Dublin Core
Title
Box 7, Folder 20, Document 7
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
CITY OF ATLANTA
CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303
June 22, 1967 Tel, 522-4463 Area Code 404
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.
FROM: Collier B. Gladin
SUBJECT: Plan for Central Business District
With reference to the proposal presented by Mr. Bob Bivens, Executive Director
of Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. (C.A.P.) to the C.A.P. Board of Directors at their
meeting of June 1, 1967, concerning the development of a plan for the Central
Business District, first of all | want to agree with Mr. Bivens and C.A.P. that a C.B.D.
Plan is vitally needed for downtown Atlanta. The advent of rapid transit, the relocation
of garment wholesalers from the C.B.D., the extensive developments of John Portman
at Peachtree Center, the Nasher Air-Rights and the Cousins Air-Rights developments,
the proposals for urban renewal in the C.B.D. area by the C.I.P., and the Georgia
State College development plan, all will have a tremendous impact on the future
development of downtown Atlanta.
The City Planning Department has long advocated the development of a C.B.D.
Plan. In 1962 this department published a report entitled "Central Atlanta," which
contained an inventory of retail and office uses in the C.B.D., and recommended that
a plan be developed, In 1965 | wrote to Mr. Pollard Turman, then president of the
Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, advocating such a plan in response to inquiries by the
Chamber. | have had recent discussions with Mr. Cecil Alexander, representatives of
the Chamber of Commerce, the Metropolitan Planning Commission, and with Mr.
Bivens, regarding the development of a C.B.D. Plan. Considerable data has been
gathered through the update of our Land Use Plan. The C.B.D. has not gone unnoticed
by the City's Planning Department.
| strongly disagree with Mr. Bivens over the method he is advocating for preparing
such a plan, however. Mr. Bivens, Mr. Jeff Wingfield of the Metropolitan Planning
Commission (M.P.C.), and | have recently discussed this matter and agreed that each
of our respective organizations has an interest in and a role to play in the development of such
a plan.
Memorandum to Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. -2- June 22, 1967
We agreed, however, that no one organization should play a dominant role.
C.A.P., of course, is vitally interested in what happens to the immediate downtown
area, but is not too concerned with the effect on the rest of the city or the Metropolitan
region. M.P.C. is more concerned with the impact the C.B.D. has on the region as
a whole and is not primarily concerned with the City of Atlanta. The City Planning
Department, on the other hand, is most concerned with the C.B.D. and its relationship
to the corporate limits of the city. All three agencies then are concerned with a
different segment or interest of the population.
In order to assure the enthusiastic support of these three agencies as well as others
such as the Chamber of Commerce, the C.B.D. planning process must be set up to
allow the conflicting interests of the various agencies to be resolved. Without the
wholehearted support of each of these bodies, the plan cannot be successfully
implemented. C.A.P. represents the leaders of the business community whose property
and business interests are involved and whose political support will be necessary to
carry out the plan. Most of the funds to carry out the plan will no doubt come from
bond funds paid for by the City of Atlanta and will require the support and approval
of the Mayor and Board of Aldermen. Any federal funds used in the planning phase
must be channeled through M.P.C. or through M.A.R.T.A., the agency responsible
for the greatest single impact on the future development of the C.B.D.
lt was generally agreed by Mr. Bivens, Mr. Wingfield, and myself that the
approach designated as Number 4 in the C.A.P. minutes of June 1, 1967, more
closely fitted the bill (i.e., using an outside consultant as coordinator).
Through his recommendations to C.A.P., Mr. Bivens has placed us in an awkward
position. He has chosen to attempt to have C.A.P. play the dominant role and has
almost completely left the City and M.P.C. out of the planning phase. Although he
mentions the need for public (i.e., City) support, and the need for formal adoption
and implementation by the City, and even proposes that the City supply a large part
of the funds in cash, no where does he specify the role of the City's planning staff in
the process.
By his action he has created an impasse between the City, C.A.P., and M.P.C.
Unless the City wishes to turn the dominant role of C.B.D. planning over to C.A.P.,
then it must reject C.A.P.'s proposal. On the other hand, if the City were to under-
take to prepare the plan itself, then we could expect little or no cooperation from Mr.
Bivens and C.A.P., which cooperation is vital to its accomplishment. If we reject
the C.A.P. proposal without explanation, then it puts us in the embarrassing position
of not supporting planning for the C.B.D. as is implied by Mr. Bivens in his report to
C.A.P. If either agency plays the predominant role, the other agencies will be
constantly snipping at the results.
