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

[Scoots71]

Originally Posted by ephraim58

What happened with the Olympic Cauldron?

Greetings from Curaçao!

It's still there. A little ways down the street from Turner Field, right near Interstate 75/85.

[Mr.Underground]

Originally Posted by ephraim58

What happened with the Olympic Cauldron?

Greetings from Curaçao!

There is again. A pair of pics:

[RobH]

Whilst I'm a big defender of the Olympic stadium from 1996 and its legacy, that cauldron tower was a bit of a monstrosity. I suppose it has something of the Southern US about it in its own industrial, functional way, but I never liked it.

Good photos though

[New York City 20??]

Originally Posted by RobH

Whilst I'm a big defender of the Olympic stadium from 1996 and its legacy, that cauldron tower was a bit of a monstrosity. I suppose it has something of the Southern US about it in its own industrial, functional way, but I never liked it.

Good photos though

Throughout American history, the South has not been know for its industry.

Anyway, the cauldron was suppose to be an "ancient ceremonial scroll," tying in with the whole ancient Greek theme of the 1996 torch relay. It uses tiles of Georgia red clay. Nice enough concept, but very poorly executed with the way the flame burned as a strip and with that horribly unimaginative tower.

The Atlanta Braves complained and got it moved away from their stadium to a site farther north.

[KingmanIII]

Originally Posted by New York City 20??

Throughout American history, the South has not been know for its industry.

Except Birmingham, of course, which, like the city in England after which it is named, is a very important iron and steel production center, though not like it once was.

[GunnerJacket]

From one paper about various Olympic Cauldrons:

"As an immigrant to the United States, (designer) Armanjani looked with fresh eyes at the everyday structures and institutions normally taken for granted. Armajani’s approach to art and architecture was simple, but not so easily carried out. For him, art had to be useful, and public. His insistence on making public art functional led to the creation of structures that, at times, lacked any aesthetic value.

It is difficult to see past the intricate network of stairs circling the metal framework of the tower. To Armajani, function was art. However, when looking at this particular design it is hard to see anything but pure function.

Armanjani’s work was always heavily politicized, and reviewers have speculated that he created the massive, painted-steel, open-truss work structure as a bulky, overbearing, ironic tribute to what he saw as a bulky, overbearing international sports event."

The design of the cauldron was kept from all of us until it was ready to begin construction. From what I recall the intention was to create a modern, industrial piece that would evolve into a flower, a fusion between man-made and natural forms. The functionality was to come from the staircase that would not only enable the general public to climb the structure later on but would weave in and out of the structure so that when the torch bearer was on the way up he/she would come in and out of view several times, creating drama supposedly.

Eventually the design was compromised first by the location which required the bridge to connect it with the stadium, limited it's appeal as an independent piece and made the proportions between the tower and the actual cauldron appear out of sorts. Then to top it off the organizers went with Ali to light the cauldron, requiring the added cable connection and thus totally diffusing the functionality Armajani had sought.

Now the cauldron sits, for all intents and purposes, in the middle of a parking lot. It would be much better served by relocating the structure to the Centennial Park also built for the games, at least giving the piece a more graceful and engaging stage for public viewing. Where it sits provides no formal backdrop or context, limits abilities to touch and interact with the piece or recall its role in the City's historical moment. It's become an afterthought, which many critics might say is a fitting symbol of the games.

I think the design has merit but was pursued to a minimalist degree, and certainly lacked true functionality: It may have captured Armajani's conceptual purpose but was not properly integrated into the stadium context. Many things about the games went very well, but this piece as a structure and as a remnant of the event was decidedly below par.

[RobH]

Great, interesting post. Thanks.

[GunnerJacket]

Thank you. It's one of several items where I look around me and see so many lost opportunities in this poster-community for suburban sprawl. Atlanta is desperate for civic gathering spots and postcard worthy destinations, yet several works of art or pocket parks have been poorly located or designed. This is simply among the most high profile.

