years ago.

We did go to the park after the aquarium and around the world beverage taste testing (yucko!). It was a few weeks after the tornado hit and there was still damage to the park, CNN, and several hotels that I could see. I'm planning on going back to see if the park was repaired. The fountain was amazing to watch. It put me in a trance almost. So peaceful in bustling area.

Hey and if the writer doesn't like Atlanta, stay away! there's plent yof other cities he/she can write about and express to the world how tragically awful or wonderful they are. Everyone has an opnion and some wish to aspire to have the usefulness of toilet paper. Just another rag that I would never read. My nose isn't turned up to the sky marching above the pee-ons below.

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by ss20ts

The Conde Naste writer sounds like a snob......guess it goes with the magazine. not every city has a big wow factor for everyone. I live 2 1/2 hours north of NYC and I HATE that place. I LOVE LOVE LOVE Boston however. A totally different city with a totally different feeling. Just as Atlanta is a totally different city with a totally different feeling....young, fresh, happening, moving forward....that's what I got out of Atlanta.

Interesting thoughts. Your mentioning Boston makes me long to return. Really must get back to that city!

I agree w/you about the snobby writer. And the ludicrous argument that the Atlanta Olympics backfired.

[DeaconJ]

From the perspective of someone who attended many of the sporting events, the Games were a huge success and I had a blast. I didn't see the shortcomings that were reported in the news, and I feel that most of the people in attendance didn't either. How the perceived "inefficiencies" affected people watching on t.v. is beyond me...so I see much of the negative talk about Atlanta's Olympics as just that - talk.

Here's another persepective on the 1996 Olympics: Atlanta's Olympics better than perceived | SavannahNow.com

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by DeaconJ

From the perspective of someone who attended many of the sporting events, the Games were a huge success and I had a blast. I didn't see the shortcomings that were reported in the news, and I feel that most of the people in attendance didn't either. How the perceived "inefficiencies" affected people watching on t.v. is beyond me...so I see much of the negative talk about Atlanta's Olympics as just that - talk.

Here's another persepective on the 1996 Olympics: Atlanta's Olympics better than perceived | SavannahNow.com

Fantastic article, DeaconJ! I should send a copy to the jerk who wrote the Conde Nast piece.

And this bit right here ranks as one of the nicest encapsulations of Atlanta's damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't identity crisis I've ever read:

Southerners dismiss it as a place filled with people from everywhere but the South. The transplants who move there denounce it for not being more like where they came from.

Hard to sum up Atlanta's predicament any better than that!

[BringBackCobain]

Although the short term effects of the Olympics could have been bad (I was only 11 at the time - but I did attend an event), the average person in 2009 would not remember that anyway. The long term effects of the olympics changed the city in ways nothing else could have.

The city population bottomed out in 1990, but who is to say that it would not have continued to decline if it wasnt for the 1996 Olympics?
And what about people moving here from places like Europe, Asia, etc. Would they have moved here if it wasnt for the Olympics? Would Atlantic Station be there if the olympics hadnt come? Would Georgia Tech look the way it does now if the Olympics had not come?

There are so many long term effects of such an event that it is impossible to know what the long term effects are, but I am pretty confident Atlanta's population would not be half a million and rising if it wasnt for the olympics.

I have often thought, "Atlanta would be more suited to host the olympics today than back in 1996." But the irony is that Atlanta would not look like it does today if it wasnt for the Olympics. If I could divide three phases in Atlanta's history it would be 1. Pre-Sherman, 2. Post-Sherman-Pre-Olympics, and 3. Post-Olympics.

[atlantagreg30127]

Originally Posted by ss20ts

We did go to the park after the aquarium and around the world beverage taste testing (yucko!). It was a few weeks after the tornado hit and there was still damage to the park, CNN, and several hotels that I could see. I'm planning on going back to see if the park was repaired. The fountain was amazing to watch. It put me in a trance almost. So peaceful in bustling area.

** side note - off topic, FYI...**

As a side-note but FYI based on the highlighted comment above (for visitors): With the exception of the 5-ring Olympic fountain, all other fountains and water features are currently turned OFF in the park (as in, the larger reflective pond, the waterfalls, etc), due to the drought conditions in Georgia....



So don't go out of your way to get to the park if it's the water features you want to sit and enjoy looking at. I don't agree with this decision. The water is recycled and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't take that much to put in due to evaporation to top them off each day. Atlanta has few nice water features around, and in times like this I think it's nice to keep them ON so the public has something to enjoy since at home, they should have these things off. Just my piece on it.

Anyway - straying a bit. But thought I'd toss that in due to the above quote. Steering it toward topic though, since Atlanta does not sit on a large body of water like a lot of cities, it lacks what some feel is a beauty that cities get when they sit next to a lake or ocean. So I feel MORE water features should be built downtown and throughout the city. Drought or not.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by BringBackCobain

I have often thought, "Atlanta would be more suited to host the olympics today than back in 1996." But the irony is that Atlanta would not look like it does today if it wasnt for the Olympics.

I've thought the exact same thing...