By Anisha Sadhale
The Games
The course of Atlanta was changed on September 18th, 1990, when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced that Atlanta would be the host city for the 1996 Olympic Games. At a time of mass migration out of the city, tense race relations, and a failing public sector, the Atlanta Organizing Committee sold the city as one of diversity, enthusiasm, and most importantly, promise. However, 27 years later, the question of the legacy — and the people — left behind by the extensive restructuring of Atlanta into a “global city” has left some wondering if hosting the Olympics might have done more harm than good.
In the early 1990s, Atlanta was a drastically different place. “White flight” out of the city and into the surrounding suburbs had led to an all-time low population in Atlanta. The increase of Black families moving into the city, combined with white flight, contributed to the city’s Black population rising from 38% to 65% in 30 years. The decline of the white middle and upper classes had had an impact on the city’s tax base, decreasing the city’s ability to maintain public infrastructure, parks, schools, and roads, and the poverty rate for Black residents of the city had increased from 29% in 1970 to 35% in 1990.
Given the state of Atlanta at the time, the idea of submitting a bid to host the 1996 Summer Olympics was almost laughable to most city residents. However, the idea of “Why Not Atlanta?” prevailed: the city boasted one of the busiest airports in the world, a rapid transit system, many professional athletics teams, a number of global businesses such as Delta and Coca-Cola, and large media allies like CNN, so why couldn’t Atlanta host the Olympics? These were the points made first to the US Olympic Committee in 1987, and then to the IOC in 1990 after being chosen to represent the US.
Although one of the reasons Atlanta had been chosen was because of its “enthusiasm” to host the games, not everyone was enthusiastic about the decision. Atlanta activists and residents resented the “behind closed doors” nature of the bid process, which didn’t include any public debate about whether or not Atlantans wanted the Olympics to be hosted in the city. Anti-poverty groups like Open Door Community raised concerns about common preparations for big events like the Olympics, including “vagrant-free zones” and steep rent in previously affordable housing, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Mike Dobbins was the City of Atlanta’s commissioner of planning, development, and neighborhood conservation from the time of the Olympics to the early 2000s and is now a professor in Georgia Tech’s School of City and Regional Planning. Speaking of the massive changes Atlanta underwent in the years leading up to the Games, Dobbins explained that “Downtown Atlanta was utterly changed, redirected, and transformed in that era. Some of the things that happened were good, some of it was not so good.”
These changes were headed up by the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games (ACOG), which had a monumental task ahead of it. The committee was responsible for building a new Olympic stadium for track and field events and the closing ceremony, finding venues for all the events, coordinating the creation of the Olympic Village and athlete housing, fundraising, and more. ACOG’s initial position, Dobbins said, was that “we’re doing this, and the city better do everything that we want.” Mayor Maynard Jackson was committed to doing what was in the best economic interest of the city, Dobbins said. But who was looking out for the residents?
The answer, according to Dobbins, was community development corporations. These neighborhood groups banded together to protest the lack of communication they received about the revitalization projects happening near their homes and the fact that they had no input in the decision. After learning that Olympic organizers were proposing a tennis center in her neighborhood, one member of the Blackburn Park Area Neighborhood Association commented to the Atlanta Constitution that “they never asked us if we wanted it here. We’re all for Dekalb getting a tennis center and being part of the Olympics, but just not right in the heart of a residential neighborhood.”
Dobbins added that the “extent to which local and neighborhood groups affect their future couldn’t be ignored,” and the protesters in the were successful in changing the location of the tennis center. But this group was part of the minority who were able to change the city’s ‘revitalization’ plans. In 1993, the Corporation for Olympic Development in Atlanta released its plan for revitalization, which called for the demolition of 533 residential units, and further analysis by the Atlanta Olympic Conscience Coalition revealed that the plan would not take care of the 9,700 low-income residents who were likely to be displaced if the plan were implemented. Dobbins said that it was important to “not forget the motives of the private sector,” which are to increase power and wealth. The pressure of getting the city ready in time for the Games was the single motivating factor for a lot of the policy, planning, and publicity of the time; maintaining housing for the current residents was not.
Legacy
Examining the lasting legacy of the 1996 Olympics is not so black and white. In his book “Atlanta’s Olympic Resurgence: How the 1996 Games Revived a Struggling City,” Dobbins wrote that we can start by asking the question of whether the Games left Atlanta better off than it was before. The short answer, he argued, is yes, but the longer answer includes caveats.
In what ways is Atlanta better off than it was before? One of the most enduring legacies of the Olympics is that most of the venues live on as everyday parts of Atlanta. The Centennial Olympic Stadium, built in the years leading up to the Games, was repurposed as a field for the Atlanta Braves and currently serves as the Center Parc Stadium for Georgia State University. The athlete housing in Olympic Village became Georgia Tech’s North Avenue Apartments. The McAuley Aquatic Center, which hosted all swimming and diving events, is now part of the Georgia Tech Campus Recreation Center. Perhaps the most well-known remaining relic from the Games is Centennial Olympic Park, a 22-acre greenspace just south of the Georgia Aquarium and World of Coca-Cola, and home to many other attractions.
In addition to these lasting Atlanta monuments, the economic development that occurred as a result of the Games is still seen today. Eighteen Fortune 500 companies now call Georgia home, and according to Dobbins, the stimulation of the economy has led to nearly 3.4 billion dollars allocated for development projects in Downtown Atlanta. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, at least 25 foreign governments opened consulates, trading posts, and other honorary offices after the Games, achieving former mayor Jackson’s goal of transforming the city into a “global city.”
Much of this growth and development, however, didn’t leave much room for many of the low-income and minority residents of the city. According to the Centre on Housing Rights and Eviction, the increased gentrification of Downtown by 2003 resulted in rising property taxes and displacement of the poor from inner city neighborhoods. A few examples of the displacement of those living in public housing, according to the report, are the communities of the Techwood/Clark Howell Housing Community, East Lake Meadows, and Carver Homes.
Pre-Olympics, the Techwood/Clark Howell Housing Community included 1,195 units; after the Olympics, it became the Centennial Place Apartments with 360 subsidized units, but only 30% were available for low-income families. East Lake Meadows with 650 units became The Villages at East Lake, with only 270 units rented to very low income households. Carver Homes became the Villages at Carver and lost 700 units. Combining the lack of affordable housing with the destruction of public housing units has helped to create a severe housing issue in Atlanta.
When talking about the legacy of the 1996 Olympics, Dobbins said “with all that activity, investment, and population growth, the percentage of people living in poverty didn’t change in 2000 and 2010; this was a shortcoming of the Olympics.” He maintains, however, that “the Olympics did more good than harm” for Atlanta.
Overall, the 1996 Olympic Games has left an uneven legacy in Atlanta. Residents’ race, socio-economic status, and zip code have determined the individual effects of Atlanta hosting the Games. Ultimately, African American and low-income populations were the ones left behind by the rapid growth and development of the city. In the end, it is up to Atlantans to decide if the negative effects of the Games were a necessary evil or an avoidable harm. Whichever the answer, it cannot be denied that the Atlanta we know today would not exist without the 1996 Olympics.
