Dublin Core
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
joseph s. perrin, chairman
a a Nn el paul muldawer, a.i.a., vice-chairman
mrs. alvin m. ferst, secretary
a a ‘ .
harry j. baldwin, a.s.l.a.
C i VU i C w. 1. calloway
samuel inman cooper, f.a.i.a.
a james h, dodd
franklin m. garrett
john c. gould
julian harris, a.i.a.
a q mrs. edith henderson, a.s.l.a.
commission ea
j. ben moore
john portman, a.i.a.
joseph b. browder, p.e.
October 26, 1967
MEMO TOs: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr,
VicceMayor San Massell, Jr,
Members of the Board of Aldermen
Mr, Ray A, Nixon, Direetor of Publie Works
Mr, Collier Gladin, Dircetor of Planning Dept.
FROM: Joseph S. Perrin, Chairman, Civic Design Commission
SUBJECT: Bridge Ordinance
The Civie Design Commission forwarded at an earlier time a report to
Mr. Ray Nixon and other city offieials our apposition to the proposed
bridge ordinanec. Since that time a revised edition has been issued,
No copy. of this edition was sent to the Civic Design Commission,
However, the revised version is also so highly restrictive as to have
the potential cffeet of militating against the soundest and fullest
development of our central city, Speeifically, the Civie Design
Commission feels that any ordinance dealing with these matters should
be-flexibic cnough to mect the ehanging needs of a progressive and
ehanging city such as ours, We feel that;
Item (e) of Scetion 1 of the ordinanec which scts 16' as a
maximum outside dimension, and a minimum inside width dimension
as 9', is highly arbitrary,
Item (d) stipulates that th maximum outside height dimension
should not exeeced 12', This would preclude any bridge being
built whieh is more than one story high. Here again the Civie
Design Commission feels that this restriction is highly inflexible
and may not meet the needs of our central eity whieh faces major
problems dealing with the separation of vehicular and pedestrian
traffic in the years ahead, We do not feel that there is any
particular virturc or magic in the 12' restrietion,. In some eases,
more height may be practically and aesthetieally more desirable
than less,
city hall, atlanta,georgia 30303
Item (e) stipulates that glass may not be used nearer than 2"
from the floor of any proposed bridge. Our Commission feels that
this is a design and engineering problem and not one which right-
fully should be written in as a restriction in a proper ordinance
dealing with bridges and walkways, Obviously, various kinds of
glass are available today which 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 structure for the purpose of observation, The Civic
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 II 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 instruments
of city government to insure that the safety and well-being of Atlanta's
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
structures by:
(1) inhibiting good design on the part of architects and urban designers;
(2) virtually precluding steps in planning communication systems which
would protect the health and safety of Atlanta's citizens;
(3) 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 Commission, 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 cur-
tailed 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.
a a Nn el paul muldawer, a.i.a., vice-chairman
mrs. alvin m. ferst, secretary
a a ‘ .
harry j. baldwin, a.s.l.a.
C i VU i C w. 1. calloway
samuel inman cooper, f.a.i.a.
a james h, dodd
franklin m. garrett
john c. gould
julian harris, a.i.a.
a q mrs. edith henderson, a.s.l.a.
commission ea
j. ben moore
john portman, a.i.a.
joseph b. browder, p.e.
October 26, 1967
MEMO TOs: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr,
VicceMayor San Massell, Jr,
Members of the Board of Aldermen
Mr, Ray A, Nixon, Direetor of Publie Works
Mr, Collier Gladin, Dircetor of Planning Dept.
FROM: Joseph S. Perrin, Chairman, Civic Design Commission
SUBJECT: Bridge Ordinance
The Civie Design Commission forwarded at an earlier time a report to
Mr. Ray Nixon and other city offieials our apposition to the proposed
bridge ordinanec. Since that time a revised edition has been issued,
No copy. of this edition was sent to the Civic Design Commission,
However, the revised version is also so highly restrictive as to have
the potential cffeet of militating against the soundest and fullest
development of our central city, Speeifically, the Civie Design
Commission feels that any ordinance dealing with these matters should
be-flexibic cnough to mect the ehanging needs of a progressive and
ehanging city such as ours, We feel that;
Item (e) of Scetion 1 of the ordinanec which scts 16' as a
maximum outside dimension, and a minimum inside width dimension
as 9', is highly arbitrary,
Item (d) stipulates that th maximum outside height dimension
should not exeeced 12', This would preclude any bridge being
built whieh is more than one story high. Here again the Civie
Design Commission feels that this restriction is highly inflexible
and may not meet the needs of our central eity whieh faces major
problems dealing with the separation of vehicular and pedestrian
traffic in the years ahead, We do not feel that there is any
particular virturc or magic in the 12' restrietion,. In some eases,
more height may be practically and aesthetieally more desirable
than less,
city hall, atlanta,georgia 30303
Item (e) stipulates that glass may not be used nearer than 2"
from the floor of any proposed bridge. Our Commission feels that
this is a design and engineering problem and not one which right-
fully should be written in as a restriction in a proper ordinance
dealing with bridges and walkways, Obviously, various kinds of
glass are available today which 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 structure for the purpose of observation, The Civic
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 II 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 instruments
of city government to insure that the safety and well-being of Atlanta's
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
structures by:
(1) inhibiting good design on the part of architects and urban designers;
(2) virtually precluding steps in planning communication systems which
would protect the health and safety of Atlanta's citizens;
(3) 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 Commission, 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 cur-
tailed 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.