daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy (aug.2, 2013) | DMCA policy | flipboard magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas > Completed



Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old May 30th, 2008, 09:14 PM   #1
rantanamo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 3,082
Likes (Received): 72

ATLANTA - Turner Field / Olympic Stadium (49,586)

MLB

Atlanta Braves

3x Champion:
1914, 1957, 1995

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr



1996 Olympic capacity: 85,000
image hosted on flickr



To the Olympic Committee, Atlanta's Stadium was probably a breath of fresh air and epitomized the type of projects they want. It may have been ugly from above, but at stadium level it may still be the nicest Olympic Stadium there has been, and it just happen to be an adaptive reuse project. The exterior is also very nice and pleasing. Its not high European architecture that will look like it was designed in the 70s in 20 years, but it is a very nice area that is created around it. So the seating was not uniform with a roof? Is that the only look you guys ever want? Boring.

Last edited by www.sercan.de; September 21st, 2013 at 02:37 PM.
rantanamo no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old May 30th, 2008, 09:34 PM   #2
Mo Rush
life.love.everything else
 
Mo Rush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 28,999
Likes (Received): 48

Quote:
Originally Posted by rantanamo View Post
To the Olympic Committee, Atlanta's Stadium was probably a breath of fresh air and epitomized the type of projects they want. It may have been ugly from above, but at stadium level it may still be the nicest Olympic Stadium there has been, and it just happen to be an adaptive reuse project. The exterior is also very nice and pleasing. Its not high European architecture that will look like it was designed in the 70s in 20 years, but it is a very nice area that is created around it. So the seating was not uniform with a roof? Is that the only look you guys ever want? Boring.
after the classy act of barcelona i doubt that the IOC was jumping for joy over a discongifured stadium. stadia dont require symmetry or unformity to be classy. but what atlanta did simply lacked class. a completely temporary stadium would have been better.


how could it epiomize what the IOC wants? beijing...london...sochi...
__________________
You don't need a Holiday, you need CAPE TOWN
#cityofinspiration


Mo Rush no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2008, 09:17 AM   #3
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
after the classy act of barcelona i doubt that the IOC was jumping for joy over a discongifured stadium. stadia dont require symmetry or unformity to be classy. but what atlanta did simply lacked class. a completely temporary stadium would have been better.


how could it epiomize what the IOC wants? beijing...london...sochi...

Oh, Mo, you're like a broken record over Atlanta. It almost seems like you're jealous that a Tier B City actually grabbed the Big Prize of 1996 over your Capetown and Johannesburg. Alright, so it wasn't classy. Atlanta never made pretensions to be a New York or a London. It offered what facilities it could afford -- and You KNOW WHAT? The IOC took them. If they were good enough for the IOC, they should be good enough for you! Who are you anyway? Just some wannabe stadium designer.
rover3 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2008, 09:24 AM   #4
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 2,296
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
after the classy act of barcelona i doubt that the IOC was jumping for joy over a discongifured stadium. stadia dont require symmetry or unformity to be classy. but what atlanta did simply lacked class. a completely temporary stadium would have been better.


how could it epiomize what the IOC wants? beijing...london...sochi...
you fail to realize the main point. THE IOC STILL PICKED ATLANTA. They probably loved the fact that the stadium would become a baseball stadium. The swimming stadium became the pool for Georgia Tech. Sometimes, its not all about looks. By building the stadium that would become a baseball stadium Atlanta saved on a whole lot of money. Its no different than what is going to happen in London. The stadium will be reconfigured into a smaller venue. The only difference is the sport that it will be for. Atlanta wasnt about to build a stadium that could be reused for American football.
en1044 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2008, 09:34 AM   #5
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 2,296
Likes (Received): 12

and despite what you say, this did the job pretty nicely, and continues to impress today.



en1044 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2008, 12:34 PM   #6
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,990
Likes (Received): 1247

Too much stock is put on iconic design for Olympic venues. The atmosphere and environment are more important. None of Sydney's designs were as awe inspiring as what Beijing is doing, yet I cannot imagine Beijing hosting a better games than Sydney 2000.

RE: Atlanta. As far as I'm concerned, Atlanta will always be the first Olympics I wathced. As a young boy, the stadium design wasn't high on my list of priorities when judging whether I enjoyed it or not to be honest. And I did enjoy it.

