Box 20, Folder 20, Document 10

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_020_020_010.pdf

Dublin Core

Title

Box 20, Folder 20, Document 10

Text Item Type Metadata

Text

JJ
.
1~
2
called meeting of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee wos h::~n :~e::::,
April 25, 1967, at 4:00 P.M., at the Atlanta Housing Authority, 824 Hurt
Bui ldin g.
Al I members were present as fol lows:
Mr .
Mr.
Mr.
Mr .
Mr .
Mr.
Mr.
Rodney M. Cook, Chairman
Edwin L. Sterne
Hugh Pierce
E. Gregory Griggs
John M. Flanigen
George Cotsakis
Fra nk Etheridge
Also pre se nt were :
L!J
.,..,
V.
<(
w
Q..
,.:.j
0
0
f')
Mr . Collier B. Gladin, Plan n ing Direc tor, C ity of At lanta
Mr . M . B. Satterfield, Executive Direc tor, Atlanta Housing Authority
Mr . Howard O penshaw, Ch ief , Planning- Engineering Department,
At lanta Housin g Au th o r ity
Mr. Hugh Pe terson, King and Spalding, Attorneys
Mr. Les Persel Is, Dire c tor of Redevelopm e nt , At lanta Housing Au th o rity
Mr. John Hopkins, Atlanta Housing Au tho rity
Th e Chairman cal led the meeting to order and th e fo l lowing business was co nsidered :
N o te : For th e pur poses of these minu te s and in o rd er to mai ntain clari ty a nd correlat ion
of fa c ts, eac h proposa l is w r itten as a s ing le e ntity. How e ve r , al I four pro posals we re
jo intl y discusse d, weig h ing th e meri ts of each a ga inst th e o ther.
At rhe ou tset o f the meet in g , each com mittee membe r was pre sented with the foll owing
materi al : An individua l apprai sal of the fou r Roc kda le proposal s by: Ro bert L.
Sommerv i lle; G rac e Ha mi lto n; T. M . A lexa nder and A. B. Padgett , a ll members of
the C it ize n' s Ad visory Commi ttee for Urba n Re newal; a re vi ewer 's ra ting shee t of the
redevel opme nt pro posa ls , prepared by the At lanta Ho using Au th o rity . Included in th is
appra isa l shee t were ratings by the At lan ta Hou sing Auth ority , the Atlan ta Planning
Departm en t , the Ameri c an Insti tu te of Plan ners , th e Mayor 's Committee on Housing
Resource s and the Ci tizen's Ad v iso ry Commi t tee for Urban Renewa l. These ratings
were o n the bas is of fr om 1 to 4 poi nts, 1 being the most de sira bl e for the de velopm en'"
a nd 4 the least.
Mr. Persel Is stated the Housing Au th ori ty would prefer to tak e the position
meeting o f o nl y answering questions and making c larifi cations .
t '"hi s
It was agreed that the following format w ould be f?llowed: The committee would evaluate
�r··. - I
!
Minutes
Urban Renewal Policy Commi ttee
Apr i I 25, 1967
Page 2
the aspec ts of each proposal, pro and con , and by th e proc ess of e limi nati on , based o n the
merits of design criteria, narrow the consi derati on to the two top proposa ls o fferi ng the
grea test possibi Iity for development for the objectives wh ich Ro c kdale shou Id seek to serve .
The proposal by Marv in Warner was discussed at length. During this d iscussion, the comm ittee
exa mined closely a rchi te c tural si te plans and pe rspec t iv es presented by the proposer a nd made
t.he fol lowing observations and comments - A summarization of these o bservations, Iisted be low ,
led to the subsequent disqualification of th is proposal from consideration:
Flood probl ems and the apparen t placing of some buildings wi th in the fl ood pl ai n .
Severe grad ing problems and building co nstruc tion because of th e tremendous
variation in grades .
Dou btfu I that the si te cou Id be graded to comp ly wi th the site plans presented .
The land would have to be tailored to the building arrangeme nt, as opposed
to the buil ding to the land.
The severe grad ing would destroy all trees.
The entire site is covered with buildings, som e to within 25 feet of the property
line .
A commendab le feature of the plan was the coopera t ive housing approac h
(76% co-o p) wh ich wou Id provide for eventual purchase of the uni ts by the
resident.
The proposal by Chruc krow Construction Company was then conside red , with the following
observations and comments - again, a summarization o f these observa tions, I isted below,
led to th e disq ualification of th is proposal from considerat ion:
Proposal embraces the
11
villa·ge 11 concept , which is desirab le in princ.iple.
The vehicu lar street pattern (circular dr ives) was designed in su c h a way that.
i ' separated e ach 11 vil lage 11 and actually cu t off pedestrian traffic from one
vi I Iage to another .
