Dublin Core
Title
Box 3, Folder 6, Document 36
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
EDWIN L, STERNE
CHAIRMAN
GEORGE S. CRAFT
VICE CHAIRMAN
J. 8. BLAYTON
FRANK G. ETHERIDGE
JACK F. GLENN
824 HURT BUILDING
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
JACKSON 3-6074
November 15, 1968
Mr. Rodney M. Cook
3h - 10th St. N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Rodney:
M. 8. SATTERFIELD
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY
LESTER H. PERSELLS
ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CARLTON GARRETT
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
GILBERT H. BOGGS
DIRECTOR OF HOUSING
HOWARD OPENSHAW
DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT
GEORGE R. SANDER
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
Your letter of October 11 concerning low-rent public housing and the
approaches which you feel the Housing Authority should take have led
to a restudy of the current situation and the future course of action
with respect to the development of high and low-density housing.
The overall objective for housing in Atlanta is contained in the Com-
munity Improvement Program study as adopted by the Board of Aldermen.
As restated by you, it is: "Place greater and intensified emphasis on
creating higher density (high-rise} housing and preserving and promoting
additional single family dwellings; garden type apartments must be de-
' emphasized in the future development and redevelopment of Atlanta." Our
studies indicate, and we believe this to be implicit in the CIP Study,
that housing for higher income families should be largely in high-rise and
Single family structures, and that housing for low-income families should
be largely in garden type apartments and high-rise for the elderly structures.
Though we know of no study which indicates the extent of need and the degree
of acceptability of high-rise structures by elderly low-income families in
Atlanta, our experience, on the whole, has been favorable.
The Housing
Authority is, therefore, placing very considerable emphasis on this type of
housing even though the Federal program is de-emphasizing elderly housing
at the present.
We referred your letter to the Regional Housing Assistance Office with a
request for their comments. We are attaching a copy of their letter and a
copy of HUD Circular of 9/18/68 which also relates to these matters. z
Mr. Hanson's letter clearly states the position of the Federal Agency with
respect to the low-income housing program.
=? =
Wehave also reviewed much of the literature concerning the development of
plarmed communities and neighborhoods. In addition to this, we have discussed
such developments with developers and planners of national and international
stature. The general consensus is that a desirable neighborhood is one that
contains a reasonable cross-section of family sizes and income groups. Our
observation is that in Atlanta most of the privately developed housing con-
Sists of one and two bedroom units, except for higher-income single family
residences. There is apparently a very great need for a large number of 3,
h & 5 bedroom units for lower income families.
We have attached a listing of the low-rent public housing projects in Atlanta,
giving data on apartmeris by bedroom size. Please note that the older projects
included no four or five bedroom apartments, and were heavily weighted toward
efficiency and one bedroom units. The more recent developments have been in-
creasingly weighted toward apartments with a larger number of bedrooms.
Your letter requested certain statistical information with respect to one and
two person families. As of June 30, 1968, we were serving 2,345 one person
families. Of these, 1,926 are elderly (62 years and over}, and the remainder
consist of handicapped persons, widows or widowers whose spouses have deceased
during their tenancy, and a very few single persons displaced by Urban Renewal
or other governmental activities. In low-rent public housing are also 1,972
two person families, of which 202 are families having no minors and who are
neither elderly nor disabled. We have included a listing showing the projects
in which these two person families live.
Because of the great demand for admission to low-rent public housing, which
stays fully occupied with an average waiting list of approximately 1,500
applications, it is clear that the family sizes accommodated in low-rent housing
is controlled by the size apartments which have been built, and, as mentioned
above, the early program was heavily weighted toward the smaller size apartments.
In the light of the foregoing, it would appear that the policies being followed
by the Housing Authority in the construction of new low-rent public housing is
the proper course of action, and, in the light of the current laws and regulations,
achieves to the maximum degree possible the objectives which you advocate.
With respect to the Bedford-Pine Project, GA. R-lO1, and the public housing
presently planned for that project, we believe that full consideration has
been given to the objectives outlined in your letter and to the objectives of
the project as agreed in meetings with the project residents. We enclose an
analysis of one and two person families now living in the Bedford Pine
Project area. Our past experience indicates that most of the 148 in-
dividuals will insist on being self-relocated for a variety of reasons
such as contemplated marriage, illegal occupations, alcoholism. Most of
the elderly and handicapped will probably move into public housing. Of
the 223 two person families, most will be satisfactorily relocated by our
staff, and it is our hope that most of those eligible for public housing
will take advantage of their opportunity. It would appear that the public
housing for the elderly planned for this area will accommodate all those
who are likely to move in, and will leave a small surplus.
The Project Advisory Committee, with whom this matter has been discussed,
feels strongly that the very limited land area available for residential
reuse should be devoted to housing which will serve the people living in
the area. The 353 apartments, of which 1)9 will be for elderly, is designed
to accomplish this. We are attaching a letter from the Project Advisory
Committee stating their feelings in this matter. We recommend and urge that
these 353 apartments be constructed in the apartment sizes presently planned.
The constructive approach which you are taking to this matter is greatly
appreciated, and we appreciate also the thoughtful and constructive policies
which you and the Policy Committee present for the guidance of the Urban
_ Renewal program.
