Reflections on Atlanta article in Conde Nast I: Is it true that the Olympics 'backfired' on Atlanta? (Columbus: promotional, neighborhoods)

[JoeP]

Atlanta has always had somewhat of an I.D. crisis. Until the growth started in the mid to late 70s, Atlanta was basically just another Chattanooga, Birmingham, and Charlotte

Not exactly, Atlanta has been much bigger than those areas for a long long time.

And Atlanta's rapid growth predates the 70s too.

But Atlanta is sprawling and other than hotel rooms, the city didn't offer a lot to Olympic visiters. Things are improving as the city grows denser, but it still has some work to do.

I do think that Atlanta has an identity of a larger city and growing business town and has had that reputation for a long time.

[luckysnap]

Atlanta is a Generic city, no real history(except for the Civil War, and that is swept under the rug),No Character, no real reason to visit, too much traffic, too much polution, too much pollen, too many racial issues, too much crime and too much sprawl.

[DeaconJ]

Originally Posted by luckysnap

Atlanta is a Generic city, no real history(except for the Civil War, and that is swept under the rug),No Character, no real reason to visit, too much traffic, too much polution, too much pollen, too many racial issues, too much crime and too much sprawl.

That post just shows how little you know about Atlanta and it's rich history. You're conveniently skipping over;
-the Native American history of the area and Fort Peachtree
-the founding of Atlanta as Terminus, then Marthasville (named after the governor's daughter) and its establishment as a railroad hub
-the Civil War (NOT "swept under the rug") and Atlanta's importance as a cultural and manufacturing center...along with several impoprtant battles and the burning of Atlanta
-the phoenix rising from the ashes
-reconstruction and the city's emergence as the commercial and industrial center of the South
-Atlanta's establishment as the state capital in the 1860s
-the ethnic and racial tensions OF THE PAST and the city's rising status as the center of the Civil Rights Movement and the birthplace of MLK, Jr. and many other black leaders along with an established black middle class
-one of the most popular movies ever made (10 Academy Awards) opened in Atlanta...the home of its Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Margaret Mitchell
-location of the nation's first housing project in 1935
-city leaders like Ivan Allen Jr and Henry Grady
-location of a host of federal offices after WWII, including the CDC, which led to Atlanta having the largest concentration of U.S. government offices outside of Washington D.C...at which time Atlanta had a population of 330,000 and a metro of 1 million
-Atlanta's growth as a national and international business hub and establishment of the world's busiest airport in the 1940s
-Atlanta's corporate office presence, from companies like Coca-Cola established in the early 1900s to Home Depot establilshed in 1979
-the Olympic history from 1996 that Atlanta shares with only 2 other Summer Olympics cities in the U.S.
-the large number of historic buildings that have been preserved in Downtown and Midtown
-the history of Atlanta's universities
-Atlanta's cultural history, including the tragic plane crash at Orly Airport in 1962 that claimed the lives of over 100 arts patrons from Atlanta...and France's subsequent gift of Rodan's "The Shade" sculpture in memory of the crash
-the media history of the city, including TBS and the establishment of the world's first 24 news station

That's just a tiny bit of Atlanta's history...you really need to take a history course before you embarass yourself by making such ignorant statments. Actually, you need to know more about a city before criticizing it. You obviously listed very generic, media-popular criticisms that anyone could spout off - anyone who doesn't have real knowledge of Atlanta.

In response to the OP, all the Olympics did for Atlanta was catapult the city into the international spotlight...where it remains today. Atlanta has become internationally known because of the 1996 Games - how could name recognition throughout the world "backfire" on Atlanta?

