.MzIwMw.MzIwMw

CITY OF .ATLANT.A CITY HALL June 22, 1997 ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLIER B. GLADIN, Dir ec tor MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. FROM: Collier B. Gladin SUB JECT: Plan for Central Business District With reference to the proposal presented by Mr. Bob Bivens, Executive Director of Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. (C.A.P.) to the C.A.P . Board of Directors at their meeting of June 1, 1967, concerning the development of a plan for the Central Business District, first of all I want to agree with Mr. Bivens and C . A.P. that a C.B.D. Plan is vitally needed for downtown Atlanta. The advent of rapid transit, the relocation of garment wholesalers from the C. B. D . , the extensive developments of John Portman at Peachtree Ce nter, the Nasher Air- Rights and the Cousins Air- Rights developments, the proposals for urban re newal in the C.B . D . area by the C . I.P . , and the Georg ia State College development plan, all will have a tremendous impact on the future development of downtown Atlanta . The City Planni ng Departme nt ha s long advocated the development of a C . B. D . Pl an. In 1962 this departme nt pub Iished a report entitled 11 Central Atl a nta, 11 which co nta ined an inve ntory of retai l and office uses in the C . B. D . , and re commended tha t a pl an be deve loped . In 1965 I wrote to Mr . Pollard Turman, then president of the At lanta Chamber of Comme rce , a dvocat ing such a plan in response to inq uiries by the Chamber. I have had rec e nt disc uss io ns with Mr. Ce c i I Alexande r , represe nta t ives of th e Chamber of Comm e rce , th e Me tropolitan Pl an ning Commission , and w ith Mr. Bivens, re garding th e de ve lopme nt of a C. B. D . Pl an. Conside rab le data ha s been gathered through th e update of ou r Land Use Plan. The C. B. D . has no t go ne unnoticed by the City's Planning Department. I strongly disagre e with Mr . Bivens ove r the method he is advocating for pre paring such a plan, however . Mr. Bivens, Mr . J e ff Wingfi eld of th e Metropolitan Planning Commission (M.P .C. ), and I have re cent ly discu ssed thi s matte r and agreed that each of our respective organizations has an interest in and a ro le to play in the developme nt of such a plan. �Memorandum to Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. -2 - June 22, 1967 We agreed, however, that no one organization should play a dominant role. C.A. P., of course, is vitally interested in what happens to the immediate downtown area, but is not too concerned with the effect on the rest of the city or the Metropolitan region . M.P.C . is more concerned with the impact the C.B.D. has on the region as a whole and is not primarily concerned with the City of Atlanta. The City Planning Department, on the other hand, is most concerned wi th the C. B.D. and its relationship to the corporate limits of the city. All three agencies then are concerned with a different segment or interest of the population. In order to assure the enthusiastic support of these three agencies as well as others such as the Chamber of Commerce, the C.B.D. planning process must be set up to allow the conflicting interests of the various agencies to be resolved. Without the wholehearted support of e ach of these bodies, the plan cannot be successfully implemented. C. A. P. represents the leaders of the business community whose property and business interests are involved and whose political support will be necessary to carry out the plan . Most of the funds to carry out the plan wi 11 no doubt come from bond funds paid for by the City of Atlanta and will require the support and approval of the Mayor and Board of Alderme n . Any federal funds used in the planning phase must be channe led through M.P.C . or through M . A . R. T. A., the agency responsi b le for the greatest single impact on the future development of the C. B. D . It was generally agreed by Mr . Bivens, Mr . Wingfield, and mysel f that the a pproach designated a s Number 4 in the C . A. P. mi nutes of June 1, 1967, more c lose ly fi tted the b ill (i.e . , usi ng a n outside consul tant a s coordina tor). Through his recommenda tions to C . A . P. , Mr . Bivens ha s placed us in an awkwa rd positio n. He has chosen to attempt to have C . A . P. p lay the domi nant role and has a lmost