.NDYyMw.NDYyMw

June 1, 1967 Mr. Collier Gladin Head, Department of City Planning City Hall Atlanta , Georgia 30303 Dear Mr . Gladin: This is in respons to your request for Atlanta Civic Design Coimniesion Review of the report on D,esie prepared as part of the City of Atlanta ' s Community Improve nt Programcy Candeub , Fleisaig and Associat s, Planning Consultants . In gen r 1 found the report to be informative and useful in th general discus ion of design pr1ncipl a and objectivi s. We also thought good job w doo 1n identifying ao specific proble requiring attention 1n the J.tl nta are • We r particularly impres d with the choice nd range~ photographs and graphics used to point up th se problem. area • In hort, the comm.1tte ould have littl quarrel with th g neral m teri 1 cont ined in the body ot th port. On th other h nd, it is the consensu of the C 1ssion that the report as extremely k in the ares or jor concern to both public official an int r s d citizens nd of s ci 1 aonc rn t o mbere o! th Atlant Civic Design Co is ion--n ly in the r ·a of peeific propo als nd r oomm ndation. would b less than frank 1l we f il, d to tat th t had hoped for more cif'ic dvic a to wh t tep this community should be takin no to acM.i e b tter urban de 1gn in th futur . • Ot nin 1te included int S ry of Major Re ndations (P•i 3 ot th r port) find only two th tare re sonably speoif1c•-on c lling for CBD plsn and th other calling for an ordin nc tor late t oval ot tur tree • Unfrotunat ly • even thes r comrut~ations r ak n d omewhat by their position st th tail nd of the 11st, The other v nta of en ral n t d. r r he it d rsther th.an fir ost rt h y �Mr . Collier Gladin June 1, 1967 -2- in the United States t oday. They do not, unfortunately, reflect some of the thoughtful analysis contained in the body of the Design Report itself . Taking the points covered in the reconnnendations in the order of their appearance, we would make the following comments: (1) The statement of need "from the public and private leadership of Atlanta to a goal of a 11 designed city and to the progrom needed to achieve it" would certainly have the support of every Design Commission member. We do wish that more emphasis had been placed in the study on the development of such a progi-am. (2) The Con:anission ould agree that "Physical Design plans related to the Community Improvement Program must be carried out by the best professional designers available . 11 We would have appreciated some specific recommendations as to how this might be accomplished. For example.., believe that more us might be mad of design oo titions and we had hoped to see some discussion of whether and under what oiroumstanoes the consultant would support or oppose such procedures~ Also, some coneideration of an "awrds program" might have b en i:;rovided in the r port. (3) The Co isaion would probably support th id that stTh city must pr pal" and adopt o d sign ...growth strategy." Th r port, how r, is not too cl ar on what suoh a tr t ~ would con iet of or ho to achi ve it. (!.) (5) (6) Th Oommi s1on would most lik ly support th consul nts' reOonJm ndstiona th t de 1 n control n ed to be pro d "through stren th ning of the Subdivision and Zoni.Jlg Or-di• nc s" and prob bly that th Ci ic D sign C i sion n d to b trength n d lo, but r not too clear as to how thi 1 to b socompllshed. It would hlv. be n helpful if the Consultant could h v . prov1d d p cifie a ndm ts (in rough dr ft) for consider tion ot public offici 1 and Co is ion m bra. �Mr . Collier Gladin (7) Jme 1,. 1967 -3- The statement that "a formal design review procedure " is needed is confusing insofar as the Atlanta Civic Design Commission is serving such a function t the pr sent time. If the intent was to requir that all major private oonst ruet1on in the oity be made sub ct to suoh review, we wish it hed been stated more clearly. Under this circumstance,. we also would like t o see some consid ration of recommended limits and cut-off points fer review of private construction . (8 & 9) .Again, we wupport th r col!lmendations that a CED pl an and tree ordinance bed~ loped . e would have pref rr d to see th se itBms headipg this particular list b cause the bottom position does ap r tow ak n them. · In summary, 111e feel the report f lla short in the most important area--the are of recommendations . We are concerned both with the recommendations ctuslly pres nted and with those that were not. We beli th t the hand of public agenoiea cone rn d with d s i gn m t ters in the city would have been str ngthen d by l) a much stronger statem-nt of the case for a CBD plan; 2) a strong r commendation that a visu l survey nd design prQgram be dev loped and implement d with sp cific reco nd tions s to how this might be done, 3) a draft of pecific emendlll.ent to the subdivision ordin no, oning ordinance, build!ng cod , etc . ; 4) firm recommend tions for a tudy of the impact of ad valorem t xation on design; 5) r co nd tions for dev lopment of n incenti s program (swards or oth r) for encouraging good d sign; 6) reco endatio r arding wheth rand how deign c.om.pet1t1on might b mploy din th .turtheranc of good de ignJ 7) reoomm.endat1ona r g rding doption of ign ordinenc s 8) recomm nd tion r arding th d lopment of desi n plans tor speoU'io jor str et, e:xpr _s ys, r pid tran it st m nd public o n p c , and o forth. thinking 1 _ incorporated in thank yo for the opportunity- of renewt thi ri l. .. nr ti e, pl.ea e teel fr to 11 o u · for further ry truly yours, JO ph . • Perrin Cha1r J ' �