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by DeaconJ

That post just shows how little you know about Atlanta and it's rich history. You're conveniently skipping over;
-the Native American history of the area and Fort Peachtree
-the founding of Atlanta as Terminus, then Marthasville (named after the governor's daughter) and its establishment as a railroad hub
-the Civil War (NOT "swept under the rug") and Atlanta's importance as a cultural and manufacturing center...along with several impoprtant battles and the burning of Atlanta
-the phoenix rising from the ashes
-reconstruction and the city's emergence as the commercial and industrial center of the South
-Atlanta's establishment as the state capital in the 1860s
-the ethnic and racial tensions OF THE PAST and the city's rising status as the center of the Civil Rights Movement and the birthplace of MLK, Jr. and many other black leaders along with an established black middle class
-one of the most popular movies ever made (10 Academy Awards) opened in Atlanta...the home of its Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Margaret Mitchell
-location of the nation's first housing project in 1935
-city leaders like Ivan Allen Jr and Henry Grady
-location of a host of federal offices after WWII, including the CDC, which let to Atlanta having the largest concentration of U.S. government offices outside of Washington D.C...at which time Atlanta had a population of 330,000 and a metro of 1 million
-Atlanta's growth as a national and international business hub and establishment of the world's busiest airport in the 1940s
-Atlanta's corporate office presence, from companies like Coca-Cola established in the early 1900s to Home Depot establilshed in 1979
-the Olympic history from 1996 that Atlanta shares with only 2 other Summer Olympics cities in the U.S.
-the large number of historic buildings that have been preserved in Downtown and Midtown
-the history of Atlanta's universities
-Atlanta's cultural history, including the tragic plane crash at Orly Airport in 1962 that claimed the lives of over 100 arts patrons from Atlanta...and Frane's subsequent gift of Rodan's "The Shade" sculpture in memory of the crash
-the media history of the city, including TBS and the establishment of the world's first 24 news station

That's just a tiny bit of Atlanta's history...you really need to take a history course before you embarass yourself by making such ignorant statments. Actually, you need to know more about a city before criticizing it. You obviously listed very generic, media-popular criticisms that anyone could spout off - anyone who doesn't have realy knowledge of Atlanta.

In response to the OP, all the Olympics did for Atlanta was catapult the city into the international spotlight...where it remains today. Atlanta has become internationally known because of the 1996 Games - how could name recognition throughout the world "backfire" on Atlanta?

Well done, Mr. DeaconJ.

And to our resident snob troll, pick up a book. It'll broaden your mind. But for now, here's a couple of things to think about.

Even the very debatable Conde Naste piece says that though Atlanta might not be for the city and culture snobs it would be "wrong to dismiss Atlanta as a characterless expanse".

And also, a factual correction on your little theory there. When you say "no real reason to visit", what does that mean exactly? First of all, why should anybody ever visit any city at all short of say a mandatory visit to a relative? To someone with no interests or curiosity, even the most glorious place is not really worth visiting because your mind is too blank to even register an interest.

But for the record, apparently Atlanta is worthy enough of a visit that it's one of just 8 North American cities that Conde Nast chose to include in its guide for business travelers.

[Saintmarks]

One must remember the scenario that came with Atlanta's announcement in 1990 that it had won the bid for the Olympics. One of the major draws was that businesses and private enterprise would fund the expenses. Many countries and cities had amassed a lot of debt to host the Olympics prior. The 84 LA Games were the pattern as private enterprise pretty much funded that Olympics and they at that time had been seen as one of the best ever.

No city had offered such a compact foot print for the games. We forget when we watch on TV, that places like Seoul and Barcelona and even LA had the sites spread all over their metro areas. Atlanta offered a unique map as most of the infrasturcture was already in place to host the majority of the events. The GWCC, the Omni, the soon to be built GA Dome, the plans for a new stadium converted for the Braves, the Atlanta Stadium, Athletic facilities at the Atlanta University Center colleges, Georgia Tech and Georgia State all within the downtown core were and still are unique in Olympic history. Very few events had to be hosted much further out.

The spectacle that Sydney, Athens and Beijing have thrown since then were backed my massive amounts of national monies thrown at them. Atlanta hosted these games, not the USA. Whereas these other Olympics, while named for the cities hosting, were showcases for the whole country that hosted them. I don't know that any American city would get the federal money to back the games that most other countries would be willing to shell out.