The plans proposed do not fit the topography of the property, and the land
would have to be conformed to the bui ldings.
The develo pment wou Id be difficult to achieve without costly, extensiv e
gn;1ding which wou Id create problems.
�Minutes
Urban Renewa l Pol icy Committee
Apr i I 25, 1967
Page 3
There is reasona ble doubt tha t the si te could even be grade d to con form
to the plan because o f so many un kn owns , such as rock deposits , e tc.
Only one smal I recreation bui Iding is proposed in the entire developmen t .
The developer states that und er 221 (d)(3) developments, swimming pools are
not feasible.
The archi tectural rend er ings g ive a concept of flatness, with no di ffer ence
in grades.
A desirabl e fe atu re of the plan was the f lexibili ty of uni ts and varia t ion
in des ign .
It was the opi ni on of the Policy Committee th a t th e pro posa ls by The Douglas-Arlen
G roup and David L. Rose n were the better of the four proposa ls. The se two proposals
were co nsidered in terms of advantages and disadvantages and va rious site plans, fl oor
elevatio ns , etc. , were examined through ou t the discussion.
Douglas- Arlen Pro posal
Adva ntages:
Proposal embra ces the
11
village 11 or
11
clus ter 11 a rrangement o f buildings .
The build ings conform to the site, ra th er than the site being con formed
to th e build ings.
More community fa ci lities are proposed tha n i~ any of the oth er de vel opmen ts.
Appropro to all o f the pro posals , the com munity fa c ilities th a t are o therwise available in
th is area were then poin ted out, th e se being a pro posed Ci ty park fa ci lity , ex is ting and
proposed elementary sch oo l , the Gun Club Park and the existing health ce nter, which
are to serve the proposed 1500 uni ts .
It was noted tha t a swimming pool cou ld be pl aced within the Ci ty park fa ci lity if it was
not provided elsewhere in the development .
Devel opment provides for convenien t access fr om one part of the project
t o an other .
Ha s local sponsor.
�Minutes
Urban Renewal Policy Committee
April 25, 1967
Page 4
Provides for church sites as cal led for by th e p lan.
It was po inted out that the developer has sta ted he wo uld not be able to
f inan ce all the proposed communi ty fo ci Iities , however , the land wou Id
be availab le for that purpose if and when f inancing becomes ava ilable - either
from the developer or o ther groups .
Comp lete separati on of pedestrian and vehicu lar traffic eliminating the
danger of c hildren playing near c ars .
Central garbage pick-up is pro posed .
A des irable feature was the fl e xib ili ty in unit a rrangements - 5% I bed rooms;
5 0 % 2 bedrooms; 35% bedrooms.
Site plan fol lows the contour of the land.
Entire concept of development mini mizes the grading , keeps the cost down
and preserves some of the natural foliage.
Disadvantages:
Serious question of finan cin g maior portion o f proposed community fac i lities; yet
th is is the founda t ion around which the entire proiec t is bu i lt .
Over-emphas is on the Community Cen te r concept , espe cially since similar fac il it ie s
will be in the nearby park .
The large size of the ·swimming pool , the paved area and the build ings a re u nrea l istic.
Financing of the communi ty faci lities is not an FHA guaran tee .
The vas t amount of paving propose d could c rea te flood and heat reflec ti o n prob lems.
Devel o per proposes underpasses (5) a nd overpa sse s (2), wh ich it is fe lt are
ge nerally und es irabl e.
Exc essi ve wa lking d istance from the park ing areas to the dw e lling units.
The conc e pt of buildin g arra ngements ut il izes some unde si rable bu i lding
areas and leaves bu ildab le areas va ca nt (Example - sou theast sh o pping area).
A qu est ionable feature is the four-story bu i ldings.
The grouping of all comm un ity fa c ilities in the v ery center creates a self-contained
atmosphere , unre lated to its surround ings, particu larly the existing community
facilities - health c e nter and school.
·
�L -
()
('
m
Minutes
Urban Renewal Po l ic y Comm ittee
Ap ri I 25 , 1967
The developer proposes to se l I the proiect, in its entirety ,
to a non- profit sponsor wh o has had no prev ious experience
in operating or manag ing parti c ularl y a development of this
enormity a nd , hopefu lly , th ey wou ld get some experien ced
people to w ork w ith them o n th is.
Servi ce side of the bui ld ings a re o r iented to the inter ior c ou rts,
making a ccess to service v ehicles (f ire truc ks, etc .) d iff icu It .