We never really heard why they couldn't design a structure to be incorporated into the stadium for use even after the games, rather than moving it some 200 feet away. There's a large plaza framed by the Olympic stadium colonnade, so in theory it could've been a part of that area and regularly visible in the outfield of the baseball stadium. Alas...

[salaverryo]

The Atlanta Olympics were a complete fiasco. A mid-size provincial city hosting an event of such magnitude. Ridiculous!

[rantanamo]

Originally Posted by salaverryo

The Atlanta Olympics were a complete fiasco. A mid-size provincial city hosting an event of such magnitude. Ridiculous!

IF you go to the Olympics, you'd see its not as big as its made to look on tv. Some of the nations are spending way too much trying to look good on tv.

[soup or man]

One of the things that I wish Atlanta did during the Olympics (read Turner Field) was incorporate more Southern Architecture into the design elements. American Southern architecture is very graceful and classy and I really wish it was put on global display.

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by salaverryo

The Atlanta Olympics were a complete fiasco. A mid-size provincial city hosting an event of such magnitude. Ridiculous!

I challenge you to qualify your measure, please.

- Financially speaking it was highly profitable for all parties involved and there were no white elephants left over from the development.

- As a sporting competition the athletes raved about it, save for the usual few who suffer mishaps in getting to events, don't like their personal accomodations, etc. But such is the case with every games.

- The city of Atlanta and other parts of Georgia received some very nice redevelopment that otherwise wouldn't have happened.

- As something embodying the spirit of the games several announcers even lauded Atlanta's efforts because it was, as you put it, a mid-size provincial city striving as hard as it can to stand among the global elite. Remember, this was facilitated without national funding, unlike comparable events in Barcelona, Athens, Sydney and Beijing.


I take it by your comment you're mainly referring to the cultural aspect, and it's true Atlanta lacks the cultural appeal or scenic vistas of traditional tourist centers or coastal metropolises. And if anything the event was more a catalyst for Atlanta to recognize these shortcomings and do something about them while most Olympic host cities already have those amenities and the games become more of a celebration.

So, yes, by comparison Atlanta lacked the ethereal feel and cultural splash of other recent games. But give credit where credit's due - The organizers gave exactly what was offered, did it very well, and if at the end of the day the worst we can say is the equivalent of "We wish it was prettier," that's not too bad for an event of this magnitude.

Besides, the alternatives are becoming more and more freightening. Matching the flair established by China is unthinkable for pretty much every other economy, and if you restrict the event to only the most glamourous hosts then you're not only limiting your options but also being rather spiteful to the egalitarian spirit of the games. Shall we go to the same 12 cities over and over?

No, the Centennial games were hardly sexy or dripping with modern global culture, but if that's the focus of the games these days then perhaps the event should be seriously reformed.

[ReiAyanami]

This makes no sense. Atlanta's games had a huge mediocrity written all over the place. They simple "were", nothing to remember, and nothing to lose if you forget it. The only Olympic games that wanted to break even, and even make a profit, treated like business, that alone says a lot.

Financially viable games without national funding? Do you even realize how many hundreds of billions of US taxpayers money get thrown away in dead end military projects, spendings, lost cause wars, etc, etc, especially after the end of the cold war? And it is fine with you that Atlanta's games were treated like a provisional business without any state help, just to save money? What level of hypocrisy is this?

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by ReiAyanami

Financially viable games without national funding? Do you even realize how many hundreds of billions of US taxpayers money get thrown away in dead end military projects, spendings, lost cause wars, etc, etc, especially after the end of the cold war? And it is fine with you that Atlanta's games were treated like a provisional business without any state help, just to save money? What level of hypocrisy is this?

