.NDQ5Nw.NDQ5Nw

atlanta civic design commission joseph s. perrin, chairman pau l muldawer, a.i.a., vice-chairman mrs. alvin m. fe rst, secre tary harry j. baldwin, a.s.l.a. w. I. cal loway samuel inman cooper 1 f. a. i. a. ja mes h. dodd franklin m. garrett john c. gould julian harris , a .i.a. mrs . edith henderson, a.s. l.a. h . king me cain 1 p .e. j. ben moore john portman , a.i.a. joseph b. browder, p .e. October 26 , 1967 HE"AO TO: Mayop Ivan Allen, Jr. Vic e-Mayor Sam Masscll, Jr ~ Members of th e Board of Aldermen Mr , Ray A, Nixon, Director of Public Works Mr, Collit!r Gladin, Dire ctor of Planning D8pt~ FR OM: Joseph S. Perrin, Cha irrn an, Civic Iksign Co mmi ssion SUBJECT: Bridge Ord i nance Th~ Ci vi ~ Desig n Commi ssion forwarded at a n earlier t ime a :repor t to Mr. Ra y Nixon a nd o ther city officials our opposition t o t he proposed bri dge o~dinanc c . Sinc e that time a r e vis e d e dition has be en issu e d ~ No copy of this e d iti on was s e nt to the Civic De sign Commi ss i ori ~ Howcvc~, th e r evi s0d ver sion i s also so highly restri ctive as t o ha ve th~ potential effe et of militating against th e soundest and ful les t development of our ce ntral ci ty. Spo eifieally~ th e Civio Design Commi s sion feels that a ny ordinanc e dea ling wi th the s e ma tt er s s hould bc-fle xibl~ enou gh to mee t the ehanging ne e ds of a pr ogressi ve a nd ehanging city sueh as ours. We f ee l that: Itc~ (e ) of Sec tion 1 of the ordinanec which sets 16' as a maxi~um outsid e dirncnsion,.and a mi ni mum inside width dimens ion as 9', is highly a rbitra ry. Itc~ (d) stipulates tha t t~ maximum outside height dime ns ion should not exceed 12 1 • This would preclude any br idge being_ built which is more than one story high. H~rc again the Civic Design Commission f c ~ls that this restriction is highly inflexible a.nd may not mee t the net: ds of our central eity whicb fac e s ll\a _jor problems de aling with the ,cparation of vehicular and pedestri.n traffic in the ye ar s ahead. We do not feel that there 1s any partieular virturc or magic in th e 12' restriction·. In somE) eases·, more height may b t practical l y and a~sthetieally more desirab le than less. city hall, atlanta, georgia 30303 �- 2 - Item (e) stipulates that glass may not be used riearer than 42 11 from the floor of any proposed bridge~ Our Commission feels that this is a design and engineering problem and not one which rightfully should ~e written in as a ~est~ictibn in a proper ordinance dealing with bridges and walkvfays ~ Obviously, various kinds of glass are available today ~hich by thickness and temper are stronger than many other materials used in such structures. Provision (g) would prohibit pedestrians from stopping on any said bridge or s true ture for the purpose of obs erva ti on. The Ci vie Design Commission feels that this provision is not only difficult to enforce, but undesirable in intent. Item (j) provides that no moving platform or sidewalk would be · permitted within said bridge or structure. This provision is unconditional and we feel it is unnecessarily prohibitive in its implications. Section I I would empower the Mayor and Board of City Aldermen to direct that any bridge or structure be removed without cost to the City. This provision is stated without providing any statement of cause or purpose for such a directive. The Civic Design Commission again believes that this provision as presently stated does not serve the best interests of the City. The Civic Design Commission does believe that any proposal for bridges or overpasses should be reviewed carefully by appropriate instru ments of city government to insure that the safety and well-being of Atlanta ts citizenry be cared for and that the aesthetic character of the City be developed in a positive way . But the ordinance as currently proposed would seem to discourage the planning and erection of bridges or similar s tr uc tu res by: (1) inhibiting good design on the part of architects and urban designers; (2) virtually precluding steps in planning communication systems whi ch would protect th e h eal th and safety of AtL:i nta's citizens; (J) discouraging the full revitalization of the central city by its inhibitive nature. Mr. Collier Gladin of City Planning has submitted a report to the Civic Design Com-mission, .a copy of which was attached to our report to Mr. Nixon. Mr.- Gladin's report cites many instances across America where the prohibitive provisions of this proposed ordinance would have curtailed the development of many meaningful projects. The Civic Design Commission asks your careful scrutiny of the proposed ordinance. We do not believe that it should be passed in its current form. Encl. �