David L. Rosen Proposa l
Advantages:
Dwell ing un its are further removed from the rock q uarry
than the o ther three proposa ls .
,,
I,.~_;..
l t'J
Access galler ies to eac h u ni t , permitt ing c_ross ventilation .
~
i
,1
.., _i
"t
No effort has been made to grade the interior Court concept,
leaving the area fa irly natural . Th is wou Id avoid heat reflection
problems and red uce cost.
! ,..:
(J)
<(
LiJ
Q_
The parking is recessed so th a t it is low er th an the dwelling units.
This would eliminate visibility o f parking lots from the dwelling
uni ts. (I t was noted thi s was listed as a disadvanta ge by one of
the proposers).
De velope r is investing maximum money in the units.
The perspect iv es presented indicate a cl ear understand ing of the
rough grades.
Pedestr ian streets are pro posed throughout the pro jec t.
The service sides of the buil dings are oriented to the outside,
providing better access for serv ice vehicl es; and the I ivi ng
rooms of the units face grassed areas and walks, rather than
paving.
A more complete separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffi c.
G rouping of the proposed c hurch, health center and community cente r
will prov ide for convenience and joint use of parking areas.
Page 5
�Minutes
Urban Re newal Policy Commi ttee
April 25, 1967
Page 6
Two swimming pools are guaran teed by the devel oper, one for
c h il dren and one for adu Its , with smal I recreati on areas arou nd
the pools.
In every instance the parking is adiacen t to the buildings a nd
re cessed so as not to be visib le from the u nits .
Devel o per will utilize FCH foun.dation coopera t ive housi ng , a
very substantial sponsor who w i ll a ssist in the finan cing a nd
w i ll conduct th e advertising and sales program for the development .
Des ign o f the uni ts provides bu il t-i n f lexibility, allowing contract ing o r exparding of uni ts wi th the same ou ts ide walls; this
will permit developer to compete with th e market, and meet
tena nts I needs.
Five church sites are proposed .
The developer proposes to retain a maior persona l investmen t in
the ' projec t and operate it personally.
Di sadva ntages:
The prov iding -o f 1386 units, rather than 1500, is q uesti o nable
since it prov ides that much less housi ng for peo ple .
Som e ad justment shoul d be made in the secondary entrance
road to the projec t so t hat it woul d not funnel traff ic throu gh
the roc k q ua rry e ntrance , and vice -versa . This would ne cessita te ad justment of a few bui ldings .
85 % of the uni ts are 3-story garden a partments located on the
contours; ho pefu lly th ey would be adjusted to minimiz e th e
!e v e ls and steps to t he units .
Re c apitu lo tion o f the recomm e ndations of the var io us organ iz ations and grou ps:
City of Atlanta Planning Departme nt - Da v id L. Rosen proposal .
Atlanta Housing Au thori.ty - Dav id L. Rosen proposal.
Citi z en 's Adv isory Committee fo r Urban Renewa l - Dav id L. Rosen
proposal. - 3 to l .
American Institu te of .Planners - Dav id L. Rosen proposal.
I
•; '
.
· ·:
.
, ·
.
',
I•
~
I
'J.
,, ' '
�Page 7
M i nutes
Urban Renewal Pol icy Committee
Apr i I 25, 1967
Am e r ic an Inst i tu te of Arc hite c ts - No spe c ific ·e commenda t io n ,
buL favored the Dou glas- -Arlen proposal:
· ·
Mayo r' s Comm ittee on Hou sing Resou rc es - Do uglas- Ar le n proposal .
Tfie 'Urban Renewa l Po lic y Comm i ttee, withal! bu t one member present , Ond aft~r


evaluafion o f' each o f the p roposals' and wr itten c omments ·su bmitted by the organi zatio ns listed above , u pon. mo t ion by Mr . Flan igen , seco nded by Messrs . Ether idge


.·and Cotsakis, unan imously recommended to Lhe Boord of Commissioners of the
Housin g Auth o rity o f the Ci ty o f Atf o nta , G eorg ia, the ac c eptanc e of the David
L. Rose n proposal; Alderman Pierc e had to leave the mee t ing before its co ne lusion
and based on facts presented up to th.e time of his departure sta ted he fav o red the
· .Rosen proposal and asked th a t the Chairman so reg ister his vote in Execu ti ~e Session .
·k*-A· ·k * *·J.:·),: * ·k **


*"k


There °be ing no fu rther busi~ess, the meeti ng was adjourned..
.
'
'
.
'*·k*******·k*****
Respe c tfo I ly su bmitted ,
APPROVED: ·
,-





·'
.. ·
.r:/_.
I I
I .
-
·- , ·. . ··.: J
/. _J_o_a_n_n_e-Pa-rk_s_1_S_
e_c-re_ t_a_r_y_ _- .
v'
JP /Im
,'

Transcribe This Item

  1. http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_020_020_010.pdf

Document Viewer