What, you want us to throw away more money on top of all that? You're insinuating that billions of "taxpayers money is thrown away in dead end military projects, spendings, lost cause wars, etc," yet decry the fact that a purely social event like the Olympics was almost fully privately funded?!! And yet you're accusing me of hypocrisy? I pray you're simply confused in your terminology because based upon your inference you sound the more hypocritical of us if you are in fact advocating the use of more national funds for Olympic games hosts.

Let's be clear about my stance: That I would love to have seen Atlanta put on a much better show is no secret, but I don't believe that required much more investment on the part of the government and I certainly don't think Olympic venues should be overly extravagant facilities. China's games were a spectacle, to be sure, but I'm confident the populace of the country would have rather seen some of those billions spent on health care and housing rather than a now decaying Birds Nest. So while I'd love to have seen Atlanta's games be celebrated as a great showcase for the community, in the grand scheme of things Olympic spending was/is pretty low on our list of concerns. Major sewer and water infrastructure woes need to be addressed still, the primary education system is below par for the US, land is being lost to ill-conceived development patterns... Can you understand why that the Olympic stadium was regarded as unattractive isn't at the top of our list then or now? Or why Britain is following a model as closely aligned with Atlanta as with Beijing?

These games don't take place in a vacuum, and they've grown to such immense proportions that hosting has become almost too much a burden to bear. There are far too many events and now the scale of new construction demanded of the games has caused many cities to reconsider the value of hosting. So while Atlanta's event rated poorly to you visually and socially, as a business venture it went off exceedingly well. To wit, you imply that their treatment of the games "like a business" is the wrong intention. Then what is it, then? Charity?! A global obligation of sporting goodness?!! You're acting like the folks in Sydney, Athens and China had no motives to use the games as a marketing ploy to lure visitors and business investment, though the volumes of VIP parties and host/sponsor tents at every games would contend otherwise.

Atlanta could've done a lot more, even with the little money they had. Most importantly, what most people decry about the event, the lack of comparable social and cultural appeal, has nothing to do with the games and everything to do with Atlanta being a comparably young, small city with no where near the scale, character or history of other hosts cities. So looking back it's fair to say Atlanta is not an equal peer among hosts and the games weren't as fun because of it. But don't suggest the games themselves were poor, because the events themselves were great, it was merely the ancillary features Atlanta lacked.

If you wish to lobby the US government that they spend untold billions on a Chicago games in 2016, then be my guest. Pardon me if the rest of us suffering in these tougher times would rather see our taxpayer money invested more wisely than in something like a causeway to a new archery venue.

[jandeczentar]

The Atlanta Games legacy should be a model for everyone else to follow. Turner Field hosts 81 Braves games a year (excluding pre/post season games). No other Olympic stadium gets that much use. So what if it's a fairly standard design? They could've built an architectural masterpiece but had no use for it afterwards. What would be the point of that? Most of Atlanta's other venues also got regular use post-games in stark contrast to most other host cities (eg. Athens). The Georgia Dome is the Falcons home, the Omni was the Hawks home until replaced by Phillips Arena. Atlanta's universities got most of the rest.

As to the financing, most games are publicly funded and the residents of the host city spend years paying it back through taxes. The city of Montreal is still paying for their Olympics 33 years after the event.

So, if it's a choice of a games with masses of taxpayer funded venues that aren't used regularly or a privately financed games with venues that are used regularly then I know which one I'd pick.

[ReiAyanami]

So you basically said above that:
1)Atlanta had (has?) more serious problems that need(ed) to be addressed than Olympics, unlike the following host cities, so the Olympics were not a high priority,(Why host the Olympics then?)
2)The level of spending nowadays is so huge that most cities have turned down the Olympics (really? what cities?),
3)You said the amount of money spent was small, the games were good, but it could have been better even with the same amount of money. So is this a problem of the games themselves?

About the hypocrisy, when you accuse other countries for spending public money for the Olympics, while US state is wasting unthinkable amounts in projects without any public benefit, billions in military dead ends alone, then this is hypocrisy. Better waste those money in a legacy for the future.

