Dublin Core
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
i
{
BOORUM & PEASE “N
0
SIEAR” ®
BOORUM & PEASE “
ef
June 2, 1967
ye
A special meeting of the Planning and Development Committee was held on
Friday, June 2, 1967 at 2:00 P. M. in Committee Room #1, Second Floor,
City Hall.
The following members were present:
Rodney Cook, Chairman
E. Gregory Griggs
John M. Flanigen
Q. V. Williamson
Jack Summers
Absent: Charlie Leftwich
George Cotsakis
Also in attendance were:
Collier Gladin
William F. Kennedy
George Aldridge
Izadore Candeub
John Brown
Also at the meeting were various representatives of the press.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was
considered:
Mr. Cook stated that the purpose of this meeting is to continue the dis-
cussion of the Community Improvement Program, which is to be completed
shortly. He then presented Mr. Candeub who stated that the following points,
which were raised at the last meeting, would be discussed in detail:
1. Details of individual program sectors.
2. Priority system methodology.
3. Background material on development of land use allocations.
He then presented John Brown. Mr. Brown first presented a chart entitled
"Residential Construction by 1983". The chart showed the total number of
existing housing units in the City, based on a 1965 CIP field survey; total
inventory was also shown by standard and substandard units and the number
of new units to be constructed by 1983 was indicated. The projected housing
inventory for 1983 is 217,370 units - 121,470 white occupied units and
95,900 non-white occupied units.
Mr. Flanigen asked Mr. Brown how the housing projections had been derived
and did the consultants have a high and low projection of total city
population for 1983. Mr. Brown explained that this background information
was included in previous economic reports. He then presented a second
Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967 Page 2
chart entitled "Residential Land Needed by 1983" and stated that his firm
has assumed one of the objectives of the City of Atlanta is to continue
to provide a large amount of land for detached single family dwellings.
He pointed out that one of the alternative program actions that might be
followed by the City is to decrease the amount of land that is being used
for medium density apartments and to increase the number of high density
apartment developments. He stated further that if present low and medium
density development trends continue there will not be enough land in the
City to accommodate the projected number of housing units. He stated this
was, of course, a policy decision to be made by the City of Atlanta.
Mr. Aldridge asked if these figures assumed any annexation by the City
within the time period, to which Mr. Brown stated they did not; that their
allocation is based on present land area, which is either vacant or to be re-
developed, within the present corporate limits.
Mr. Flanigen asked if it is logical to base the projection on the assumption
that no additional area will be annexed to the City.
Mr. Brown stated this was the only basis on which they could work; that it
is impossible to speculate on future bounds of the City.
Mr. Flanigen commented that if the city limits stay the same, instead of
getting high density development, people will move out of the city and the
population will not grow as much as Candeub has projected.
Mr. Brown stated if you propose to contain the population growth that is
projected and also carry out the program that is projected, this ratio,
or something similar to it, must be accommodated in the city.
Mr. Flanigen said the only way to do this would be to have tenements, which
Atlanta doesn't want.
Mr. Brown stated this is a policy decision for the committee's consideration;
that they have done their program on the assumption that growth will be
contained.
Mr. Cook asked if there was any basis for the ratio of 40% low density;
40% high density and 20% medium density.
Mr. Brown stated there are two bases, one of which is the amount of land
available, including vacant land and land to be redeveloped. The total
projected units for 1983 were fitted into that land. The other base was
the economic study that showed certain types of units to be needed by 1983,
He stated these were very rough approximations but indicate a fairly large
need for high density units, based on the type of families that will be
living in Atlanta - families without children, an aging population and
other family characteristics which might require high density units.
Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967
Mr. Candeub stated they projected Atlanta as a complete regional center,
and in connection with that kind of growth in the future, that there
would be a substantial increase in the white collar population, the
executive category, and a large number of young people coming in, in-
dicating a very definite, strong apartment market; that this is where
Atlanta will likely have its major growth in job types in the next decade
or more.
Mr. Brown exmphasized their projections are not binding; it is just one
way of accommodating the city's growth. A small continency of undesignated
land (2,700 acres) is available which provides flexibility for growth
in any of the three density categories.