Sincerely yours,
\
‘oat. Ze
25a ‘ext pont EapleelA/
M. B. Satterfield
Executive Director — “
Enclosures
MBS/LHP: sd
CC: AHA Board Members ;
UR Policy Committee Members =
CHAIRMAN
GEORGE S. CRAFT
VICE CHAIRMAN
J. 8. BLAYTON
FRANK G. ETHERIDGE
JACK F. GLENN
824 HURT BUILDING
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
JACKSON 3-6074
November 15, 1968
Mr. Rodney M. Cook
3h - 10th St. N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Rodney:
M. 8. SATTERFIELD
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY
LESTER H. PERSELLS
ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CARLTON GARRETT
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
GILBERT H. BOGGS
DIRECTOR OF HOUSING
HOWARD OPENSHAW
DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT
GEORGE R. SANDER
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
Your letter of October 11 concerning low-rent public housing and the
approaches which you feel the Housing Authority should take have led
to a restudy of the current situation and the future course of action
with respect to the development of high and low-density housing.
The overall objective for housing in Atlanta is contained in the Com-
munity Improvement Program study as adopted by the Board of Aldermen.
As restated by you, it is: "Place greater and intensified emphasis on
creating higher density (high-rise} housing and preserving and promoting
additional single family dwellings; garden type apartments must be de-
' emphasized in the future development and redevelopment of Atlanta." Our
studies indicate, and we believe this to be implicit in the CIP Study,
that housing for higher income families should be largely in high-rise and
Single family structures, and that housing for low-income families should
be largely in garden type apartments and high-rise for the elderly structures.
Though we know of no study which indicates the extent of need and the degree
of acceptability of high-rise structures by elderly low-income families in
Atlanta, our experience, on the whole, has been favorable.
The Housing
Authority is, therefore, placing very considerable emphasis on this type of
housing even though the Federal program is de-emphasizing elderly housing
at the present.
We referred your letter to the Regional Housing Assistance Office with a
request for their comments. We are attaching a copy of their letter and a
copy of HUD Circular of 9/18/68 which also relates to these matters. z
Mr. Hanson's letter clearly states the position of the Federal Agency with
respect to the low-income housing program.
=? =
Wehave also reviewed much of the literature concerning the development of
plarmed communities and neighborhoods. In addition to this, we have discussed
such developments with developers and planners of national and international
stature. The general consensus is that a desirable neighborhood is one that
contains a reasonable cross-section of family sizes and income groups. Our
observation is that in Atlanta most of the privately developed housing con-
Sists of one and two bedroom units, except for higher-income single family
residences. There is apparently a very great need for a large number of 3,
h & 5 bedroom units for lower income families.
We have attached a listing of the low-rent public housing projects in Atlanta,
giving data on apartmeris by bedroom size. Please note that the older projects
included no four or five bedroom apartments, and were heavily weighted toward
efficiency and one bedroom units. The more recent developments have been in-
creasingly weighted toward apartments with a larger number of bedrooms.
Your letter requested certain statistical information with respect to one and
two person families. As of June 30, 1968, we were serving 2,345 one person
families. Of these, 1,926 are elderly (62 years and over}, and the remainder
consist of handicapped persons, widows or widowers whose spouses have deceased
during their tenancy, and a very few single persons displaced by Urban Renewal
or other governmental activities. In low-rent public housing are also 1,972
two person families, of which 202 are families having no minors and who are
neither elderly nor disabled. We have included a listing showing the projects
in which these two person families live.
Because of the great demand for admission to low-rent public housing, which
stays fully occupied with an average waiting list of approximately 1,500
applications, it is clear that the family sizes accommodated in low-rent housing
is controlled by the size apartments which have been built, and, as mentioned
above, the early program was heavily weighted toward the smaller size apartments.
In the light of the foregoing, it would appear that the policies being followed
by the Housing Authority in the construction of new low-rent public housing is
the proper course of action, and, in the light of the current laws and regulations,
achieves to the maximum degree possible the objectives which you advocate.
With respect to the Bedford-Pine Project, GA. R-lO1, and the public housing
presently planned for that project, we believe that full consideration has
been given to the objectives outlined in your letter and to the objectives of
the project as agreed in meetings with the project residents. We enclose an
analysis of one and two person families now living in the Bedford Pine
Project area. Our past experience indicates that most of the 148 in-
dividuals will insist on being self-relocated for a variety of reasons
such as contemplated marriage, illegal occupations, alcoholism. Most of
the elderly and handicapped will probably move into public housing. Of
the 223 two person families, most will be satisfactorily relocated by our
staff, and it is our hope that most of those eligible for public housing
will take advantage of their opportunity. It would appear that the public
housing for the elderly planned for this area will accommodate all those
who are likely to move in, and will leave a small surplus.
The Project Advisory Committee, with whom this matter has been discussed,
feels strongly that the very limited land area available for residential
reuse should be devoted to housing which will serve the people living in
the area. The 353 apartments, of which 1)9 will be for elderly, is designed
to accomplish this. We are attaching a letter from the Project Advisory
Committee stating their feelings in this matter. We recommend and urge that
these 353 apartments be constructed in the apartment sizes presently planned.
The constructive approach which you are taking to this matter is greatly
appreciated, and we appreciate also the thoughtful and constructive policies
which you and the Policy Committee present for the guidance of the Urban
_ Renewal program.
Sincerely yours,
\
‘oat. Ze
25a ‘ext pont EapleelA/
M. B. Satterfield
Executive Director — “
Enclosures
MBS/LHP: sd
CC: AHA Board Members ;
UR Policy Committee Members =
Comments