It is selfish of people to expect cities, and their people, to fund stadiums they don't need or which won't suit the needs of the city afterwards just so they can get an iconic design for two weeks on their TVs. I'm firmly on the side of Atlantians in this argument. Theirs was the least interesting of recent Olympic Stadiums but what they had worked and continues to do so.
RobH no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2008, 05:09 PM   #7
Mo Rush
life.love.everything else
 
Mo Rush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 28,999
Likes (Received): 48

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover3 View Post
Oh, Mo, you're like a broken record over Atlanta. It almost seems like you're jealous that a Tier B City actually grabbed the Big Prize of 1996 over your Capetown and Johannesburg. Alright, so it wasn't classy. Atlanta never made pretensions to be a New York or a London. It offered what facilities it could afford -- and You KNOW WHAT? The IOC took them. If they were good enough for the IOC, they should be good enough for you! Who are you anyway? Just some wannabe stadium designer.
you have clearly gone off topic. no suprises here. you're one of those who run out of what to say and start becoming personal just because I have an opinion.
The stadium was shit. deal with it. I made no comments about other venues which were excellent( in terms of design/architecture) including the solar panel roof of the aquatic centre, the top notch tennis centre, and many other great venues.

So what if I think the Torino Games had class?? Unfortunately the tag "coca-cola" games will always be attached to Atlanta 1996. For some but not all people. So what?? the games were successful.

I am not jealous that Cape Town did not win in 1997. It was clearly Athens time to win and Cape Town's bid while technicall sound was premature. Again thats off topic.

Lets stay on topic. The Atlanta Olympic stadium design was shit and Im not going to change my opinion to please you. The London Olympic stadium is shit but not as bad.

So as I've said above, my comments are an opinion of the olympic stadium and not the games as a whole. Stop being so insecure. So what If I didnt like the funny corner, I still appreciate the rest of the stadium and how good it looked even if it was only temporary. I never suggested the venue was not up to IOC standards or did not meet IAAF requirements. If I didnt make it clear in previous posts I wish that the entire stadium was temporary rather than including that baseball section.

Like the London 2012 stadium. Its not the best temporary design for the price BUT it meets IAAF and IOC requirements, my opinion wont change the fact that it will be built and will host a spectacular track and field competition.

and yes I am a wannabe stadium designer, i've always made said that. and your point??? meant to be a "personal attack". grow up.
__________________
You don't need a Holiday, you need CAPE TOWN
#cityofinspiration



Last edited by Mo Rush; June 1st, 2008 at 05:14 PM.
Mo Rush no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2008, 08:32 PM   #8
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 3,459
Likes (Received): 292

ATLANTA - Turner Field / Olympic Stadium (50,096)

A number of threads have carried recent comments like the following concerning Atlanta's Olympic stadium:

Quote:
The London stadium is unimpressive because of the focus on legacy, the Atlanta stadium ended up with a downright ludicrous design because of the focus on legacy.
Quote:
That atlanta stadium is feckin rank. No dout some will say its a brilliant design and looks/looked great.
Now I'm not going to say it's the best ever or that everyone has to like it, but I do think it's getting an unfair rap for one reason and one reason only: The irregular form created by the permanent end that would eventually become the Braves baseball stadium.



It's not as if the facility lacked quality amenities or thoughtful design at the human scale. True, the brickwork is more traditional American in design but architecture, when not purposefully trying to be bold and forward thinking, is supposed to be reminiscent of time and setting. Given the design of other stadiums at the time I at least feel comfortable in saying that as a structure it holds its own against the likes of Barcelona and Sydney. It was comfortable and held good sight lines, the concession areas were nice and it certainly did the job for the athletes.

However, given the fact it was designed for baseball first and then amended to accommodate athletics, it was left with a portion of irreconcilable form in the odd protruding corner. This isn't graceful for a purely athletics venue, but then again this wasn't a pure athletics venue and one could argue that this was a very prime and great example of environmental prudence and urban revitalization by making sure the facility had bona fide use after the events. This was also done for fiscal principles, as well, since Atlanta and Georgia did not have billions to toss around for white elephants. Maybe a fancy wrapping a la Allianz or the Birdcage would appease other tastes, though I urge you to remember such precedents had not yet been set. Thus I have no problem with people suggesting it's not their taste or even calling it the weakest of the modern Olympic venues, but I'm really trying to understand why it earns such derision as if it didn't try and/or wasn't functional.

So I ask: What is it about the stadium that makes some people react so vehemently, and is it possible some of that can be resolved by understanding the stadiums prime purpose as a baseball venue? If the far end above was simply bowled-in like the other end would that solve everyone's loathing?
__________________
"I'll buy that for a dollar!"