Mr. Flanigen asked about the population figure per acre for 1983, com-
pared with the data on the map.
Mr. Brown stated they had not computed this figure.
Mr. Flanigen stated he felt this was the problem; a projection has been
made but has not been tied in with the end of the time period; that he
did not see Atlanta getting the projected density because it would mean
slums, which Atlanta doesn't want,
Mr. Brown agreed this was a good point of view to bring out and would
require a policy decision on the part of the City.
Mr. Candeub then made the following comments. We have made market pro-
jections of growth and we have been getting a feed-back on a relocation
analysis in terms of housing needs. The city had certain land within
its boundaries. Certainly we can say these needs can only be met by
going beyond its boundaries by going into a policy of aggressive annexation.
On the other hand, let me say that Atlanta will also have a responsibility
in meeting its relocation needs in the face of continued growth and that
it has the resources and a policy to meet the housing needs by utilization
of its resources. You have a number of elements to keep in balance.
The factor of growth and where it will occur in terms of market considerations;
the factor of relocation in terms of continued programs; a question of
size of families and need in terms of what kind of housing can, will
and should be built. The question of single family housing or multi-
family, high rise is a question that has to be looked at differently
that has been done in the past. In the past, the high rise was built
as a tenement structure to house immigrant workers who came to the large
cities. It was built as a low rental form of transient housing which
was initially, or rapidly, became a slum. This pattern is most typical
of the northeast and other parts of the central area of the U. S. What
we are talking about today is really entirely different because the typical
high rise is built for a different population and built on a different
order. It is built for people that can afford to pay a good rent; a low
Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967 Page 4
land coverage with a high level of facilities is incorporated, with
adequate setbacks so that one building is not blocking another in terms
of light, etc. Certainly Atlanta has the power to erect the type re-
sidences it wants. We are not talking about the old type tenement structure.
The new national figures from the census in terms of the effects of the
post-war birth rate indicate that we are now getting into a period where
you will have a lot of new family formations and you will have people
seeking apartments because they don't want the burden of free standing
housing. We feel the best manner in which Atlanta can maintain its character,
and we want Atlanta to have more single family homes, and in order to
get more single family homes in face of the total demands, instead of
utilizing the land area for garden apartments exclusively, we are suggest-
ing we want to hold more land for single family homes and the only way :
to do this is to squeeze down on the garden apartment developments and in-
crease the higher densities under strong controls. Otherwise, you will
have little land you are able to hold for single family housing. The
housing picture is a changing market picture in terms of population,
income and the demand of the kinds of people that Atlanta is drawing.
Mr. Gladin asked how to incourage this type of development activity;
"what is the route to follow?"
Mr. Candeub replied "not to permit a tenement type development". The
way to do this, he suggested, might be to go to a design control on high
rise, which they recommended in the Design Report; perhaps establish a
aiindantin size on the lot.
Mr. Gladin then asked "how do you solve the economics of high rise deve-
lopment?"
Mr. Candeub stated they are not trying to do all this at one time; density
patterns will have to be revised to allow high rise. You may have to
get into zonal determinations, establishing a maximum density in certain
areas. The city has the power to draw the line where it wants to draw it.
You might have a high density in the center and a lesser density on the |
peripheral areas. The cycle is beginning to change because the population
figures are changing. It might take time to prove out our projections,
but they will be.
Mr. Cook stated "you mean by 1983 we will have a need for 31,000 high
rise units when today we have 1,000 which it took five years to fill and
some are still vacant".
Mr. Brown answered affirmatively, stating the smallest amount of land
was left for high rise (690 acres). This land will accommodate a large
number of housing units, which is another way to look at it.
Mr. Cook asked "will the city absorb this and will it be feasible by
1983 and if we do will it be slum development, or should we go on a real
strong push for annexation. We would like your recommendations? It is
Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967
not a question of dividing the acreage on a breakdown of percentages.
It is how you think it should be. There is the question of the contin-
gency of 2,700 acres."