c ompletely left the Ci ty a nd M . P. C . out of the plann ing phase . Although he me ntions the ne e d for public (i.e . , City) support ,. a nd the need for form al a dopt ion and implementation by the Ci ty , and e ve n proposes that the Ci ty supply a large part of the funds in cash , no w here does he specify the rol e of the Ci ty's p la nning staff in the process . By his action he has created an impasse betwe en the City , C. A . P. , and M .P.C. Un less the City wishes to turn the dominant ro le o f C . B. D . planning over to C.A . P., then it must reject C.A.P.'s proposa l . O n the other hand , if the City were to underta ke to prepare the plan itself, then we coul d expect litt le or no cooperation from Mr . Bivens and C. A . P., which cooperation is v ita l to its accomplishment . If we reject the C . A . P. proposal without explanation, then it puts us in the embarrassi ng position of not supporting planning for the C.B . D . as is implied by Mr . Bivens in his report to C.A.P. If either agency plays the predominant role , the other agencies will be constantly snipping at the results . �Memorandum to Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. -3- June 22, 1967 It is my recommendation that C.A . P.'s proposal be rejected, and the reasons explained to the representatives of C.A.P.'s Board of Directors. Then I recommend that an alternate procedu re be proposed to C. A. P. uti Iizing the private consultant as coordinator concept, orginally discussed between Mr. Bivens, Mr. Wingfield and myself. Such an alternate proposal is discussed below. I propose that a 15 - 25 member Central Business District Planning Committee be established by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen to supervise the preparation of a C.B . D. plan. That this committee be composed of representatives from the various affected bodies or groups such as the City (e.g., chairmen of Planning and Development Committee and Finance Committee of the Board of Aldermen), C.A. P., M.P . C . , M.A.R . T.A . , Chamber of Comme rce, A.I.A., A.I.P., etc.; that the City of Atlanta, C.A.P. and the federal government through A.R.M.P.C. or M . A.R.T . A. appropriate funds to this committee for the purpose of preparing the plan; that the committee be authorized to employ a planning consultant (e.g., Eric Hill and Associates) to coordinate the activities of various technical specialists such as an economic consultant (e.g . , Hammer, Silas, Green and Associates), traffic engineering and parking consultant (e.g., Allan Voorhees), architects (e . g ., any one of a number of local architects), and the technical staffs of the City Planning Department, C . A.P., M.P . C., M.A.R . T.A., and to prepare a final plan based on the results of the work of the various technical specialists. Upon approval of the plan by the C. B.D. Planning Committee, it would be presented to various public and private bodies, including the Mayor and Board of Aldermen fo r the ir approval and adoption This proposal is similar in some respects to the way our C . I.P . was set up; except th at for the C . I. P. the wrong consu Itant was chosen fo r coordination, and the work programs a nd contrac ts d id not sufficiently spell out the exact responsibilities a nd requ irem e nts of the part icipating consultants : After our experience with the C . I. P. , we are a ble to profi t from these mistakes and are in a bette r position to assist in estab lishin g a more worka ble and successful arrangement. Under the above proposa l, th e staffs of C . A . P., M . P. C . , a nd the City Pl annin g Department can be be tte r uti lized to make a more rea listi c contri buti on, since no one staff is a ble to do the comp le te job adequ atel y a lone . The C . B. D . Pl anni ng Comm ittee w i ll pe rfo rm the ro le of reso lving confl icts betwee n C . A . P. , th e City and M. P. C . Eac h will ha ve an opportun ity to pa rtic ipate on an equa l foo t ing . Th e a bove proposa l seems emi ne ntly mo re fea sible than that proposed by Mr . Bive ns and C. A . P. Ce rtain ly a C. B. D . plan can not be developed overn igh t - at lea st one that is workab le and rea so nab ly ac cepta ble to a l I part ies involved . But what good is a plan - no matte r how quic kly it is produced - wh ich has v irtua lly no chance of eve r being impleme nted . C BG/l m �