One most also remember the way the IOC votes on these cities. I would have to look it up and remember the process, but there were six cities up for the bid. All the IOC members vote for their choice. After the first vote, the city with the least votes is eliminated. Then the five remaining are voted on, the city of these fives with the least votes is eliminated, then four, then three and on down until there is one city left standing.

If I remember correctly (and I should go research this further so I don't look stupid, but hey its 1:47 AM and I am tired) Atlanta did not get to the number one position until the final vote. Andrew Young campaigned tirelessly for the city. What kept Atlanta from ever being the bottom city and finally over the top in the last round was Atlanta's reputation as the home of MLK and the capital of the civil rights movement. The African nations voted pretty much en masse because of this history and Andrew Young's great reputation amongst them. Africa was pretty much credited with giving Atlanta the Olympics.

The bomb by the dude from NC put a huge damper on what was considered a great time. I went to several events, enjoyed just hanging out in Centennial Park even when I didn't have tickets to an event. The glut of booths lining the streets selling junk was another low point, but all in all it was a wonderful time, the city looked great, the new stadium, the park, Atlantans kept there cars out of downtown so traffic wasn't bad, I thought it was a great success.

The legacy of Centennial Park is a wonderful testament to the games. Does anybody remember what a seedy part of town this was prior?

Don't know this Conde Naste guy's beef. Each time I see this magazine in a doctor's office, it drips of snobbery anyway. It seems to be all about extremely wealthy getaway places across the globe that have little to do with any country's local culture. Give me National Geographic anyday.

[AcidSnake]

I thought that the 1996 Olympics was succesful in what it did as as far making people aware of of Atlanta. Unfortunately a lot of our state and local leadership is still typical of the Southern boobery that exists in the past. The phrase "if you build it, they will come" comes to mind.

There was never any good development planning and the leaders always seem to kowtowed to the mob when building roads and sprawled out housing(white/black flight) when it was convenient. Then there's this insanely moronic Atlanta Vs. Georgia mindset when comes to the state's willingness to proactively engage the metro region when planning for transportation.

I say all the things I mention should be taken into account when these "why Atlanta sucks" type of articles are written. Just another case of irresponsilble and lazy journalism in my humble opinion. I'm glad I don't read any of these magazine articles.

[AcidSnake]

Sprawl was with us for a loooong time before the 1996 Olympics hit the scene. The Olympics just made it more apparent that our development practices suck total monkey balls.

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

One must remember the scenario that came with Atlanta's announcement in 1990 that it had won the bid for the Olympics. One of the major draws was that businesses and private enterprise would fund the expenses. Many countries and cities had amassed a lot of debt to host the Olympics prior. The 84 LA Games were the pattern as private enterprise pretty much funded that Olympics and they at that time had been seen as one of the best ever.

No city had offered such a compact foot print for the games. We forget when we watch on TV, that places like Seoul and Barcelona and even LA had the sites spread all over their metro areas. Atlanta offered a unique map as most of the infrasturcture was already in place to host the majority of the events. The GWCC, the Omni, the soon to be built GA Dome, the plans for a new stadium converted for the Braves, the Atlanta Stadium, Athletic facilities at the Atlanta University Center colleges, Georgia Tech and Georgia State all within the downtown core were and still are unique in Olympic history. Very few events had to be hosted much further out.

The spectacle that Sydney, Athens and Beijing have thrown since then were backed my massive amounts of national monies thrown at them. Atlanta hosted these games, not the USA. Whereas these other Olympics, while named for the cities hosting, were showcases for the whole country that hosted them. I don't know that any American city would get the federal money to back the games that most other countries would be willing to shell out.

One most also remember the way the IOC votes on these cities. I would have to look it up and remember the process, but there were six cities up for the bid. All the IOC members vote for their choice. After the first vote, the city with the least votes is eliminated. Then the five remaining are voted on, the city of these fives with the least votes is eliminated, then four, then three and on down until there is one city left standing.