Mr. Candeub stated if high rise developments become slum tenements, then
the City doesn't want any high rise, to which Mr. Cook agreed. Mr.
Candeub in turn stated if you accept this as a premise, then we will
eliminate all high rise; that he is saying across the country we are
getting into higher densities in urban areas and the idea is to provide
it in a large building complex.
Mr. Cook stated he was not accepting that high rise, per se, is slums
but he would like to know the basis of the percentages; that he did
question the need for more high rise when we can't fill our present high
rise developments.
Mr. Candeub stated he was not saying it is good or bad. If you control
it it can be good. If you don't control it, it can be bad. This lies
within the power of control. There is a certain number of units that
will have to go into apartments when you project the total population
to 1983. We are saying you do have a choice of what density you want
it in. This determination will dictate what is left for single family
housing. I have a preference for high rise. I have discussed this pro-
blem with many builders who tell me you cannot build quality into a garden
apartment, whereas you can in high rise because you have a different
level of standards and maintenance. Again, this is a policy question.
We are trying to put it into focus. Our objectives here is to create
optimum space for single family homes. Within the city's total envelope
of needs, we have tried to maximize the amount of land available for single
family homes. We have also tried to be realistic and leave some land not
categorized hecause we realize some land will not be developed, but for
the most part we are saying the city will have to make the decision as to
whether or not it will all be low rise, or will it be balanced with some
high rise.
Mr. Gladin said "you have described the reasons why we should start seek-
ing high rise. How do we-start a program of encouraging high rise and
how can this committee move in that direction?"
Mr. Candeub stated that Atlanta has better builders than most other areas
he has seen and he suggested one way is to meet with the builders and
discuss problems with them.
Mr. Flanigen stated you have to consider the difference in rentals of high
rise and garden apartments.
Mr. Mahony cited one case in which a high rise was competitive with garden
apartments.
Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967 Page 6
Mr. Howland pointed out that the building was a considerable distance
from the downtown area.
Mr. Cook asked Mr. Candeub "do you think Atlanta can handle 31,000
high rise units by 19837?"
Mr. Candeub replied "we see a market for it".
Mr. Brown stated that in order to continue land for single family, you
will have to change from low density to high density with 20% left over
for garden apartments. ;
There was a general discussion of each of the eight improvement sector
maps, with considerable emphasis on the Buckhead sector. It was generally
agreed that the treatment recommended for this sector was not reflective
of the high quality housing existing in the area.
Mr. Brown pointed out that factors other than housing conditions were
considered in the designation of treatment areas. As an example, he cited
traffic and street conditions. Following this discussion, Mr. Brown
then explained the priority system methodology. He stated one of the most
important features of the CIP program is what should be done first and the
only way to determine this was through the development of a priority
‘rating system, which he explained as follows: There were five major
elements in the rating system, i.e., (1) social implications - areas
in which programs for improvement are presently needed to supplement
social action agency programs; (2) resource areas - where better utili-
zation of land might relieve pressure for land resources; (3) relation
to public programs - the total program should be financed through the
building of public facilities which are presently needed by the city,
however, when you have a public program for which you do not get any sort
of federal credit, you have a changing economy (example, auditorium com-
plex) and this gives a further sense of urgency for treatment; (4) planning
objectives - a tool for carrying out the city's comprehensive plan through
the CIP; and (5) areas characterized by change - some areas, regardless
of whether they met any of the other criteria, were in need of immediate
attention.
Mr. Brown then discussed Ansley Park as an example of the priority rating
system, stating the neighborhood was measured against each of the five
elements and scored from 0 through 2 points based on each of the five
elements.
The Chairman thanked Mr. Candeub and Mr. Brown for their presentations,
and it was unanimously agreed that the Committee would meet again on
Friday, June 9 at 2:00 P. M. to discuss the fiscal and administrative
portions of the Community Improvement Program.