Memorandum to Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. -3- June 22, 1967
lt is my recommendation that C.A.P.'s proposal be rejected, and the reasons
explained to the representatives of C.A.P.'s Board of Directors. Then | recommend
that an alternate procedure be proposed to C.A.P. utilizing the private consultant
as coordinator concept, orginally discussed between Mr. Bivens, Mr. Wingfield
and myself. Such an alternate proposal is discussed below.
| propose that a 15 - 25 member Central Business District Planning Committee
be established by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen to supervise the preparation of
a C.B.D. plan. That this committee be composed of representatives from the
various affected bodies or groups such as the City (e.g., chairmen of Planning and
Development Committee and Finance Committee of the Board of Aldermen), C.A.P.,
M.P.C., M.A.R.T.A., Chamber of Commerce, A.1.A., A.I.P., etc.; that the
City of Atlanta, C.A.P. and the federal government through A.R.M.P.C. or
M.A.R.T.A. appropriate funds to this committee for the purpose of preparing the
plan; that the committee be authorized to employ a planning consultant (e.g.,
Eric Hill and Associates) to coordinate the activities of various technical specialists
such as an economic consultant (e.g., Hammer, Silas, Green and Associates),
traffic engineering and parking consultant (e.g., Allan Voorhees), architects
(e.g., any one of a number of local architects), and the technical staffs of the
City Planning Department, C.A.P., M.P.C., M.A.R.T.A., and to prepare a
final plan based on the results of the work of the various technical specialists.
Upon approval of the plan by the C.B.D. Planning Committee, it would be presented
to various public and private bodies, including the Mayor and Board of Aldermen for
their approval and adoption
This proposal is similar in some respects to the way our C.1.P. was set up;
except that for the C.I.P. the wrong consultant was chosen for coordination, and
the work programs and contracts did not sufficiently spell out the exact responsibilities
and requirements of the participating consultants. After our experience with the
C.1.P., we are able to profit from these mistakes and are in a better position to
assist in establishing a more workable and successful arrangement.
Under the above proposal, the staffs of C.A.P., M.P.C., and the City Planning
Department can be better utilized to make a more realistic contribution, since no one
staff is able to do the complete job adequately alone. The C.B.D. Planning Committee
will perform the role of resolving conflicts between C.A.P., the City and M.P.C.
Each will have an opportunity to participate on an equal footing.
The above proposal seems eminently more feasible than that proposed by Mr.
Bivens and C.A.P. Certainly a C.B.D. plan cannot be developed overnight = at
least one that is workable and reasonably acceptable to all parties involved. But
what good is a plan = no matter how quickly it is produced = which has virtually
no chance of ever being implemented.
CBG/|m
CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303
June 22, 1967 Tel, 522-4463 Area Code 404
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.
FROM: Collier B. Gladin
SUBJECT: Plan for Central Business District
With reference to the proposal presented by Mr. Bob Bivens, Executive Director
of Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. (C.A.P.) to the C.A.P. Board of Directors at their
meeting of June 1, 1967, concerning the development of a plan for the Central
Business District, first of all | want to agree with Mr. Bivens and C.A.P. that a C.B.D.
Plan is vitally needed for downtown Atlanta. The advent of rapid transit, the relocation
of garment wholesalers from the C.B.D., the extensive developments of John Portman
at Peachtree Center, the Nasher Air-Rights and the Cousins Air-Rights developments,
the proposals for urban renewal in the C.B.D. area by the C.I.P., and the Georgia
State College development plan, all will have a tremendous impact on the future
development of downtown Atlanta.
The City Planning Department has long advocated the development of a C.B.D.
Plan. In 1962 this department published a report entitled "Central Atlanta," which
contained an inventory of retail and office uses in the C.B.D., and recommended that
a plan be developed, In 1965 | wrote to Mr. Pollard Turman, then president of the
Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, advocating such a plan in response to inquiries by the
Chamber. | have had recent discussions with Mr. Cecil Alexander, representatives of
the Chamber of Commerce, the Metropolitan Planning Commission, and with Mr.
Bivens, regarding the development of a C.B.D. Plan. Considerable data has been
gathered through the update of our Land Use Plan. The C.B.D. has not gone unnoticed
by the City's Planning Department.
| strongly disagree with Mr. Bivens over the method he is advocating for preparing
such a plan, however. Mr. Bivens, Mr. Jeff Wingfield of the Metropolitan Planning
Commission (M.P.C.), and | have recently discussed this matter and agreed that each
of our respective organizations has an interest in and a role to play in the development of such
a plan.
Memorandum to Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. -2- June 22, 1967
We agreed, however, that no one organization should play a dominant role.
C.A.P., of course, is vitally interested in what happens to the immediate downtown
area, but is not too concerned with the effect on the rest of the city or the Metropolitan
region. M.P.C. is more concerned with the impact the C.B.D. has on the region as
a whole and is not primarily concerned with the City of Atlanta. The City Planning
Department, on the other hand, is most concerned with the C.B.D. and its relationship
to the corporate limits of the city. All three agencies then are concerned with a
different segment or interest of the population.
