Box 13, Folder 8, Document 58

CITY OF ATLANTA



CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303
Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director

June 2, 1967

TO: Planning and Development Committee
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Notes and comments on workshop session No. 2 with

Candeub, Fleissig & Associates
The Planning Staff has not been satisfied with the work of Candeub,
Fleissig & Associates who have been responsible for the following
studies: Planning, Fiscal, Economic Base/Marketability, Equal
Opportunity in Housing and Design. Although this firm enjoys a national
reputation for its work in the field of planning and community development,
we have found their work to suffer in Atlanta for the following reasons:

(1) Most of the interim and/or preliminary reports and memoranda .
submitted to date consists of a parroting back or rehash of locally

available facts, statistics and data. Often the facts and infor-

mation submitted to the consultant or generated and gathered by them

have been either erroneously used or applied with little, if any,

attempt made at verification prior to the incorporation in a report or
memoranda. All of this appears to point to one or more of the following:
inadequate research, local consultation, follow-up, and/or general

negligence on the part of the consultant.

(2) Based on the reports and memoranda submitted thus far, little
if any attempt has been placed on analysis of the facts, their impli-
cations or consequences, or to relate one report to another. Few
conclusions and recommendations have been drawn. Where conclusions
and recommendations have been drawn and set forth, it is difficult
for the planning staff to see how, from whence, and on the basis of






Page 2
Notes and comments on workshop session No. 2

what evidence, they were drawn. In short, the reader finds con-
clusions and recommendations drawn not predicated on facts or analysis
of the facts. In reading the reports and memoranda, the planning staff
has been constantly confronted by questions in his own mind of why,

how and for what reasons = the answers to.which are not forthcoming by

reading further.

(3) In general, Items 1 and 2 apparently have led to the conclusion
that many of the technical reports and memoranda could be applicable
to any City USA. Most often the reader is left unconvinced that
Atlanta is the City in question in each of the technical memoranda and
reports. There is a general failure on the part of the consultant

to relate what is being reported, discussed, concluded, or recommended
with the physical, social, economic and political environment of

Atlanta.
The staff has employed every known tactic to encourage and to literally

force improvement in the quality of their work. But, we have not seen

any appreciable improvement which we would call satisfactory.

Flat statements, sweeping generalizations, techniques, approaches,
recommendations and assumptions made in today's meeting - all must be
challenged by the staff and the Planning and Development Committee.

The Program for Improvement Action being recommended by the consultant

is heavily weighted toward physical improvement. This is probably the
strongest part of the Program and basically represents materials provided
the consultant by the Planning Department. The Program is weak, shallow,
sketchy and in some respects not feasible on the social and fiscal facets.
We have not seen much of the economic materials to date and thus cannot
comment. Consequently, the Planning Staff along with the Planning and
Development Committee should prod the consultant with the "Whys", "Hows",
and "Wheres" until we get satisfactory answers and an acceptable Program

for Improvement Action.








Page 3

Notes and comments on workshop session No.2

Set forth below are some examples of questions. These will give the
committee some idea as the types of questions that should be asked the
consultant:

PHYSICAL

--Shouldn't your recommendations for renewal treatment cover the
entire City, particularly those areas to the extreme North and
Southwest which apparently have been omitted?

--What are the side effects on adjacent areas of renewal treatment in
se given area? How is this overcome?

--Define types of treatment; which renewal actions should be public,
which private and in which areas?

--How did you determine priorities and how can we best make use of
this priority classification system on a continuing basis?

--What is the value of your priority classification system to the
Planning and Development Committee and how will it help us in
making decisions for projects in various areas of the City?

e-What are the alternatives of your priority classification system?

--What projections have been made on land needs and resources for the
future development of the City? What policy implications are involved?

--How have you treated Rapid Transit and Interstate Highway Locations
in this broad scale program? Should these facilities be planned to
serve existing net aubornaedd commercial and industrial areas or
should neighborhoods, commercial and industrial areas conform to the
physical locations of these facilities?

e-What additional physical planning should the City become involved
in as a follow up to your broad scale program?

e-What is the reasoning of the consultant in determining the scores

assigned for each staging area?








Page 4
Notes and comments on workshop session No. 2

SOCIAL

--What and how have social factors entered into your broad scale program?

--What are Atlanta's socio/economic problems and how have you approached
them in this program?

--How do you go about getting citizen involvement in such a broad scale
program? How will the citizens of Atlanta benefit from such a pro-
gram? How can we best convince them of the need for such a program
assuming we are in agreement with it?

--How do social problems relate to physical problems and how can the
approach to both best be coordinated?

--What social costs, if any, are involved in such a large scale
program? Are these social costs reflected in the overall program

costs and how are they to be financed?

ECONOMIC

--Are your land use recommendations. based on market factors, purely
suggestions for development, or a combination of these two?

e-What are the most potential markets for Atlanta, (Scientific research
and other uses for example) and how can Atlanta best accomodate them
within the existing City boundaries?

--Jobs, increasing individual income, housing and education are the
City's most pressing secbleas. What approaches are you reconmending
towards resolving these problems?

--How can the City implement such a broad scale program with the

apparent housing shortage and financial limitations which the

City currently has?








Page 5
Notes and comments on workshop session No. 2
--What is the relationship of the broad scale program to the City's
overall capital needs?
--What sources of revenue (existing and potential) do you foresee
the City using in financing its program?
=--What alternative methods of funding this program are available?
What, if any, financial limitations must the City overcome in
financing this program? What changes in and what additional state

enabling legislation will be required?

GOVERNMENTAL
--How do you foresee the City managing and coordinating this
broad scale program? Who should be responsible for administering
it and coordinating it?
_eeWhat staffing arrangements will be required at the sector and/or
the staging area level? What will the administrative costs be?
e-What, if any, other cities have tried this broad scale program

approach? What administrative arrangements did they make?

GENERAL

e-What is the logic behind or why the need for a broad scale urban
renewal program in Atlanta?

--How should the City a6 abque implementing such a broad scale program?

--What policy determinations (physical, social & economic) should the
Mayor and Board of Aldermen consider in light of the future develop-

ment and redevelopment of the City?






Page 6
Notes and comments on workshop session No.2

--In your opinion is the broad scale program practical and feasible?

--How does the City go about up=dating your broad scale program?

--What recommendations have you made for the City to carry forward
what you have done in each of the studies on a continuing basis?

--What are the consequences of undertaking such a large scale program
and what are the alternatives?

--Are the time periods being recommended, 4: ae 1967-1970, 1971-1975,
1976-1983 realistic? Do you expect the City to accomplish the
recommended actions of the first time period (1967-1970) on time?
Would it not be more realistic to revise these time periods to say

begin in 1970 instead of 1967?