KRKEKREREKRER
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
eek
Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967
Approved:
Oro. RINOs
Collier Gladin
Planning Director
mc
Page 7
Respectfully submitted:
Joanne Parks
Secretary
{
BOORUM & PEASE “N
0
SIEAR” ®
BOORUM & PEASE “
ef
June 2, 1967
ye
A special meeting of the Planning and Development Committee was held on
Friday, June 2, 1967 at 2:00 P. M. in Committee Room #1, Second Floor,
City Hall.
The following members were present:
Rodney Cook, Chairman
E. Gregory Griggs
John M. Flanigen
Q. V. Williamson
Jack Summers
Absent: Charlie Leftwich
George Cotsakis
Also in attendance were:
Collier Gladin
William F. Kennedy
George Aldridge
Izadore Candeub
John Brown
Also at the meeting were various representatives of the press.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was
considered:
Mr. Cook stated that the purpose of this meeting is to continue the dis-
cussion of the Community Improvement Program, which is to be completed
shortly. He then presented Mr. Candeub who stated that the following points,
which were raised at the last meeting, would be discussed in detail:
1. Details of individual program sectors.
2. Priority system methodology.
3. Background material on development of land use allocations.
He then presented John Brown. Mr. Brown first presented a chart entitled
"Residential Construction by 1983". The chart showed the total number of
existing housing units in the City, based on a 1965 CIP field survey; total
inventory was also shown by standard and substandard units and the number
of new units to be constructed by 1983 was indicated. The projected housing
inventory for 1983 is 217,370 units - 121,470 white occupied units and
95,900 non-white occupied units.
Mr. Flanigen asked Mr. Brown how the housing projections had been derived
and did the consultants have a high and low projection of total city
population for 1983. Mr. Brown explained that this background information
was included in previous economic reports. He then presented a second
Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967 Page 2
chart entitled "Residential Land Needed by 1983" and stated that his firm
has assumed one of the objectives of the City of Atlanta is to continue
to provide a large amount of land for detached single family dwellings.
He pointed out that one of the alternative program actions that might be
followed by the City is to decrease the amount of land that is being used
for medium density apartments and to increase the number of high density
apartment developments. He stated further that if present low and medium
density development trends continue there will not be enough land in the
City to accommodate the projected number of housing units. He stated this
was, of course, a policy decision to be made by the City of Atlanta.
Mr. Aldridge asked if these figures assumed any annexation by the City
within the time period, to which Mr. Brown stated they did not; that their
allocation is based on present land area, which is either vacant or to be re-
developed, within the present corporate limits.
Mr. Flanigen asked if it is logical to base the projection on the assumption
that no additional area will be annexed to the City.
Mr. Brown stated this was the only basis on which they could work; that it
is impossible to speculate on future bounds of the City.
Mr. Flanigen commented that if the city limits stay the same, instead of
getting high density development, people will move out of the city and the
population will not grow as much as Candeub has projected.
Mr. Brown stated if you propose to contain the population growth that is
projected and also carry out the program that is projected, this ratio,
or something similar to it, must be accommodated in the city.
Mr. Flanigen said the only way to do this would be to have tenements, which
Atlanta doesn't want.
Mr. Brown stated this is a policy decision for the committee's consideration;
that they have done their program on the assumption that growth will be
contained.
Mr. Cook asked if there was any basis for the ratio of 40% low density;
40% high density and 20% medium density.
Mr. Brown stated there are two bases, one of which is the amount of land
available, including vacant land and land to be redeveloped. The total
projected units for 1983 were fitted into that land. The other base was
the economic study that showed certain types of units to be needed by 1983,
He stated these were very rough approximations but indicate a fairly large
need for high density units, based on the type of families that will be
living in Atlanta - families without children, an aging population and
other family characteristics which might require high density units.
Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967
Mr. Candeub stated they projected Atlanta as a complete regional center,
and in connection with that kind of growth in the future, that there
would be a substantial increase in the white collar population, the
executive category, and a large number of young people coming in, in-
dicating a very definite, strong apartment market; that this is where
Atlanta will likely have its major growth in job types in the next decade
or more.
Mr. Brown exmphasized their projections are not binding; it is just one
way of accommodating the city's growth. A small continency of undesignated
land (2,700 acres) is available which provides flexibility for growth
in any of the three density categories.