Most of Atlanta's other venues also got regular use post-games in stark contrast to most other host cities (eg. Athens)

name the unused 2004 venues

[Alx-D]

Originally Posted by jandeczentar

The Atlanta Games legacy should be a model for everyone else to follow. Turner Field hosts 81 Braves games a year (excluding pre/post season games). No other Olympic stadium gets that much use. So what if it's a fairly standard design? They could've built an architectural masterpiece but had no use for it afterwards. What would be the point of that? Most of Atlanta's other venues also got regular use post-games in stark contrast to most other host cities (eg. Athens). The Georgia Dome is the Falcons home, the Omni was the Hawks home until replaced by Phillips Arena. Atlanta's universities got most of the rest.

As to the financing, most games are publicly funded and the residents of the host city spend years paying it back through taxes. The city of Montreal is still paying for their Olympics 33 years after the event.

So, if it's a choice of a games with masses of taxpayer funded venues that aren't used regularly or a privately financed games with venues that are used regularly then I know which one I'd pick.

Montreal's Stade Olympique was finally paid off a couple years ago and was also hosting 81 baseball games (plus various football, soccer, conventions, and concerts) until the Expos were stolen by MLB. Even though it now has no major tenant, it has probably been the most used Olympic stadium ever built.

[GunnerJacket]

Rei, I'll respond to the portions of your post that relate back to me:

Originally Posted by ReiAyanami

So you basically said above that:
1)Atlanta had (has?) more serious problems that need(ed) to be addressed than Olympics, unlike the following host cities, so the Olympics were not a high priority,(Why host the Olympics then?)

The 1996 games were used to raise the profile of the city and to spearhead investment in some areas that otherwise might not have received any attention at all. The fact that they pursued a for-profit model, which remained a gamble at that, is what allowed them to create more downtown housing, renovate the oldest public housing projects in the US, create more urban park space and fix up the fading convention facilities. Some of this would've taken place without the games, but the event was seen as an excuse to act more quickly and to direct more money into these causes since they would yield a more direct return. Plus, as I hinted at earlier, they were used to give Atlanta more global cachet for use in recruiting businesses. Kia Motors and several bio-technology firms have moved to the city in part from what they learned during the games.

2)The level of spending nowadays is so huge that most cities have turned down the Olympics (really? what cities?)

Firstly, I should've said "don't fully pursue" instead of turned down. Still, cities I know where organizers/voters have said the games aren't worth pursuing the bid after an initial bid has been filed:
San Francisco (2016 games)
Seattle (2012)
Berne (2010)

To say nothing of how many beautiful yet smaller cities/countries couldn't afford to make a serious bid because of logistics alone. Prague's bid for 2016 was cut early because of serious doubts about the ability to get the $5B+ USD estimated necessary. Greece relied heavily on EU subsidies for their effort. So the question of value on return is clearly there for every games except those that have shown direct profit, which as far as I know are only the LA and Atlanta games.

3)You said the amount of money spent was small, the games were good, but it could have been better even with the same amount of money. So is this a problem of the games themselves?

Only in that I think the volume of events now attached to the games takes away from the value of how the monies could be invested. If the host doesn't have to worry about BMX venues, sailing or team sports that have their own world championships, then the smaller scale would allow/encourage the host to spend more on the quality of the venues that are needed. Or to redirect money to infrastructure, arts, etc. Atlanta could've benefited from additional light rail lines, but instead Olympic funding had to go towards the equestrian center, a kayak course in TN and so forth. (These events also cause the wide dispersal of events we see now that detract from the event, but that's another thread.)

So I'm not blaming the games for how the money was spent, but I do think that's what's expected of the games has grown out of control because of how many events are now tied to the Olympics. When you're spending 1/12 of Athens organizers or 1/40 of China's games you've got far less to spend on architecture or civic landscaping.