If I remember correctly (and I should go research this further so I don't look stupid, but hey its 1:47 AM and I am tired) Atlanta did not get to the number one position until the final vote. Andrew Young campaigned tirelessly for the city. What kept Atlanta from ever being the bottom city and finally over the top in the last round was Atlanta's reputation as the home of MLK and the capital of the civil rights movement. The African nations voted pretty much en masse because of this history and Andrew Young's great reputation amongst them. Africa was pretty much credited with giving Atlanta the Olympics.

The bomb by the dude from NC put a huge damper on what was considered a great time. I went to several events, enjoyed just hanging out in Centennial Park even when I didn't have tickets to an event. The glut of booths lining the streets selling junk was another low point, but all in all it was a wonderful time, the city looked great, the new stadium, the park, Atlantans kept there cars out of downtown so traffic wasn't bad, I thought it was a great success.

The legacy of Centennial Park is a wonderful testament to the games. Does anybody remember what a seedy part of town this was prior?

Don't know this Conde Naste guy's beef. Each time I see this magazine in a doctor's office, it drips of snobbery anyway. It seems to be all about extremely wealthy getaway places across the globe that have little to do with any country's local culture. Give me National Geographic anyday.

Real good points, Stmrks.

You know, on reading this something occurs to me that up until now I'd only half-consciously sensed: all the games since '96 have been hosted by national capitals (or in case of Sydney the 'culture' capital or virtual capital) of ambitious nations out to use the Olympics as a chance to really launch their nation (or with Greece, relaunch to some historical mythical glory). And of course this past August we saw China take this to an almost outlandish extent (with brilliant results, I was as dazzled as anyone else). But the point is, there's probably no American city that would necessarily have done much better than Atlanta did and even if they did they would still have almost certainly paled in comparison to the ones since for the reason I mentioned.

Apparently the Conde Nast writer wasn't reflecting enough to realize this when he implied that Atlanta had been outdone. What he forgot to ask was, How could it have NOT?

As for the games themselves, the generally satisfactory and efficient nature of them seems to have been the consensus by most observers (I wasn't there personally so I'm ONLY going on 2nd hand accts.). So it was funny to read that and took me aback somewhat.

[DeaconJ]

Originally Posted by WilliamM

Real good points, Stmrks.

You know, on reading this something occurs to me that up until now I'd only half-consciously sensed: all the games since '96 have been hosted by national capitals (or in case of Sydney the 'culture' capital or virtual capital) of ambitious nations out to use the Olympics as a chance to really launch their nation (or with Greece, relaunch to some historical mythical glory). And of course this past August we saw China take this to an almost outlandish extent (with brilliant results, I was as dazzled as anyone else). But the point is, there's probably no American city that would necessarily have done much better than Atlanta did and even if they did they would still have almost certainly paled in comparison to the ones since for the reason I mentioned.

Apparently the Conde Nast writer wasn't reflecting enough to realize this when he implied that Atlanta had been outdone. What he forgot to ask was, How could it have NOT?

As for the games themselves, the generally satisfactory and efficient nature of them seems to have been the consensus by most observers (I wasn't there personally so I'm ONLY going on 2nd hand accts.). So it was funny to read that and took me aback somewhat.

I attended several sporting events in 1996 in Atlanta...it was amazing to be there and I never saw any of the perceived "mishaps" that were talked about incessantly in the media. The events were all sold out, there were huge crowds everywhere, the Olympic Village was a blast (no pun intended) and the trinket/t-shirt hawkers were something that would be found in any city where people try to capitalize on a major international event like the Olympics - it's to be expected - and they weren't bothersome at all. I rode Marta several times...it was crowded as hell but isn't that what everybody wants? The Atlanta Olympics was a great experience and one I will never forget.

[FromCLTtoATL]

I have a couple of questions that might be easier to measure:

1. What did the Olympics do for city infrastructure?

2. Did the Olympics have an impact on residents (i.e., were some neighborhoods altered?)

3. Were the Olympics scattered around the city or concentrated?

Though I've been coming to Atlanta off and on all my life, the years just before and after the Olympics, I wasn't here.