Mr. Flanigen asked about the population figure per acre for 1983, com-
pared with the data on the map.
Mr. Brown stated they had not computed this figure.
Mr. Flanigen stated he felt this was the problem; a projection has been
made but has not been tied in with the end of the time period; that he
did not see Atlanta getting the projected density because it would mean
slums, which Atlanta doesn't want,
Mr. Brown agreed this was a good point of view to bring out and would
require a policy decision on the part of the City.
Mr. Candeub then made the following comments. We have made market pro-
jections of growth and we have been getting a feed-back on a relocation
analysis in terms of housing needs. The city had certain land within
its boundaries. Certainly we can say these needs can only be met by
going beyond its boundaries by going into a policy of aggressive annexation.
On the other hand, let me say that Atlanta will also have a responsibility
in meeting its relocation needs in the face of continued growth and that
it has the resources and a policy to meet the housing needs by utilization
of its resources. You have a number of elements to keep in balance.
The factor of growth and where it will occur in terms of market considerations;
the factor of relocation in terms of continued programs; a question of
size of families and need in terms of what kind of housing can, will
and should be built. The question of single family housing or multi-
family, high rise is a question that has to be looked at differently
that has been done in the past. In the past, the high rise was built
as a tenement structure to house immigrant workers who came to the large
cities. It was built as a low rental form of transient housing which
was initially, or rapidly, became a slum. This pattern is most typical
of the northeast and other parts of the central area of the U. S. What
we are talking about today is really entirely different because the typical
high rise is built for a different population and built on a different
order. It is built for people that can afford to pay a good rent; a low
Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967 Page 4
land coverage with a high level of facilities is incorporated, with
adequate setbacks so that one building is not blocking another in terms
of light, etc. Certainly Atlanta has the power to erect the type re-
sidences it wants. We are not talking about the old type tenement structure.
The new national figures from the census in terms of the effects of the
post-war birth rate indicate that we are now getting into a period where
you will have a lot of new family formations and you will have people
seeking apartments because they don't want the burden of free standing
housing. We feel the best manner in which Atlanta can maintain its character,
and we want Atlanta to have more single family homes, and in order to
get more single family homes in face of the total demands, instead of
utilizing the land area for garden apartments exclusively, we are suggest-
ing we want to hold more land for single family homes and the only way :
to do this is to squeeze down on the garden apartment developments and in-
crease the higher densities under strong controls. Otherwise, you will
have little land you are able to hold for single family housing. The
housing picture is a changing market picture in terms of population,
income and the demand of the kinds of people that Atlanta is drawing.
Mr. Gladin asked how to incourage this type of development activity;
"what is the route to follow?"
Mr. Candeub replied "not to permit a tenement type development". The
way to do this, he suggested, might be to go to a design control on high
rise, which they recommended in the Design Report; perhaps establish a
aiindantin size on the lot.
Mr. Gladin then asked "how do you solve the economics of high rise deve-
lopment?"
Mr. Candeub stated they are not trying to do all this at one time; density
patterns will have to be revised to allow high rise. You may have to
get into zonal determinations, establishing a maximum density in certain
areas. The city has the power to draw the line where it wants to draw it.
You might have a high density in the center and a lesser density on the |
peripheral areas. The cycle is beginning to change because the population
figures are changing. It might take time to prove out our projections,
but they will be.
Mr. Cook stated "you mean by 1983 we will have a need for 31,000 high
rise units when today we have 1,000 which it took five years to fill and
some are still vacant".
Mr. Brown answered affirmatively, stating the smallest amount of land
was left for high rise (690 acres). This land will accommodate a large
number of housing units, which is another way to look at it.
Mr. Cook asked "will the city absorb this and will it be feasible by
1983 and if we do will it be slum development, or should we go on a real
strong push for annexation. We would like your recommendations? It is
Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967
not a question of dividing the acreage on a breakdown of percentages.
It is how you think it should be. There is the question of the contin-
gency of 2,700 acres."