In order to assure the enthusiastic support of these three agencies as well as others
such as the Chamber of Commerce, the C.B.D. planning process must be set up to
allow the conflicting interests of the various agencies to be resolved. Without the
wholehearted support of each of these bodies, the plan cannot be successfully
implemented. C.A.P. represents the leaders of the business community whose property
and business interests are involved and whose political support will be necessary to
carry out the plan. Most of the funds to carry out the plan will no doubt come from
bond funds paid for by the City of Atlanta and will require the support and approval
of the Mayor and Board of Aldermen. Any federal funds used in the planning phase
must be channeled through M.P.C. or through M.A.R.T.A., the agency responsible
for the greatest single impact on the future development of the C.B.D.
lt was generally agreed by Mr. Bivens, Mr. Wingfield, and myself that the
approach designated as Number 4 in the C.A.P. minutes of June 1, 1967, more
closely fitted the bill (i.e., using an outside consultant as coordinator).
Through his recommendations to C.A.P., Mr. Bivens has placed us in an awkward
position. He has chosen to attempt to have C.A.P. play the dominant role and has
almost completely left the City and M.P.C. out of the planning phase. Although he
mentions the need for public (i.e., City) support, and the need for formal adoption
and implementation by the City, and even proposes that the City supply a large part
of the funds in cash, no where does he specify the role of the City's planning staff in
the process.
By his action he has created an impasse between the City, C.A.P., and M.P.C.
Unless the City wishes to turn the dominant role of C.B.D. planning over to C.A.P.,
then it must reject C.A.P.'s proposal. On the other hand, if the City were to under-
take to prepare the plan itself, then we could expect little or no cooperation from Mr.
Bivens and C.A.P., which cooperation is vital to its accomplishment. If we reject
the C.A.P. proposal without explanation, then it puts us in the embarrassing position
of not supporting planning for the C.B.D. as is implied by Mr. Bivens in his report to
C.A.P. If either agency plays the predominant role, the other agencies will be
constantly snipping at the results.
Memorandum to Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. -3- June 22, 1967
lt is my recommendation that C.A.P.'s proposal be rejected, and the reasons
explained to the representatives of C.A.P.'s Board of Directors. Then | recommend
that an alternate procedure be proposed to C.A.P. utilizing the private consultant
as coordinator concept, orginally discussed between Mr. Bivens, Mr. Wingfield
and myself. Such an alternate proposal is discussed below.
| propose that a 15 - 25 member Central Business District Planning Committee
be established by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen to supervise the preparation of
a C.B.D. plan. That this committee be composed of representatives from the
various affected bodies or groups such as the City (e.g., chairmen of Planning and
Development Committee and Finance Committee of the Board of Aldermen), C.A.P.,
M.P.C., M.A.R.T.A., Chamber of Commerce, A.1.A., A.I.P., etc.; that the
City of Atlanta, C.A.P. and the federal government through A.R.M.P.C. or
M.A.R.T.A. appropriate funds to this committee for the purpose of preparing the
plan; that the committee be authorized to employ a planning consultant (e.g.,
Eric Hill and Associates) to coordinate the activities of various technical specialists
such as an economic consultant (e.g., Hammer, Silas, Green and Associates),
traffic engineering and parking consultant (e.g., Allan Voorhees), architects
(e.g., any one of a number of local architects), and the technical staffs of the
City Planning Department, C.A.P., M.P.C., M.A.R.T.A., and to prepare a
final plan based on the results of the work of the various technical specialists.
Upon approval of the plan by the C.B.D. Planning Committee, it would be presented
to various public and private bodies, including the Mayor and Board of Aldermen for
their approval and adoption
This proposal is similar in some respects to the way our C.1.P. was set up;
except that for the C.I.P. the wrong consultant was chosen for coordination, and
the work programs and contracts did not sufficiently spell out the exact responsibilities
and requirements of the participating consultants. After our experience with the
C.1.P., we are able to profit from these mistakes and are in a better position to
assist in establishing a more workable and successful arrangement.
Under the above proposal, the staffs of C.A.P., M.P.C., and the City Planning
Department can be better utilized to make a more realistic contribution, since no one
staff is able to do the complete job adequately alone. The C.B.D. Planning Committee
will perform the role of resolving conflicts between C.A.P., the City and M.P.C.
Each will have an opportunity to participate on an equal footing.
The above proposal seems eminently more feasible than that proposed by Mr.
Bivens and C.A.P. Certainly a C.B.D. plan cannot be developed overnight = at
least one that is workable and reasonably acceptable to all parties involved. But
what good is a plan = no matter how quickly it is produced = which has virtually
no chance of ever being implemented.
CBG/|m
Comments