About the hypocrisy, when you accuse other countries for spending public money for the Olympics, while US state is wasting unthinkable amounts in projects without any public benefit, billions in military dead ends alone, then this is hypocrisy. Better waste those money in a legacy for the future.

I'm not "accusing" other countries of how they spend their public money, I'm asserting that people outside Atlanta/the US should treat us likewise, and that hosting the games should not require billions of taxpayer dollars be spent on superfluous stuff. Just because the Chinese spent between $20-40B USD doesn't mean that has to be the norm for every host.

Further, don't accuse me of hypocrisy unless you first know I/we're in agreement with the principles behind the events you're calling wastes of money. I could be more anti-war than you for all you know. However, that you're clinging to the war suggests this is a political motive than a financial one. The US government is spending billions on such trivialities as sex studies, performance art, and duplicitous investments in failed energy development schemes, while failing to seriously invest in mass/rapid transit, proper environmental resource management and primary and secondary education. If you are seriously going to frame your argument as simply being a choice between war and the Olympics than I'm afraid you're missing a much, much bigger picture.

[jandeczentar]

1. Most hosts have more serious problems than staging the Olympics. In an ideal world they'd fix them without the impetous of the Games. You asked "why host the Olympics?" Because politicians believe they can be used to kick-start regeneration of deprived areas. Unfortunately the projects are often mis-managed and lead only to mountains of debt (that has to be repayed, usually by the taxpayer).

2. Many cities consider Olympic bids but reject them before the IOC gets the chance (usually on the grounds of cost). Go to gamesbids.com for more information on terminated bids.

3. The amount of money needed to stage even a relatively modest Olympics is vast. London is going to end up spending more than £10bn on its "austerity games." As the cost goes up the list of plausible hosts diminishes. No one is going to match the $43bn spent by Beijing. Even half that is going to be a stretch for most cities. To conclude, "is this a problem with the games themselves?" Yes, they're their too expensive.

Is it hypocrisy to spend money on the Olympics? Probably. Is it hypocrisy to spend money on "military dead ends?" Probably. Is that likely to stop politicians doing both? Probably not. Politics and power are all about hypocrisy: get over it.

Atlanta '96 Venues (and what became of them)
(Venue name - Olympic use - Post Games use)

Alexander Coliseum - Boxing - Georgia Tech Basketball
Centennial Stadium - Athletics - Atlanta Braves Baseball
Forbes Arena - Basketball - Morehouse College Basketball
Fulton County Stadium - Baseball - Replaced by Turner Field
GSU Arena - Badminton - Georgia State Basketball
Georgia Dome - Basketball/Handball/Gymnastics - Atlanta Falcons Football
Georgia Tech Aquatic Center - Aquatics - Georgia Tech Recreational Facility
Herndon Stadium - Field Hockey - Morris Brown College Football
International Horse Park - Equestrian - Conferences/Concerts
Lake Lanier - Rowing - A Reservoir/Recreational Lake
Omni Coliseum - Volleyball - Atlanta Hawks Basketball (until 1997)
Panther Stadium - Field Hockey - Clark University Football
Toccoa River - Canoe/Kayak - A River (!?)
Wolf Creek Shooting Complex - Shooting - Shooting competitions (dismantled in '02)
World Congress Center - Many Events - Conferences/Conventions

Not included in this list are places like the Citrus Bowl which was an Olympic venue but isn't in Atlanta and thus isn't relevant here.

PS. Ayanami Rei was my favourite character in Evangelion as well.

[jandeczentar]

Originally Posted by Alx-D

Montreal's Stade Olympique was finally paid off a couple years ago and was also hosting 81 baseball games (plus various football, soccer, conventions, and concerts) until the Expos were stolen by MLB. Even though it now has no major tenant, it has probably been the most used Olympic stadium ever built.

It was only completed ages after the games and I hear that it is falling apart now. The Expos were getting absurdly low attendances in their later years and had to move. Montreal is a hockey city and not really a baseball one.