Last edited by www.sercan.de; August 19th, 2008 at 10:22 PM.
GunnerJacket no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2008, 08:41 PM   #9
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 2,296
Likes (Received): 12

i have no problem with it, i think it served its purpose. If anything its been better than others because its probably hosted more events than all of the others. At least its not a white elephant. I think another reason it gets a bad rap is because its obviously associated with the Atlanta olympics and the bad memories that went along with it.
__________________
WASHINGTON REDSKINS
meh....maybe
en1044 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2008, 08:43 PM   #10
HUSKER
NUEVO ESTADO DE LA LAGUNA
 
HUSKER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: TORREON, ESTADO DE LA LAGUNA
Posts: 1,166
Likes (Received): 22

This staidium is just ugly., The olimpics are A WORLD SPORTING AND CULTURAL FESTIVITY, and the main stadium should be a life lasting icon (Atlanta's stadium isn't, in the mind of many people)., A great example is the Berlin Olimpic Stadium, damn, even Montreal has it's own stange beauty itself., But Atlanta's stadium is,,,,,,, is,,,,,, well, thats the sad part of it, IT JUST IS.
__________________
POR LA FORMACIÓN DEL ESTADO DE LA LAGUNA!!!
HUSKER no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2008, 08:46 PM   #11
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 2,296
Likes (Received): 12

when you are spending peoples' tax dollars i think the government has a responsibility to build something thats going to last. In ways the Beijing stadium sickens me because i know its hardly ever going to be used after these games. Screw long lasting stadiums, give the people something they can use for a long time. Dont waste their money.
__________________
WASHINGTON REDSKINS
meh....maybe
en1044 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2008, 08:56 PM   #12
Bigmac1212
Always looking up!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sun Devil Country
Posts: 297
Likes (Received): 1

Well, since the Falcons already have the Georgia Dome, it doens't make sence to build a 2nd NFL stadium. And the Braves' Atlanta Fulton County Stadium is getting long in the tooth. I don't see why all the fuss is about.
Bigmac1212 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2008, 08:58 PM   #13
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 3,459
Likes (Received): 292

Quote:
Originally Posted by HUSKER View Post
This staidium is just ugly., The olimpics are A WORLD SPORTING AND CULTURAL FESTIVITY, and the main stadium should be a life lasting icon
Are you talking a matter of permanence? So even if the stadium were lackluster all would be forgiven if it were permanent?

I'm also curious if we're now caught up in a game of one-upping one another wherein anything less than a $1B mammoth designed by the artist of the week will immediately be dismissed, as many are seemingly doing to London right now. Dangerous path if that's the case.
Quote:
But Atlanta's stadium is,,,,,,, is,,,,,, well, thats the sad part of it, IT JUST IS.
Is what? That's what I'm trying to learn from others.

Is oddly shaped?
Is sadly no loner suitable for athletics?
Is piss-poor in detailing and totally devoid of appropriate scale?
What?
__________________
"I'll buy that for a dollar!"
GunnerJacket no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2008, 10:55 PM   #14
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 0

It's amazing how my quote, out of context, seems like a direct slant against this stadium. Let me make this clear; I have no problem with this stadium. My problem is the fuss that many people have kicked up about the design of the London stadium but whom have made no reference to other Olympic Stadia that were built, in this case much more obviously and apparently than London, with a focus on the legacy, rather than the games themselves. I find it ridiculous that London can be criticised for its design when there are precedents of legacy built into other Olympic Stadia.

The London stadium is unimpressive but it's not like it will not lack quality amenities or a thoughtful design either. The London stadium will also provide well for supporters and athletes. I just think that with Sydney and then Beijing, a lot of people have forgotten about many other Olympic Stadia that were not built as grand, architectural projects.

While the Atlanta stadium had the weird looking protrusion for a logical and legacy purpose, as will London have a number of very temporary aspects. It is impossible to criticise London's focus on legacy against this backdrop. What was needed, in the long-term, in Atlanta was a 50,000 capacity baseball stadium and, as such, the stadium was understandably built with its permanent, rather than temporary, use in mind. Similarly, what London has a need for is not another 80,000 capacity stadium, nor an 80,000 capacity athletics stadium for that matter. What London needs from the games is a long-term, modern athletic venue with a sustainable and feasible capacity. With Wembley having 90,000 seats, Twickenham 82,000 and The Emirates 60,000 and with athletics, generally, not being as massive a spectator sport as football or rugby union in the UK, there is no need for a large athletics stadium as well as Wembley and Twickenham. The London stadium secures a legacy of athletics, with a suitable and sustainable capacity in London. It is no different to the Atlanta stadium in that respect.

Given this, I have to admit that I'm a little annoyed about my quote being taken this far out of context. I have no problem with this stadium, nor any Olympic Stadium that is built with it's long-term, rather than temporary use, in mind. I am, however, greatly annoyed by people who think, either, that Olympic Stadia need to make grand statements (Beijing) to be a good Olympic Stadium, or that there are no precedents of concessions made in design in order to have a usable, long-term legacy that is to the benefit of the citizens of the host city or country.