Mr. Candeub stated if high rise developments become slum tenements, then
the City doesn't want any high rise, to which Mr. Cook agreed. Mr.
Candeub in turn stated if you accept this as a premise, then we will
eliminate all high rise; that he is saying across the country we are
getting into higher densities in urban areas and the idea is to provide
it in a large building complex.
Mr. Cook stated he was not accepting that high rise, per se, is slums
but he would like to know the basis of the percentages; that he did
question the need for more high rise when we can't fill our present high
rise developments.
Mr. Candeub stated he was not saying it is good or bad. If you control
it it can be good. If you don't control it, it can be bad. This lies
within the power of control. There is a certain number of units that
will have to go into apartments when you project the total population
to 1983. We are saying you do have a choice of what density you want
it in. This determination will dictate what is left for single family
housing. I have a preference for high rise. I have discussed this pro-
blem with many builders who tell me you cannot build quality into a garden
apartment, whereas you can in high rise because you have a different
level of standards and maintenance. Again, this is a policy question.
We are trying to put it into focus. Our objectives here is to create
optimum space for single family homes. Within the city's total envelope
of needs, we have tried to maximize the amount of land available for single
family homes. We have also tried to be realistic and leave some land not
categorized hecause we realize some land will not be developed, but for
the most part we are saying the city will have to make the decision as to
whether or not it will all be low rise, or will it be balanced with some
high rise.
Mr. Gladin said "you have described the reasons why we should start seek-
ing high rise. How do we-start a program of encouraging high rise and
how can this committee move in that direction?"
Mr. Candeub stated that Atlanta has better builders than most other areas
he has seen and he suggested one way is to meet with the builders and
discuss problems with them.
Mr. Flanigen stated you have to consider the difference in rentals of high
rise and garden apartments.
Mr. Mahony cited one case in which a high rise was competitive with garden
apartments.
Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967 Page 6
Mr. Howland pointed out that the building was a considerable distance
from the downtown area.
Mr. Cook asked Mr. Candeub "do you think Atlanta can handle 31,000
high rise units by 19837?"
Mr. Candeub replied "we see a market for it".
Mr. Brown stated that in order to continue land for single family, you
will have to change from low density to high density with 20% left over
for garden apartments. ;
There was a general discussion of each of the eight improvement sector
maps, with considerable emphasis on the Buckhead sector. It was generally
agreed that the treatment recommended for this sector was not reflective
of the high quality housing existing in the area.
Mr. Brown pointed out that factors other than housing conditions were
considered in the designation of treatment areas. As an example, he cited
traffic and street conditions. Following this discussion, Mr. Brown
then explained the priority system methodology. He stated one of the most
important features of the CIP program is what should be done first and the
only way to determine this was through the development of a priority
‘rating system, which he explained as follows: There were five major
elements in the rating system, i.e., (1) social implications - areas
in which programs for improvement are presently needed to supplement
social action agency programs; (2) resource areas - where better utili-
zation of land might relieve pressure for land resources; (3) relation
to public programs - the total program should be financed through the
building of public facilities which are presently needed by the city,
however, when you have a public program for which you do not get any sort
of federal credit, you have a changing economy (example, auditorium com-
plex) and this gives a further sense of urgency for treatment; (4) planning
objectives - a tool for carrying out the city's comprehensive plan through
the CIP; and (5) areas characterized by change - some areas, regardless
of whether they met any of the other criteria, were in need of immediate
attention.
Mr. Brown then discussed Ansley Park as an example of the priority rating
system, stating the neighborhood was measured against each of the five
elements and scored from 0 through 2 points based on each of the five
elements.
The Chairman thanked Mr. Candeub and Mr. Brown for their presentations,
and it was unanimously agreed that the Committee would meet again on
Friday, June 9 at 2:00 P. M. to discuss the fiscal and administrative
portions of the Community Improvement Program.
KRKEKREREKRER
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
eek
Minutes
Planning and Development Committee
June 2, 1967
Approved:
Oro. RINOs
Collier Gladin
Planning Director
mc
Page 7
Respectfully submitted:
Joanne Parks
Secretary