I'm sorry but at the games, this stadium did look ridiculous but Atlanta had no use for a large athletics stadium following the games, so the design, while realistically, looking hideous at the games was still a success. That cannot be faulted and it would be inappropriate, 12 years on, to arbitrarily criticise this design. That is not what I am doing.

The London stadium, equally, is as underwhelming as the Atlanta stadium was bizarre looking. That doesn't mean that it isn't a good stadium or that it is not fit for purpose. The point is that you cannot criticise one without criticising the other. Sadly, a lot of people seem capable of only of criticising London, yet do so on the same criteria that led to the design of the Atlanta stadium.

I don't think there can be any debate about the general ugliness of this stadium in its athletics form, however.
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.

Last edited by NeilF; August 13th, 2008 at 11:04 PM.
NeilF no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2008, 11:04 PM   #15
Quintana
Registered Abuser
 
Quintana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 美好的码头
Posts: 4,039
Likes (Received): 267

The more I look at it, the more I like it. The fact that it is non-symmetrical gives it character. The stadium is not trying to hide what it really is (a baseball ground) and I can respect that.
Quintana no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2008, 11:13 PM   #16
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 3,459
Likes (Received): 292

Neil, my apologies to unnerve you as it wasn't my intention. I wasn't even trying to decry any criticism of the stadium as being unwarranted. I see now we're more in line in regarding critiques about what you call the legacy of the designs.

To be fair, though, your entire quote does refer to the structure as ludicrous and more...
Quote:
I am not directing this post at the quoted poster, but I find it totally impossible that anyone can criticise the London design for being focused on legacy, rather than the games themselves, without mentioning this monstrosity. The London stadium is unimpressive because of the focus on legacy, the Atlanta stadium ended up with a downright ludicrous design because of the focus on legacy.
And in your defense you still proclaim the general ugliness of the form. At least you offer reasoning and understanding, which is what I was looking for.

I didn't mean to offend, but I still think the tenor of your quote, at the least, captures the spirit of the reactions I'm trying to understand. Worked in getting an explanation out of you, no? Cheers.
__________________
"I'll buy that for a dollar!"
GunnerJacket no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2008, 11:43 PM   #17
Kuvvaci
Strange User
 
Kuvvaci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 19,966
Likes (Received): 51

it is a real monster???

Why didn't Atlanta build a new stadium... Thanks to Sydney, it set the bar high and Athens and Beijing followed.

Last three is very special stadiums...
Kuvvaci no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2008, 12:08 AM   #18
HUSKER
NUEVO ESTADO DE LA LAGUNA
 
HUSKER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: TORREON, ESTADO DE LA LAGUNA
Posts: 1,166
Likes (Received): 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Are you talking a matter of permanence? So even if the stadium were lackluster all would be forgiven if it were permanent?

I'm also curious if we're now caught up in a game of one-upping one another wherein anything less than a $1B mammoth designed by the artist of the week will immediately be dismissed, as many are seemingly doing to London right now. Dangerous path if that's the case.
Is what? That's what I'm trying to learn from others.

Is oddly shaped?
Is sadly no loner suitable for athletics?
Is piss-poor in detailing and totally devoid of appropriate scale?
What?

What I meant is that NOBODY talks about that stadium (certainly not outside the US), and for that reason its just sitting there in the bottom of olimpic architecture history. It's not a point of reference for future designs neither it was groundbreaking in any way for the architectural world. I know that its after olimpic purpose was to host baseball games, but many olimpic stadiums had had long lasting sporting life after the games (Mexico's, Montreal, Munich, Barcelona, etc) so that's not the case., I can live with the idea that Atlanta's plan was to build a "modest" and "cheap" but funcional stadium that could have a future use, but, for that reason, in the american way of making top 5 or top 10 or top whatever lists, Atlanta's stadium hits rock bottom when compared with Sydney's, Athens, Beijing's, Seul's and even Barcelona´s stadiums.
__________________
POR LA FORMACIÓN DEL ESTADO DE LA LAGUNA!!!
HUSKER no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2008, 12:25 AM   #19
Bobby3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,157
Likes (Received): 7

It's not great, it's not bad either. It just leaves me going "meh". I think it might be an Atlanta thing. None of their sport venues are amazing (I know, college football fans will defend Bobby Dodd Stadium to the grave).

I know Atlanta doesn't have a ton of money to throw around, but it's not exactly a well managed city either.
Bobby3 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2008, 12:31 AM   #20
somataki
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 417
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby3 View Post
I know Atlanta doesn't have a ton of money to throw around, but it's not exactly a well managed city either.
This is not an excuse. Much poorer countries gave much more money to build state of the art stadiums for the olympics.
somataki no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
atlanta

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu