BARTHOLOMEW (HARLAND) AND ASSOCIATES. A REPORT UPON POPULATION GROWTH AND DISTRIBUTION, CITY OF ATLANTA AMD FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA
HB 3527 -A74 B37 1953 WILLIAM RUSSELL PULLEN LIBRARY
Georgia State University
University System of Georgia
WILLIAM RUSSELL PULLEN LIBRARY
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY MUNICIPAL PLANNING BOARD
JfcriiANTAv 3j, CeoRD|A^
July 6, 1953- ( M CUBA AIRMAN R. JOUNG v E-CHAIRMAN s Asbell Mayor and General Co vine il 3ERT G. Henduey of the City of Atlanta JL I Miller J. N icholson Commissioners of Roads and NRY J. Toombs Revenues of Fulton County
Gentlemen: 'ONT B. Bean PI ANNINQ ENGINEER Proceeding on the authority of an Ordinance by the Mayor and General Council of the City of Atlanta and a Resolution by the Commissioners of Roads and Revenues of Fulton County, the Municipal Planning Board, on January 16, 1953> initiated a program to prepare new land use plans, modernize the zoning laws and regulations, and to prepare a major street plan for the City of Atlanta and Fulton County.
Ihe Municipal Planning Board and its consultants have been studying population trends and factors influencing population distribution in order to anticipate future growth and the areas affected by this growth in Atlanta and Fulton County. We believe that the several conclusions which have led to the estimates of growth and the proposed uses of land to accom modate the anticipated growth are sound, and, together, they make a conservative, realistic basis upon which new zoning regulations and land use and major street plans may be made.
We submit "Population, Growth and Distribution" as the first report toward the accomplishment of our objectives. Because the information contained herein will be the basis for addi tional and detailed studies, we invite your review, comments, and suggestions.
Respectfully submitted,
MUNICIPAL PLANNING BOARD //Ay- Max M. Cuba, Chairman.
ATLANTA THE DOGWOOD CITY Honorable William B. Hartsfield, Mayor
ATLANTA GENERAL COUNCIL - 1352
Aldermen
R. C. Ailor D. B„ Donaldson E. A. Gilliam Raleigh E. Drennon L. 0. Moseley Cobb C. Torrance Milton G. Farris Colie 3. Whitaker Lester Hardy
Councilmen
Robert S. Dennis Jimmy Vickers James E. Jackson T. Wayne Blanchard R. E. Lee Field Ralph A. Huie Joe Allen R. M. Clark Arthur Johnson Ogden Doremus W. T. Knight Jesse Draper John T. Marler H. T. Sargent Douglas Wood Dean Callaway John A. Y/hite Charlie Leftwich
COMMISSION OF ROADS AND REVENUES - FULTON COUNTY
James H. Aldredge - Chairman Archie Lindsey - Vice Chairman I. Glore Hailey Thomas L. Camp R. L. Doyal
A. E. Fuller - County Manager
206326 MUNICIPAL PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Max M. Cuba - Chairman S. R. Young - Vice Chairman J. Lev/is Asbell Paul W. Miller J. J. Nicholson Henry J. Toombs Albert G. Eendley
STAFF
Wyont B. Bean - Planning Engineer A. H. Hutchinson - Asst. Planning Engineer E. Jay Wallace - Asst. Planning Engineer
Karland Bartholomew and Associates, Consultants
J. M. Stevens, Resident Engineer A Report Upon % I POPULATION GROWTH AND DISTRIBUTION
CITY OF ATLANTA AND FULTCN COUNTY, GEORGIA
fV Vtav\W- THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING BOARD A June 1553 31 a.nsvi ft V\aaiW - H uni (Li \ ,/\1i 63"! HARLAND BARTHOLOMEW AND ASSOCIATES CITY PLANNERS - CIVIL ENGINEERS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 1363 317 NORTH ELEVENTH STREET SAINT LOUIS 1.MISSOURI HARLAND BARTHOLOMEW RUSSELL H RILEY HARRY W ALEXANDER ELDRIDGE LOVELACE DONALD W. HUTTON DONALD W. McGLASHON DONALD WOLBRINK June, 1953 The Municipal Planning Board City of Atlanta and Fulton County, Georgia Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit herewith the second of a series of reports in the planning program for the City of Atlanta and Fulton County. This report is concerned with Population and General Land Uses. The amount and location of the future population as well as the general arrangement and extent of the necessary land uses provide the basis for the proposals that will be contained in the Land Use and Zoning and the Major Street Plans. Con sequently, this is a most important part of the current planning program. It is recommended that the findings and conclusions contained herein be carefully studied by local officials, organizations and citizens. We wish to acknowledge the excellent cooperation received from many local sources during the preparation of this report. Your staff} and that of other city and county offices have been helpful. We also wish to acknowledge the cooperation of the staff of the Metropolitan Planning Commission. Respectfully submitted HARLAND BARTHOLOMEW AND ASSOCIATES By •a-SL-SL-, 662093 a TA3LE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 FACTORS INFLUENCING GROWTH IN THE ATLANTA AREA ... 4 Summary of Past Growth and Major Influences Thereon 4 Factors That Should Influence Future Growth ... 7 Summary 12 AMOUNT OF GROWTH 14 Past Growth and Trends . 14 Summary ...... 17 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE LOCATION OF PAST GROWTH . . 22 Growth 3y Militia Districts 22 Topography 25 Water and Sev/er Facilities 27 Existing General Land Use 30 PRESENT DISTRIBUTION AND DENSITY 34 Distribution of Population ...... 34 Existing Population Densities 36 FUTURE LAND USE, POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND DENSITY 40 Future Land Use. 40 Future Distribution of Population ...... 46 Future Densities ...... 40 ACHIEVEMENT OF PROPOSED POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND LAND USE PATTERN 50 Zoning Regulations 50 Subdivision Control 51 Extension of Public Utilities ...... 52 Public Improvements ...... 52 Public Understanding and Support ... 53 ( INDEX TO PLATES Plate No. Page 1 Population Growth - Atlanta-Fulton County, Georgia 1880-1930 17 2 Population Growth by Militia Districts 1930-1953 22 3 Area Served by Sanitary Sewer and Water Lines 27 4 Existing General Land Use 30 5 Distribution of Population-1953 ..... 34 0 Density of Population - 1953 ...... 37 7 Future Diagrammatic Land Use 40 8 Future Distribution of Population .... 43 9 Future Density of Population ...... 40 INDEX TO TABLES Table No. Page 1 Trends in Past Population Growth in the United States, Georgia and Atlanta Metropolitan Area 14 2 Past Trends in Population Growth in Major Portions of the Atlanta Metropolitan Area 16 3 Estimates of Possible Future Growth in the Atlanta Metropolitan Area 1350-1980. . . 19 4 Changes in Population and Population Densities in Atlanta-Fulton County Urban Areas 1953-1980 ...... 33 INTRODUCTION Urbanization in the Atlanta area has now spread to four counties - Fulton, DeXalb, Cobb and Clayton, The total population increase in these four counties averaged slightly more than 30 percent per decade since the turn of the century. However, there has been considerable difference in the rates of growth in the individual counties and the proportionate share of the total represented by each county in 1950 is some what changed from that of 1900. What changes in growth trends can be expected in the future and how much new growth can be expected in the City of Atlanta, in Fulton County and in the Metropolitan Area in the next two or three decades? A second and equally fundamental question concerns the pattern of future growth. In earlier years the population was distributed in a relatively compact pattern over the more level land near the heart of the city. In recent decades automotive transportation and Atlanta's topography have encouraged both decentralization and scattered development. The existing pattern of much open land bypassed by expanding urban uses poses many problems. What should be the distri bution and density patterns of the future and how can they be achieved? This report is concerned with the findings and recom mendations regarding the above two questions which are funda mental to any urban planning program. The major objective -2- of this and succeeding portions of the planning program is to improve the functioning and livability of the community for its citizens. Any physical improvements proposed by the planning program must be carefully related to the amount and location of the population. If not, the proposed improve ments may be entirely out of scale or in the wrong location to serve future needs. Thus, the population studies comprise an essential basis for the planning of all future improvements in the City of Atlanta and Fulton County. It is essential that the population studies be coordinated with general studies of existing and future land uses. Land use analysis is necessary in determining the areas best adapted for specific types of development in the future. This analysis v/ill indicate the general location and extent of the major areas that should be used for industrial, commercial and residential purposes. In preparing estimates of the amount and location of population and land uses, thorough consideration has been given existing conditions and to past and current trends. These conditions have been examined at the local level as well as in other cities of similar size. Factors such as possibilities for future employment, increased use of the automobile and other modern transportation facilities, the desire for spacious residential development and the decentrali zation of industry were all given consideration. -3- It is recognized that it is impossible to estimate with complete accuracy the amount of population that v/ill be found in urban areas at any specific future period. Far too many unpredictable factors can influence growth. However, total growth over a long period can be forecast within reasonable limits. Since the forecasts are for a long period, any necessary future adjustments and revisions should be made at ten year intervals or as special conditions may warrant. The important requirement is to determine a reasonable scale of urbanization in Fulton County necessary to accommodate the growth estimated for the next two or three decades and to anticipate how this new population will or should be dis tributed. -4- FACTORS INFLUENCING GROWTH IN THE ATLANTA AREA Summary of Past Growth and Major Influences Thereon The City of Atlanta was "not founded by man but located by an act of the Legislature"!, a bill passed by the Georgia Legislature in 1836 called for the survey of a suitable railroad route to the northwest. This was a bold step to take when railroading was in its infancy. The legislature saw the railroad as an opportunity for the state to gain access to the wealth of the West. The proposed line to Ross' Landing, now Chattanooga, on the Tennessee River, would connect with the great river systems of the Ohio and the Mississippi. Coastal lines from other parts of the Southeast were to connect with the eastern terminus of the state's line. The act of locating this terminus, which is now down town Atlanta, gave that site an economic potential of unlimited proportions. In 1845 the first train crossed the Chattahoochee on the new state line, traveling all the way to Marietta. By 1850 coastal lines from Charleston and Savannah were extended to meet the state line at Atlanta and in the next three years these coastal lines were linked with others along the Atlantic seaboard. As rail transportation challenged the waterways, Atlanta grew and prospered accordingly. 1 Allen, Ivan: The Atlanta Spirit, Ivan Allen-Marshall Co. Atlanta, 1948 -5- From the very beginning transportation dominated Atlanta's economy and its population growth. The first . businesses grew up around the proposed site of the State Depot - before this structure was even built. Some of the first industries were a sawmill to cut railroad ties, and a machine shop to repair rolling stock. 3y 1C57 Atlanta was the site of one of the six rail rolling mills south of Virginia. With the coming of the war in 1861, Atlanta emerged as a key distribution point and source of economic strength for the Confederacy. The same forces that built the city were to lead to its destruction. Atlanta's strategic location made it a military objective of the Union forces. After the Battle of Atlanta in 1864, devastation was well-nigh complete. Rail lines v/ere destroyed. Atlanta faced a greater task of rebuilding than any other city in the south. During the reconstruction years and down to the present, Atlanta has repeatedly shown leadership determined to break with tradition and make its own opportunities for the future. In the midst of its postwar ruins Atlanta renev/ed its insistent requests that the state capital be moved here from V Milledgeville - this time with success. In 1365 four rail roads had resumed operation and in the last six months of that year 338 business firms v/ere licensed to operate. The saw mills, foundries, machine shops and cotton mills began to grow. -6- Atlanta v/as again prospering. 3y 10CG the city's manufactured products exceeded 14 million dollars in value. Continued progress during the next twenty years was assisted by three great local expositions. These were undertaken to stimulate local enterprise - but more important, to attract capital by displaying the advantages of the area - transportation, raw materials, cheap labor and a growing technology. The International Cotton Exposition in 1881 was geared to the textile interests, presenting the possibilities for manufacture in the south. The Piedmont Exposition in 1G37 followed this initial success with displays of industrial growth and potentialities. By 1900 the textile industry in Atlanta was producing 20,000,000 yards of goods annually. Thirt3^-six years after the complete destruction of the city, Atlanta's population had increased by 700 percent. During the first decade of the 1300's, manufacturing in Atlanta declined, but this loss was compensated for by growth in distribution activities. Virtually all southeastern sales of nationally distributed products were made through offices in Atlanta. In 1914 the city's position as a financial center v/as assured by the establishment of the Bank of the Sixth Federal Reserve System. Another bold step of opportunity-making was taken in 1925 when the Chamber of Commerce inaugurated a $1,000,000 adver tising program to promote commercial and industrial develop ment. In the four years that followed 750 new firms, employing 20,000 persons, came into the area. -7- Since the 1320's the economic base of the Atlanta Metropolitan Area has become more diversified. The 1930's brought an increase in the governmental activities v/ith the establishment of many federal district offices. Fort McPherson of World War I days was enlarged and made the headquarters of the Third Army. In 1940 the old Camp Gordon site near Chamblee was re-activated as the Atlanta Naval Air 3ase and Lawson General Army Hospital. The Conley Army Ordnance Depot v/as established the same year just south of Forest Park in Clayton County. In keeping with the government's policy on industrial dispersion, several industries including the Bell Aircraft assembly plant near Marietta were located in the area during the 1940's. The Ford assembly plant was moved in 1947 from Atlanta proper to Hapeville, and General Motors added to its installations (the Chevrolet assembly and Fisher Body plants) by building a Buick-Oldsmobile-Pontiac assembly plant at Doraville. In terms of transportation and communication, trade and distribution, government, finance and insurance - the Atlanta Metropolitan Area has become the regional center for the Southeast. Factors That Should Influence Future Growth Location Atlanta is located v/ithin the northwestern part of the state within a hundred miles of Alabama, North and South Carolina and Tennessee. The Florida Gulf Coast and the -0- Atlantic Ocean, approximately 250 miles away, are almost equidistant to the south and southeast. Virtually all of the area southeast of the Mississippi and the Ohio rivers is within three hundred and fifty miles of the city - only a few hours traveling time by air, rail or highway. One of the city's major advantages is its central and convenient relation to this rapidly growing section of the nation. Relation to the Transportation System The city was endowed with greatness in being located at the convergence of many of the important transportation routes serving the South and the rest of the nation. There are no nearby competitors to challenge it. The city's location high on the Piedmont Plateau just south of the Appalachian range makes it readily accessible not only to the coastal plains, but to the agricultural Midwest and to the industrial centers beyond the mountains. Many of the same factors which helped to establish Atlanta as a rail center before the turn of the century have con tributed to its importance with relation to other and newer modes of travel. Eight major rail systems directly serving 15 states enter the city. More than 20,000 miles of track are operated by these eight systems and they form some of the most important routes for the movement of goods and people through the South. "Four broadly generalized arterial routes of -9 transportation across southern territory pass through, intersect within, and change direction in Atlanta"*. The most important routes are those between New York and New Orleans and from Chicago to Miami. Y/hile these railroad systems will not expand in the future as they have in past decades, they should continue to be an important influence in facilitating and encouraging future growth in the Atlanta area. Sixteen state and Federal highv/ays radiate in all directions giving direct routes to all parts of the South as well as to all other parts of the country. Six of these, leading to Greenville, Augusta, Macon, Montgomery, Birmingham and Chattanooga respectively have been designated as inter state routes. Due to its excellent rail and highway connections the city has become an important trucking and transshipment center. Atlanta maintains a very favorable position with respect to the airlanes serving the nation. Two hundred and eight flights arrive and depart daily to the eastern part of the nation and the Carribean. Capital Airlines, Delta Airlines (now merged with Chicago and Southern), Eastern Airlines, Southern Airlines and a dozen itinerant fliers provide direct, convenient air transport and passenger service from Atlanta to much of the nation. 1 "The Railroad Pattern of Atlanta" - R. YJ. Stanley -10- Topography The site of the Atlanta Metropolitan Area varies from a broadly rolling to sharply hilly terrain depending largely upon the distance from the primary streams which divide the area into several watersheds. Several major and minor streams have carved broad, well-developed valleys. Elevations of the valley floors range to as much as 250 feet below the general level of the Piedmont. However, few extremely difficult grades are created except at the con fluence of the streams. The drainage system of the area is well developed and the flood plains are relatively narrow causing storm waters to run off rapidly without inundating large areas. The intersection of the several ridges dividing the watershed of the Chattahoochee, Flint and South rivers provides a relatively extensive and reasonably level area upon which Atlanta was established. Urban development follow ing major traffic ways radiates along these ridges from central Atlanta. These high, level ridges have exerted a major influence upon the local transportation pattern and their effect upon the rest of the urban pattern will be discussed in a succeeding section of this report. The Chattahoochee River is the principal topographic feature in Fulton County, and by far its most important stream. "It drains 1,450 square miles of mountain and high -11- Piedmont County in a long, narrow valley that gives the river good run off rates"l. It provides the only large and dependable source of water in the area. Atlanta first began to draw water from it in 1893. The river is also the water source for DeKalb County and the new Cobb County system. Employment* The number of gainfully employed in the Atlanta Metro politan Area increased from 202,000 in 1940 to 293,000 in 1951. This increase should be measured not only in sheer numbers but by the favorable conditions which helped to bring it about - a broadening of the economic base and an increase in opportu nities for skilled labor. Two sources of employment utilize the largest percentage of the total labor force - manufacturing (21.1%) and retail trade (15.3%). Atlanta's factory employment has shown more of an increase percentage wise since 1940 than has that of the nation as a whole, much of this gain occurring in the increased production of durable goods since 1947. Despite this gain Atlanta still ranks second in the Southeast to Birmingham in number of factory workers and low compared to most large centers of employment through out the country. The next four sizable groups bear witness to Atlanta's role as a regional center - transportation, communication, and 1 "Water Resources of the Metropolitan Area" Geological Survey Circular 148 - Carter and Herrick * Data from "Economic Supplement to the Regional Land Use Plan" - Metropolitan Planning Commission - July 1952 -12- public utilities (10.3%); government (10.3%), wholesale trade (9.9%) and business and personal services (8.2%). All of these groups except business and personal services have shown increases in percentage of the total labor force since 1940. Atlanta ranks highest in the Southeast in importance of whole sale trade and is well above the national average in this field. The number of workers in construction (6.1%), finance, insurance and real estate (5.1%), and professional and related services (4.1%) showed little change in percent from 1940 to 1951. Domestic service workers (5.8%) declined as a share of the total. The percentage of workers employed in retail trade decreased from 17.2% to 15.3%, 1940 to 1951. Summary A study of Atlanta 's economic structure portends favorable opportunities for the continued growth of the area. Of major importance is Atlanta's pre-eminent position as the financial, distributive and commercial hub of the rapidly growing Southeast where the economy is not only expanding but is becoming more diversified. The fine transportation facilities centering in Atlanta and serving this growing section will also encourage new growth. Topography and other physical facilities are favorable for additional local growth. The continued prospect for decentralization of industry favors improvement in the character of the labor force and its -13- pattern of wages and salaries. The breadth of the local economy, and its relatively young labor force point toward the continued growth of the Metropolitan Area. • I C fa fa CO C •« 4)O AMOUNT OF GROWTH Past Growth and Trends As in most large, metropolitan areas, recent growth in the central city has been exceeded by growth in the fringe areas. Locally, parts of four adjoining counties have been affected by the growth of Atlanta. Although much of Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb and Fulton counties remains predominantly rural in character, an examination of past trends would be incomplete without consideration of the entire area. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, the Atlanta Metropolitan District is defined as a four county area in contrast to the U. S. Bureau of the Census ' definition which excludes Clayton County from the "Standard Metropolitan Area". All data has been adjusted to the larger concept and to county boundaries as now defined. The Atlanta Metropolitan Area Table 1 reveals that since 1S90, when the rail network of the Southeast was virtually complete, the population of the Atlanta area has increased almost five-fold. This rate of growth was considornbly faster than either that of the nation or the State of Georgia. Population has increased in the Atlanta area at an average rate of approximately 30 percent during each of the last six decades. These increases tended to be somewhat higher in the earlier decades than in the later ones with only the depression decade being sub stantially lower than the average. In the last ten year period -15- the 31.1 percent growth in the Atlanta Metropolitan Area amounted to more than half of the net numerical increase for the entire State of Georgia. Despite a population increase of only 17.4 percent between 1930 and 1940, the Atlanta Metropolitan Area accounted for almost one percent of the total increase in the entire nation during that decacle. The table also reveals that population increases in the Atlanta area represent a rapidly rising portion of the total increase of the nation and thus the local population continues to represent a larger per centage of the total population of the nation. In 1C90 the Metropolitan Area population represented only 0.2347 percent of the total population of the nation, whereas by 1950 it represented 0.4596 percent. While economic conditions in the last decade were, optimum for growth throughout the nation, the Atlanta area continues to show strong increases in its proportion of the growth and of the total population of the United States. A study of 11 metropolitan areas ranging in population from 400,000 to 700,000 reveals many of the same trends in the past three decades that are evident in Atlanta's growth. These trends of rapid grov/th are most pronounced in the newer metropolitan areas of Texas and California. Since 1920 there has been marked similarity betv/een Atlanta's grov/th trend and that of Dallas, Texas - another important distribution center. Both have almost doubled in population during this period. O• m• o• rH• if• • C- in• <£1 U O O o o o o o CO CO <33 O rH CM CO if m in 03 00 <33 C3 <33 C3 03 <33 <33 5H rH rH rH rH rH rH rHrH CO• • cn• • • rH m• 04• CO 10 00 ID 00 co rH 1 13 <35 p>» c 3 O CJ oo CO m CO oo m r^ CO O m o CI rH CM CO oo 00 CO •k 1 •k rH rH 11,2 CJ m 00 co o o m 04 05 C5 m m CO in 04 m rH CM CO oo •k •k •k •» •« *k *k 00 05 o rH o rH CM r-i rH rH rH CM CO rH it rH • CO• • • • CM• m• o CO C*» CO CO rH 1—1 rH rH rH CO P a 0 oo C- O CO CO 00 00 u >. « m oo rH 05 m 00 • • • • • • 9 00 CM CM C* <35 CO co rH CM CO m m CM m p>. c CM CO <35 o c-- kt CO <35 CM CO C- CM CO m CO <35 rH CM co kt •k •k «k •k •k CM CO co CO CO CO <35 rH CM rH kt Q O O O o O o o 05 O rH CM CO kt m 00 05 05 05 05 05 05 rH rH rH rH rH rH rH -16- The growth of the Atlanta area has 'oeen further analyzed and broken down into its component parts as shown in Table 2 and Plate 1. In each case the data for the counties has been adjusted to existing boundaries to portray the characteristics in growth trends with greater accuracy. The City. The growth of the City of Atlanta was very rapid between 1880 and 1910. During these three decades its population quadrupled and thus accounted for 80 percent of the growth of the entire Metropolitan Area. Between 1910 and 1950 only two-fifths of the Metropolitan Area's growth occurred within the corporate limits. Atlanta's growth has represented a diminishing proportion of the total growth of the area in each succeeding decade - between 1940 and 1950 83 percent of the growth occurred outside the then existing city limits. However, since the 1950 census, the City of Atlanta has extended its corporate limits to embrace an additional 90.5 square miles of urban area. It is esti mated that on January 1, 1953, the population within the new corporate limits of the City of Atlanta was 473,100. The Counties. Similarly, population increases in Fulton County have tended toward a slightly smaller proportion of the metropolitan growth. While 77 percent of the population increase in the six decades between 1880 and 1940 occurred in Fulton County, only 50 percent of the increase experienced in the 1940-1950 decade occurred in this county. The rate of increase in this segment of the Metropolitan Area has 150 000000 00000000 THE UNITED STATES 90000000 80 000000 70000000 60000000 50000000 90 000 000 30 000 000 20000000 10 000 000 9000000 8000000 7000000 6000000 5000000 9 000000 THE- STATE, OE GEORGIA OOOOOO IOOOOOO 900 000 800000 700 000 600000 500 000 900000 "METROPOLITAN AREA"" 300000 200000 CITY OF- ATLANTA 100000 90 000 80 000 70000 60000 50000 90000 DEKALB COUNTY. 30000 COBB COUNTY 20000 rCLAYTOM COUNTY 10000- 9000 — 0000- 7000- 6000- 5 OOC 9 OOC 3000- 2000 I 000 1090 1900 1910 1920 1930 1910 1950 I960 1970 I9S0 POPULATION GROWTH AT LA NTA - FU LTON COUNTY GEORGIA » IMCLUOI* PULTON OPKALO.COM THI MUNICIPAL PUNNING liOARD I860 - 1980 ATLANTA. GEORGIA PLATE I -17- tended to decline though it is still making a substantially stronger numerical growth than any other portion of the area. A study of building permits issued by Atlanta and Fulton County and the Tri-cities for 1950 to 1953 shows that the same rapid rate of growth of the past decade is continuing unabated into the present one. The rate of growth in DeKalb County has been very strong, producing an average gain per decade of almost 50 percent between 1910 and 1950. In the last decade, growth of this segment of the Metropolitan Area represented more than one quarter of the total increase. Cobb County has shown an average gain of about 12 per cent per decade between 1880 and 1940. The gain in the last ten years represented an increase of 61.5 percent amounting to one-seventh of the Metropolitan Area increase. Except for minor losses in 1920 to 1930, Clayton County has made moderate gains, until the last decade when its population virtually doubled and accounted for one-fifteenth of the total increase in the area. Summary Past trends of growth in the Atlanta Metropolitan Area show that it has accounted for an increasing share of the nation's growth and represents an increasingly larger pro portion of the total population in the United States. Since 1920 the area's share of the national total has increased -18- by an average of .0467 percent per decade. In the last decade the increase jumped to .0573 percent. The present corporate limits of Atlanta and the Tri- cities embrace a large proportion of the urban population of Fulton County. However, urban growth is occurring beyond these limits and whether this condition will continue in the future will largely depend upon annexation policies. Past trends in the county indicate that its population has not been increasing as fast as the Metropolitan Area as a whole. The trend has been a gradual decline since 1910, becoming somewhat more rapid in the last decade. Probable Future Growth While the prospects for the future growth of the area are much more favorable than those for the nation as a whole, it is necessary to examine the prospects for the entire country in that certain aspects of the local economy are directly related to nation-wide demand and therefore will effect local growth. The U. S. Bureau of the Census has made several studies of probable future population growth. In the 1930's because of the decreasing birth rate, it was estimated that the population of the country would stabilize about 1980 at or near 165,000,000. With the last census all previous estimates have undergone substantial revision upward. Pop ulation experts have been more cautious, making few estimates beyond the year 1960, and even these have undergone revision. The latest estimate (medium series) upon the growth of the o o o o h- CO CO rHC 3 O m 00 m a-H "*r G 00 o CN 0 G t* 2" a -H rr rH rH 3 Q) © CO•D CN • -a ft) COiO O S-. o o o ca CO 00 y 03 03 03 >• rH rH rH -13- nation places the 1960 population at 171,176,000. Based upon this estimate and upon previous and more detailed studies, it now seems entirely possible that the national population will reach 187,000,000 by 1970 and possibly about 205,000,000 by 1980. Growth of the Metropolitan Area Using these estimates of the probable future growth in the entire country, Table 3 has been prepared to show the effect of various assumptions of growth trends within the Metropolitan Area. While other estimates and assumptions have been prepared based upon the rate of change and percentage of local increase, the four selected here repre sent the most probable range of growth. It has already been shown (Table 1) that the Metropolitan Area population over the past five decades has consistently increased in proportion to the total population of the nation. There has been some acceleration of the rate of increase, particularly in the last decade. The several bases shown on Table 3 assume that the Metropolitan Area will represent an increasingly larger share of the population of the United States and that the rate of increase per decade will be: Basis (1) equal to the average per decade change from 1900 to 1950 (.0222 percent) Basis (2) equal to the average per decade change from 1920 to 1950 (.0467 percent) Basis (3) equal to the change in the last decade (.0573 percent) -20- Basis (4) high in the first decade (.052 percent) and tending to diminish (.049 percent) in the second decade toward the three decade average (.047 percent) Of the several assumptions the last seems to produce a population most in keeping with the past development of the area and the factors which will influence its future growth. Assuming that the population of the United States will grow in accordance with median estimates by the Bureau of the Census, the Atlanta Metropolitan Area should attain a population of 1,245,600 by 1980. This estimate has been plotted upon Plate 1. An estimated future population of 1,245,600 persons - nearly twice the 1950 population - may appear high for the four county area, yet in terms of rate of increase in the past it is not wishful thinking. To attain the population shown for 1960, 1970 and 1980 increases of 26.1, 19.6 and 18.7 percent would occur in the respective decades. These estimates assume continued large numerical increases but a gradual decline in the rate of growth. Growth in Fulton County Plate 1 also shows the estimated future population in Fulton County. It has been shown (Table 2) that the county's share of the area population has declined since 1910. It is believed that this trend is likely to continue during the next three decades and that the Fulton County population will represent 61.4 percent of the estimated future population -21 of the Metropolitan Area. Based upon these assumptions Fulton County should attain a population of 764,800 by 1980. This would mean a 61 percent increase over the existing population of the county - a numerical increase of 291,214. No attempt has been made to estimate the future growth of the City of Atlanta as such since the corporate limits can be altered at any time. It has been assumed that 243,700 of the population increase would be urban in nature and would occur in or adjacent to the City of Atlanta and the Tri-cities. It is further estimated that the future population within the present corporate limits of Atlanta will be 662,000. It is logical that the planning program be based upon a generous estimate of population. If future population estimates are too low, the recommendations for various public improvements may prove inadequate. On the other hand, even if the future population estimates are not realized until after 1980, the improvements can be made gradually as the actual growth warrants and no extensive replacements or readjustments will be necessary. This is particularly true if the urban growth occurs in a logical and economical manner. The Metropolitan Planning Commission has recently revised its population estimates for the Metropolitan Area and its component parts. These new figures for the entire area are in substantial accord with the above estimates. However, they are somewhat less optomistic about Fulton County's share of the future growth. >— D O CJ H oO U o< Of= rO ~D — LO U-(J Q o\ D ^ 2 dJ 1 Q 1 U <° Or o di I— m I— I_JJ <£ CN ' CL < O >- CL CQ o > I— CJ PLATE 2 -22- FACTORS INFLUENCING THE LOCATION OF PAST GROWTH Growth By Militia Districts Plate 2 shows the trends of population growth by militia districts in Cobb, DeKalb and Fulton counties and part of Clayton County from 1930 to 1950. The 1953 pop ulation has also been shown for the districts in Fulton County and was based upon new building permits issued between 1950 and January, 1953. However, this information does not reflect the increases that occurred in the Tri- cities in the last three months of 1952. Of the nearly 2000 square miles included in the study, less than one-fifth of this area has developed to densities greater than one person on each three acres, or approximately one family per 10 acres. Clayton County. Two militia districts adjacent to the Tri-cities' area have attained densities approaching one person per acre. The Forest Park District (#1644) has shown an increase of nearly 5500 persons in the past decade while in previous decades the growth more nearly paralleled rural districts in that county. The activation in the past decade of the Conley Depot has been an important influ ence upon this increased ratio growth. District 1446 which embraces a part of College Park has increased by 3499 — almost 3000 of which occurred within the corporate limits of College Park. -23- Cobb County. Three districts in Cobb County repre senting one quarter of the total area of the county have reached densities ranging from 300 to 500 persons per square mile. The two largest of these are Districts 893 and 1292 in which the cities of Marietta and Smyrna respectively are located. Both of the areas doubled in population during the past decade. The primary generators of this growth have been the Dobbins Air Force Base and the Lockheed plant. The presence of a dependable water supply, furnished principally from the Atlanta water system, has been an aid to the growth and development of Marietta. There has also been a relatively small population increase in the Austell District (1373) resulting from the growth of the City of Austell. Much of the growth of these Cobb County districts is only indirectly related to Atlanta's influence. However, the transit facilities operated between Smyrna, Marietta and Atlanta indicate, as does the vehicular traffic, that a considerable segment of the population commutes to and from Atlanta daily. DeKalb County. Fifty-nine percent of the population increase in DeKalb County in the last decade occurred in seven militia districts representing less than one-third of the total county area. All seven districts (one of which is the DeKalb section of the City of Atlanta) are clustered along the Fulton County line. While the growth was sub stantially more rapid in the last ten years than in the -24- previous decade, only a part of this change of rate can be attributed to better economic conditions alone. In the 1940-1950 decade the county has had both industrial develop ment and a liberal water policy - strong factors in the development of these particular portions of the county. In this recent decade population has been added at the rate of 800 persons per square mile over this 66 square mile area. Growth within that portion of the City of Atlanta which lies in DeKalb County accounted for about 9000 of the 59,000 increase in the several districts. Fulton County. It has been said that Fulton County is actually one urban and two rural counties. This is a sound statement of fact in that only 30 percent of the area of the county has developed to a density of 300 persons per square mile. Approximately one-half of the remaining area lies north of the city and one-half to the south. Except for Union City (1725) all of the fifteen militia districts of the county developed to this density are all cr partially within the corporate limits of Atlanta or the Tri-cities. The largest growth in the last decade has been shown in the Center Hill District (1511) and the Buckhead District (722) which have been growing at the rate of 1000 persons per year. In each of these two districts the rate has been slightly accelerated during the past three years. The South Bend District (1348) grew at the rate of 500 persons per year between 1940 and -25- 1950 while in the last three years population has been added at five times this rate. All of these fifteen urban districts have been making consistent gains over the three decades and some have shown substantial increases in the past three years. Even within the old city limits population increased at the rate of 3000 per year between 1930 and 1950 and has increased to the rate of 5000 per year in the past three yars. These data indicate that no one section of the urban area of Fulton and DeKalb counties has been experiencing a disproportionate share of the growth, Uhile urbanization has progressed further to the north and northeast than in other directions, existing densities show these areas are not developing as compactly as those in the south and west. Topography The terrain of Fulton County has been a major influence upon the present pattern of development. The 540 square miles of the county are divided into one major and three secondary watersheds. The area north of Alpharetta and Mountain Park is tributary to the Etowah River, South and east of Palmetto, Fairburn, Union City, College Park and Eapeville, the area is tributary to the Flint River. Another main area from Lakewood to East Atlanta is tributary to the South River, leaving the major portion of the county in the Chattahoochee watershed. -26- The ridges dividing these watersheds were used by early railroads as approaches to the "State Depot". These major divisions may best be identified by the bounding routes of the Georgia Railroad paralleling DeKalb Avenue to the east, and the Central of Georgia and the Atlanta and Westpoint Railroads paralleling Lee Street and the Roosevelt Highway south to Palmetto. Peachtree, Old Marietta, Gordon, McDonough and Flat Shoals roads identify other minor ridges that intersect the principal ones in the vicinity of downtown Atlanta forming a broad and relatively flat area upon which the early growth occurred. Subsequent development has tended to follow these ridges as have the major traffic arteries serving the metropolitan area. Watersheds tributary to the Chattahoochee have cut some relatively deep valleys in the county which become more pronounced near the river - Peachtree-Nancy Creek basin is the principal one of these affecting urbanization. As the county line and the Chattahoochee River tend to converge north of the City of Atlanta, the terrain in this narrow neck of the county becomes rough and is not well adapted for intensive urban development. Early development generally followed the higher level areas. As the intervening valleys were later absorbed for urban purposes, problems were created with respect to proper cross- town connections between the principal radial streets which -27- feed into the central area. Some portions of the valleys are subject to flood conditions and should not contain intensive urban development. Generally the terrain of metropolitan Atlanta will preclude a compact development in the north and tend to foster more dense development in the south and west where topographic changes are less severe. However, it does not present any serious obstacles to urban develop ment, particularly if the densities and street pattern are properly adjusted. Water and Sewer Facilities Plate 3 shows the areas of Fulton, Clayton and DeKalb counties now served by public sanitary sewers and water lines. Prior to the annexation of January 1352 the area within the corporate limits of Atlanta was almost completely provided with these essential services as were the developed portions of Palmetto, Fairburn, Hapeville, East Point, College Park and Decatur. Outside these incorporated areas service of both sewers and water is confined to a few major areas - (1) Buckhead-Peachtree Road-Chamblee, (2) North Decatur-Avondale-East Lake and (3) Center Hill. It is apparent that water services have been extended to a much larger area than have the sanitary facilities. While this is primarily the result of a very liberal water policy over the entire urban area, topography has placed a limiting economic factor upon the extension of sewers where develop ment has been sparse or quite spacious. -28- Sanitary Sewer Facilities Trunk lines have been laid in all of the major drainage basins tributary to the Chattahoochee River from Nancy Creek on the north to Utoy Creek on the south. Trunk line and treatment plants also have been provided in Intrenchment, Sugar and Beaver creeks which are tributary to South River, and in the upper reaches of Mud and Camp creeks. The collection and treatment facilities of Atlanta serve all of the present city except a small area tributary to Long Island Creek to the north and a small area south of Ben Hill which is tributary to Camp Creek. Under special agreement with DeXalb County, the Nancy and Peachtree trunk lines have been extended to provide service for the developed portion of the county north of the Georgia Railroad. South of this line the DeKalb County sanitary system generally serves the area outside the City of Atlanta. Atlanta further provides sanitary service to those parts of Hapeville, College Park and East Point which lie in the Mud Creek basin. The City of East Point provides these facilities to a small portion of its own corporate area and that of College Park tributary to Camp Creek. Still a third portion of East Point is served through the Atlanta's Utoy Creek system. Independent systems are maintained by the communities of Fairburn and Palmetto. -29- Water Eight systems provide Fulton County and the Atlanta Metropolitan Area with its water. Five of these are small independent systems providing service in Fulton County's rural communities. Their source of water is from wells. The remaining three systems depend upon the Chattahoochee River or its tributaries. East Point reaches across the Chattahoochee to draw its supply from Sweetwater Creek. This supply furnishes water to both East Point and College Park. The DeKalb County system draws its water from the Chattahoochee and serves the developed area of DeKalb County outside the City of Atlanta. The Atlanta Water Department serves Fulton County and Atlanta from Sandy Springs to the Utoy. It also furnishes all or part of the water to Marietta, Hapeville and Forest Park and military and defense establish ments in these vicinities. The major water systems in the area have had liberal water main extension policies as is evidenced by Plate 3. Water has been provided to virtually all of the developed portion of the Atlanta Urban Area. These policies have stimulated a very open pattern, leaving much undeveloped area to be filled by future growth. The City of Atlanta extends water service to subdivisions in its corporate limits on a reimbursible plan providing these extensions are made according to their specification and at an economic cost. Out side the corporate area a developer or V I » 1% uli-<0 < >- 5o 1 1 s* Q i— 2< <* < J I 3_ 3- h— O Ps 5 < 2 It= o CM o >- h- D u PLATE 4 -30- 51 percent of the property owners may initiate an extension, the cost of which must be borne by the applicants. DeKalb County policy is similar except that in a builder-type subdivision the county pays the entire original cost of the extension. The three main sources of water supply appear adequate for future development. The policy of extending water mains will have a major influence upon the future population pattern. Many advantages could result from practices that would encourage urban development in the extensive vacant areas now existing between the mains' routes of travel. Existing General Land Use Plate 4 shows, in a diagrammatic manner, the existing major land uses in the Atlanta Metropolitan Area and in Fulton County. Only the general location and extent of the major residential, commercial, industrial, public and semi-public land usages are shown. Except for residential areas, no differentiation has been made within major land use cate gories. Only two types of residential areas are indicated - those predominately devoted to single and two-family residences and those occupied by multiple housing units. No use classification was indicated on this plate for farms, vacant or sparsely populated land. -31- Fulton County Two predominantly rural areas exist in Fulton County, one to the north and one to the south of the Atlanta Urban Area. While several small communities have developed either along rail lines or highways, the remaining areas are sparsely developed with but scattered farm structures. The northern end of the county is more heavily populated by such development than the south. Atlanta Urban Area Plate 4 reveals that land utilization v/ithin the old corporate limits is quite compact leaving few large open areas. Outside the old corporate limits there is a large amount of vacant land available to accommodate future growth. Several large blocks of public and semi-public lands will provide for a greater degree of openness in future develop ment. The existing pattern of urbanization has grown in a rather concentric manner, but forming a modified cross rather than a circular form. The central business district is ideally located at the intersection of these principal directions of growth, and shows a tendency to elongate toward the north, east and south. The principal arms of development run along the primary ridges in a compact pattern leaving the low areas between the arms of the cross much more loosely developed. -32- Although there are major industrial concentrations within the city adjacent to the central business district, the large number of railroads traversing the city has produced a distribution of industry throughout the urban area. Though this dispersion has desirable features, the pattern of industry and railroads has created many problems. The many grade crossings of major streets present hazards - solutions to which are costly. Industrial development has occurred without regard to the building and preservation of sound residential neighborhoods. While changes in topography sometimes reduce the conflict between land uses to a minimum in Atlanta, there are instances of industry isolating small residential areas and curtailing the logical development of these neighborhoods. More logical industrial development is taking place in the north along the Southern Railway adjacent to the water works, and between the Western and Atlantic and 4ie Seaboard Airline railroads. Commercial development which is spotty and tending toward long strips, is prevalent though not extensive. This is characteristic of most larger American cities. In the past these commercial ribbons were considered necessary to meet shopping needs of the public, and have occurred in Atlanta primarily in the older areas of the city. Many newer stores are being concentrated in large shopping centers. This trend is evident in the outer sections of the city. Much -33- of the scattered local commercial development in the city should eventually be abandoned in favor of consolidated shopping centers. Atlanta's residential pattern, consisting primarily of one and two family residences, has been good in character, though scattered. Early development absorbed much of the flat or gently rolling lands leaving to the recent building boom the problem of using the intervening valleys. To some extent this has been successfully done, but the large amount of open area testifies to the difficulties encountered. Some of these areas are subject to frequent inundation and should be withheld from intensive development. There is a sub stantial amount of scattered multiple residence development constructed in recent years throughout the entire urban area. It is more logical to concentrate multiple residence in self- contained neighborhoods preferably close to shopping centers, transit routes and the central business district. Adequate public services, such as utilities, schools, parks and play grounds can be more efficiently and economically provided if multiple housing areas are properly located in relation to the community's over-all development. The new corporate limits embrace virtually all of the urban development in Fulton County outside the Tri-cities. The open and sparse development along the urban fringe is a normal occurrence. It is to be expected that as these scattered areas grow there will be an accompanying demand for many public ser vices which are now lacking. In many instances provision of these services will prove difficult and costly. -34- PRESENT DISTRIBUTION AND DENSITY Distribution of Population Plate 5 shows how the 1953 population is distributed over the Atlanta Urban Area and rural Fulton County. Each dot represents one hundred persons. The amount and location of population was derived from the 1350 census and from new building records of the city and Fulton County issued between 1950 and January 1953. The DeKaib County data was derived from a dwelling unit count prepared by the Metropolitan Planning Commission. The concentration of population in areas adjoining and adjacent to the business district is a condition typical of most large and growing cities. In Atlanta, virtually all of this heavy concentration of people is in substandard and generally obsolete housing. The only significant exceptions to this condition are the multi-story apartments in the Peachtree-Ponce-de-Leon area and the several public housing units. Immediately outside the areas of high concentration the population distribution pattern maintains some degree of uniformity except where large tracts of commercial and industrial development intervene. From Piedmont Road south along the Fulton County line and including the DeKaib County part of the city, the distribution pattern is reasonably compact. Similarly the Buckhead vicinity, an area around -35- Grant Park, and a broad strip from Campbellton Road to the Bankhead Highway are reasonably well developed. Outside these general areas the population is widely scattered portraying a most irregular pattern. A great deal of the scattering occurred outside the corporate limits of Atlanta prior to the annexation of January 1952. Despite the fact that Fulton County was exercising subdivision and zoning controls, it is evident that these controls should be modified and supplemented to promote a more compact develop ment. Development tends to follow the major traffic arteries . .1 leaving large vacant areas between. In the vicinity of West Paces Ferry Road and similar areas this scattering of popu lation presents no very serious problems since the widely scattered improvements do not require the same extent of public services as more densely populated areas. To the west and south both the terrain and the type of improvements need sound controls to bring about a more balanced and economically compact development. The distribution pattern outside the incorporated areas is extremely sparse with moderate concentration along the major highways. This pattern is to be expected in pre dominantly rural areas. Table 4 t CHANGES IN POPULATION AND POPULATION DENSITY IN MAJOR DISTRICTS OF ATLANTA - FULTON COUNTY URBAN AREA 1953 - 1980 Non- Net Density of Changes In Estima ted Density of Areas Residential Residential Population Population Population Population Population Gross Acreage Area (1980) Area (1980) (1953) (1953) 1950-1980 (1980) (1980) 4973.3 4973.30 1,200 0.2 1,900 3,100 0.5 4525.2 4525.20 800 0.2 1,800 2,600 0.5 4352.6 4352.60 2,200 0.5 2,200 4,400 1.0 5748.4 212.00 5536.40 3,100 0.6 2,400 5,500 1.0 3898.1 153.35 3744.75 10,100 2.7 12,000 22,100 5.9 4068.8 119.93 3948.87 4 ,600 1.2 15,300 19,900 5.1 3477.5 38.57 3438.93 1,700 0.5 4,700 6,400 1.9 2050.5 175.32 1875.18 8,500 4.5 5,200 13,700 7.3 2099.2 531.87 1567.33 12,900 6.6 6,700 19,600 12.5 2622.6 833.79 1788.81 5,900 2.3 10,000 15,900 8.9 3285.6 1281.61 2003.99 9,100 3.0 8,000 17,100 8.5 1123.0 427.31 695.69 11,400 15.0 1,100 12,500 18.0 2482.1 139.50 2342.60 16,100 6.5 5,000 21,100 9.0 1719.9 616.76 1103.14 4,400 2.7 9,300 13,700 12.4 1095.5 600.82 494.68 12,100 12.6 3,000 15,100 30.5 2855.8 281.91 2573.89 13,200 5.1 18,500 31,700 12.3 1795.2 1013.73 781.47 47,200 30.1 -7,200 40,000 51.0 1258.0 803.49 454.51 22,400 49.4 -9,900 12,500 15.6 1359.0 595.53 763.47 38,200 33.2 -15,300 22,900 30.0 1740.1 438.83 1301.27 31,000 18.3 -5,000 26,000 20.0 1108.2 74.84 1033.46 11,200 10.8 1,600 12,800 12.4 4188.3 555.55 3632.65 5,600 1.5 30,400 36,000 9.9 1907.2 235.02 1672.18 16,700 10.0 5,100 21,800 13.0 3030.3 3030.30 3,700 1.2 19,100 22,800 7.5 2813.6 796.14 2017.46 19,100 9.5 5,500 24,600 12.3 858.6 143.89 714.71 13,100 15.9 -1,600 11,500 16.0 836.5 352.88 483.60 8,200 12.3 -906 7,300 15.0 1829.2 444.00 1385.20 48,700 28.9 -16,400 32.300 23.0 1036.7 263.66 773.04 10,200 12.4 1,200 11,400 14.7 2497.7 240.90 2256.80 16,300 7.1 9.700(a) 26,000 11.5 1744.7 97.95 1646.75 19,500 11.7 300 . 19,800 12.4 719.0 96.41 622.59 4,600 7.4 400 . 5,000 8.0 4121.2 4121.20 2,000 0.5 15,000 17,000 4.3 2731.8 679.50 2052.30 9,100 4.4 10,400 19,500 9.5 2114.8 337.26 1777.54 8,300 4.5 13,000 21,300 12.0 2223.1 1215.70 1007.40 13,900 10.3 100 14,000 14.0 3189.1 559.08 2630.02 6,900 2.1 16,700 23,600 9.0 2982.5 2982.50 5,700 1.9 14,100 19,800 6.6 4771.3 3000.00 1,500 0.4 10,500 12,000 4.0 3305.8 3305.80 1,600 0.5 4,400 6,000 1.F 5300.3 5300.30 1,600 0.3 2,000 3,600 C 7 210,300 693,900 93711.90 483,600 DeKalb Co. Inc. - 4,000 206,300 Increase in DeKalb portion of Atlanta (a) 1700 in DeKalb -3G- Sxisting Population Densities In determining the relative population densities of the various sections of the urbanized area of Fulton County, statistics as to the number of persons living in a more or less homogeneous area were compiled on a gross acreage basis. Only large areas primarily utilized for industry, commerce and large public or semi-public properties are excluded in the calculations, but streets and churches, schools or small schools or small shopping areas having less than ten acres have been included. Areas selected for determining densities which are now, or may reasonably be expected to experience urban development, are bounded by existing streets, railroads, or other natural physical barriers. The rural districts bearing identifying letters follow militia district lines. A residential district should contain a gross density of 5 to 10 persons per acre if it is to be economically provided with streets, schools, essential public utilities and a satisfactory standard of public services. Exceptions to this general rule would be areas like V/est Wesley and Y/est Paces Ferry roads where estate properties require only a small amount of services. An average of 10 persons per gross acre represents an occupancy of but 2.5 to 3 families. Plate 6 shows the existing densities of development in Fulton County excluding incorporated areas outside the City of Atlanta. Table 4 shows the area, population and density -37- of each of the districts. As would be expected the higher density areas are found in and adjacent to the central business district. The four high density areas are of substantially different character. A very large proportion of the central district (18) is devoted to non-residential uses. The relatively few residential structures in the area are multi-story units having virtually complete land coverage resulting in an average density of 49.4 persons per acre. The type of residence structure changes abruptly on either side of the business district in areas 17 and 19 to pre dominantly small houses on very small lots resulting in densities of 30 and 33 persons per gross residential acre. These areas have a predominantly Negro occupancy. Just to the south of the business district is an area of large, old homes that have been converted to rooming houses, which together with a compactly built up area of one and two-family homes yield a density of 29 persons per gross acre. Most of the substandard dwelling units in the City of Atlanta are located in Areas 17, 19, and 28. Around this core, development becomes progressively less dense toward the urban fringe. Densities north of the Southern Railway, with the exception of Buckhead, decline more rapidly than in other sections of the city. The reason for this is that the large estates and spacious grounds as well as that more rugged terrain does not lend itself to -33- intensive small home development. Many areas within the city limits are quite sparsely developed with a large amount of vacant land being bypassed. Provision of municipal services to this type of sporadic development is expensive. The following summary shows the population and area of the urban districts classified by density range. Persons Per Acre Population Square Miles Number Percent Number Percent 0.0 to 2.5 41,200 8.4 87.3 50.9 2.5 to 5.0 56,400 11.6 27.0 15.7 5.0 to 10.0 52,200 16.9 18.7 10.9 10.0 to 20.0 147,300 30.2 17.9 10.4 20.0 to 30.0 48,700 10.0 2.6 1.5 30.0 to 40.0 85,400 17.5 4.2 2.5 40.0 to 50.0 22,400 4.6 0.7 0.4 *Non-residential Area 4,000 0.8 13.2 7.7 457,600 100,0 171.6 100.0 ^Includes large industrial, public or semi-public and commercial areas. The above data again reveals the extent of the area which is presently developed to uneconomic densities, While it may be assumed that future growth will increase these densities, especially those in the lower range, it is apparent that policies of both the city and the county should discourage further undue scattering of population. Two-thirds of the entire area is developed to densities below five persons per gross residential acre. Only one-fifth of the population is found in this 114 square miles. In contrast another -33- one-fifth of the population (107,300 persons^ occupy less than 3 percent (4.3 square miles) resulting in densities from 30 to 50 persons per gross residential acre. -40- FUTURE LAND USE, POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND DENSITY It is estimated that the population of the Atlanta Metropolitan Area will reach 1,245,000 by 1980. Of this total, 61.4 percent or 764,800 persons will probably be located in Fulton County. This will mean an additional 243,700 persons in the Urban Area and 14,400 persons in the rural areas of Fulton County. The location of this future population and also of major land uses necessary to accommodate them are basic considerations for the entire planning program. While the ratios existing between units of population and areas of land uses provide a sound method for determining future land use requirements, the estimates must be based upon carefully prepared data and adjusted to evolving trends of modern living, marketing and manufacturing. The analysis should also include consideration of existing land uses, topography and transportation routes. These will indicate how the area can best be adapted to the expanded urban uses. This basic pattern will be refined further as to extent and intensity of development, as data is pro cured for the zoning study. Future Land Use Plate 7 shows in diagrammatic form the proposed future land use pattern for Atlanta and Fulton County, Allocations -41- have been made for industrial, commercial and residential areas largely in accordance with the existing pattern. New industrial and commercial uses are based on the particular suitability of the site for these uses. Residential areas are represented in four main categories based on type and density of development. The density range of each of these categories is given below: Residential Category Persons Per Acre Principal Type of Development Heavy density over 25 multi-storied apart ments, large scale housing projects Medium density 15 to 25 small multiple dwell ings, one and two- family residences with relatively high lot coverage Low density 5 to 15 one and two-family dwellings, one-family moderate lot coverage predominating Suburban 1 to 5 spacious single-family development The central business district will continue to be the heart of the entire urban area. Its continued development between the expressway and Peachtree Street as far north as Fifteenth Street should be anticipated. There is small probability that intensive retail and office development will expand much beyond its present limit in the central and southern portions of the business district. The immediately adjacent area is proposed as a light industrial warehousing -42- and wholesaling area* Some of the slum areas immediately adjacent to the business district should be absorbed in these supporting industrial uses. The central core of business and industry is surrounded with high and medium density development. Little change has been shown in the existing area of high density. It may be anticipated that some redevelopment of these badly blighted areas may occur but, for economic reasons, they will be rebuilt to substantially the same densities as now exist. Multi-unit apartment type structures may be anticipated in the area around the Georgia Institute of Technology and along Peachtree Street north of Fifteenth Street. The medium density districts are now almost completely built up areas devoted to predominantly compact small .home development. There are several exceptions, the principal of which is in the vicinity of the Prado where larger homes of a previous decade are being converted into apartments. In the Buckhead area apartment development v/ill continue and an increase in small apartment structures should occur throughout the medium density area. Limited increase in shopping facilities such as West End and Little Five Points is anticipated. Otherwise, this area is expected to remain stable in nature. Beyond this intensely developed area of the old city a considerably more spacious and sometimes scattered develop ment of predominantly single-family homes has and should -43- continuC to occur. Numerous apartment projects ranging from 20 to 1000 units may be found throughout the area. This latter type of development should be confined to the more populated areas and should be convenient to transit facilities. A part of this large area north of West Wesley Road is developed in large tracts and has been held to a minimum lot size of two acres. Some of these tracts in the vicinity of Northside Drive and North Fulton Park have been subdivided into smaller lots of one-half acre and less. The parts of this area south of West Paces Ferry may be expected to attain a density of five or more persons per acre. The growth anticipated in this and other portions of the low density area should consolidate existing scattered development. This should result in neighborhoods compact enough and of sufficient size to facilitate the economic and efficient provision of utility services, schools, play grounds and the like. Outwardly, from these normal single-family neighborhoods areas have been set aside for suburban development consisting of single-family homes on relatively large tracts. Minimum lot sizes would be from one to two acres. The type of the development in such areas can be expected to differ in the northern and southern portions of the principal urban area. To the north residences of estate character can be expected to develop in the rugged terrain from West Paces Ferry toward -44- Sandy Springs. More modest dwellings on small acreages or large lots will occur southerly from the Ben Hill area as urbanization continues in that direction. Recognition of the existing pattern, topography and transportation facilities were the primary factors in the designation of areas for industry. Ample provision has been made for the expansion of various industrial areas into large compact districts to meet modern requirements for large sites, one story plants and off-street parking. The industrial areas in the compactly developed sections of the city have been enlarged by inclusion of isolated blocks of residential and commercial uses now virtually encircled by industrial development. Examples of these types of industrial expansions are the McDonough Boulevard area, the Atlanta and West Point Memorial Drive district and area adjacent to the West Bypass. The greatest enlargement of existing industrial area is recommended in the vicinity of Chattahoochee Avenue. Several new industrial areas are made a part of the plan. These are (1) an extensive tract along Moreland Avenue near Constitution Road, (2) the Chattahoochee industrial area near Fulton County Airport, (3) the Red Oak area at the junction of the Atlantic Coast Line and the Atlanta and West Point Railroad, (4) an area adjacent to the Fulton County line near College Park and (5) expansion of the industrial area adjacent to the Ford plant. -45- No attempt has been made to show all local business districts. Only the principal centers where business has already heen established are indicated in the developed sections of the community. Some commercial urban develop ments such as Peachtree Street, Ponce de Leon and Gordon avenues have been maintained and consolidated. Enlargements of such business centers as Little Five Points, East Atlanta, Buckhead and West End have been indicated to meet modern requirements of greater floor space and off-street parking. Existing small business districts in the vicinity of Cascade Heights and Grove Park have been expanded appreciably to meet future demands for primary shopping centers in these areas. Additional local business districts that will be needed can best be located under carefully prepared zoning studies. Only the larger existing public and semi-public uses have been shown. No attempt has been made to determine the location or extent of required public areas of the future. This would require a neighborhood by neighborhood analysis which is beyond the scope of the present program. The plan designates a total of 10,400 acres for industrial purposes (an increase of approximately 100 percent over existing use). Commercial development has been expanded to 1900 acres. High and medium density areas are designated for 10,100 acres. Some 46,500 acres have been shown in low density, -46- residential use, having 5 to 15 persons per acre. Another 42,000 acres has been designated for suburban residential development. These allocations are quire liberal and they fully anticipate future demands for the several types of uses with allowance for modern spacious development. To provide larger areas for the several uses would result in too much scattering and would tend to continue some of the existing defects. The problem is not one of providing additional area for each use, but rather of securing proper location. The proposed plan has adjusted existing conditions, trends and adaptability of the land to the proposed use and to logical relationships between different uses. Detailed zoning studies may indicate the need for some modifications, but the same pattern should prevail. Future Distribution of Population Table 3 contained data regarding the estimated future growth of the Atlanta Metropolitan Area and subsequent discussion indicated that Fulton County should attain a population of 764,800 by 1980. Plate 8 shows the distribution of this estimated population as of 1980. (Each dot represents 100 persons.) No institutional population has been shown on this map. The recommended pattern is based on a recognition of existing conditions, past trends in growth and vacant land -47- suitable for residential development. It also recognizes the desirability of creating a sufficiently compact pattern to economically provide all public facilities and services such as schools, parks and sanitation. The distribution of the anticipated 1980 population is also based upon a com prehensive land use plan that will provide a logical relation ship between population and other land uses. The distribution of the future population follows the existing pattern of development. It differs only in that much vacant property has been utilized and that a more compact and balanced distribution has been provided. The vast amount of vacant land in Atlanta and the Tri-cities will accommodate most of this anticipated increase in urban population. Table 4 shows that 206,000 persons were added - the Tri-cities excepted - of which 185,900 were in the Fulton County portion of Atlanta. Another 4000 persons were added in the DeKalb portion of the city. Still another 56,300 lost from some of the congested downtown areas were located in the new areas of the city. The changes in the distribution pattern in the central area arise chiefly from business and industrial expansion into present congested slums. Extensive redevelopment of the remaining areas of substandard and highly congested housing is not expected to substantially alter the distribution pattern in these areas. The distribution pattern of most of the land within the drainage area of the Nancy Creek sanitary trunk line reflects a heavier development than that £ fe- •— -< O U fe PLATE 9 -43- which lies to the north of the divide. Similarly, beyond the limits of the Utoy drainage area the distribution pattern is less compact. The rural growth pattern will be strongly affected by new industrial districts to the south. The distribution pattern indicates an almost suburban type development along the Roosevelt Highway from Fairburn to College Park. A large majority of the rural growth is anticipated in the several small communities and along the principal highways through the county. An increase of 14,400 is expected in the rural areas. Future Densities Plate 9 and Table 4 show the future densities resulting from the proposed pattern of population distribution. The densities inside the old city changed very little except that a higher density is shown in these areas adjacent to the business district. Almost all other areas in the old city show a density range from 10 to 20 persons per gross resi dential acre, Buckhead is also in this category. The proposed distribution pattern results in a density between 5 and 10 persons per acre for most of the remaining districts in the city. Eight of the urban districts have densities below 5 persons per acre, but all of these are wholly or in part areas designated as a suburban type of development. The highest density, despite a loss of 7200, is in the area immediately west of the business district. -49- Table 4 was completed to show the net residential acreage for each of the 41 statistical districts in the urban area, the existing and future population and population density. The anticipated change in the amount of population between 1953 and 1980 is also shown. The density classification of the urban area in 1980 would be as follows: Population .Square Miles Acre Number Percent Number Percent 0 to 2.5 31,600 4.5 49.1 28.6 2.5 to 5 29,000 4.2 11.2 6.5 5 to 10 236,500 34.1 47.8 27.9 10 to 20 260,500 37.5 30.8 18.0 20 to 30 58,300 8.4 4.2 2.4 30 to 40 38,000 5.5 2.0 1.2 over 40 40,000 5.8 1.2 0.7 Non Residen tial 25.3 14.7 Total 693,900 100.0 171.6 100.0 A comparison with existing density classifications reveals that a better balanced pattern has been achieved by the suggested plan of population distribution. Over 45 percent of the land is developed to the most desirable density ranges - between 5 and 20 persons per acre. More than 70 percent of the population would be in neighborhoods of this density. Only 20 percent of the area is developed to these densities at the present time. Obviously the future population pattern would be much more compact and will affect many economies in providing improvements and services. -50- ACEIEVEMENT OF PROPOSED POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND LAND USE PATTERN The development of a satisfactory population and land use pattern in Fulton County will contribute much to the future welfare of the Atlanta Metropolitan Area. It is a most vital part of a comprehensive plan. The suggested pattern of development will not, however, materialize automatically nor can it be used as an exact plan to be carried out by ordinance and strict enforcement. The pattern is intended as a guide for future development rather than a rigid control. Achieve ment of the principles and objectives must be accomplished by a proper understanding of their purpose on the part of public officials and by the general public. Several pro cedures and regulatory measures are now available that should be employed to assist in attaining a desirable community pattern. Following is a summary of the more important of these. Zoning Regulations The entire urban area of the county as well as the surrounding agricultural districts should have the protection of modern zoning regulations. These regulations should be related to the standards suggested in the proposed future density and land use plans. Lot area requirements in resi dential districts can control the population densities effectively. It is also possible to preserve the boundaries -51- and extent of the urban area by requiring large lot areas and agricultural, rather than urban, uses beyond the pro posed urban area. The broad objectives of the suggested land use pattern for the future should serve as a basis for the zoning plan. In fact, sound zoning regulations are undoubtedly the most important single means of achieving the population and land use patterns. The City of Atlanta and Fulton County are now preparing studies for revising the present zoning regulations and detailed recommendations thereon will be included in a later phase of the current planning program. Subdivision Control Much of the vacant area included in the pattern for the future development of the community will eventually be subdivided or resubdivided. The city and Fulton County each have subdivision regulations which are now being enforced in the urban area. Some modification and standardization of these regulations is necessary to constitute an effective method of creating well-planned residential neighborhoods. Uniform standards should be applied to the entire urban area. The adherence to effective and progressive subdivision controls will do much to preserve the value and desirability of neighborhoods over a long period. An important portion of the subdivision regulations are the requirements that the subdivider install street paving, water and sewer lines to meet satisfactory modern standards. This will encourage a progressive outward development of subdivisions. -52- Extension of Public Utilities Public utilities, particularly sewers and water, are essential in all urban areas. The extension of the sewer and water facilities can thus be an important means of controlling the location and extent of urban development, particularly in residential areas. Since the City of Atlanta provides almost all of the public water supply in the Atlanta-Fulton County urban area, it can effectively control extensions of the water system. It is essential that the city adopt policies to insure that such water facilities will be extended only to the sections that should be in cluded in the future urban area. Further, the policies should insure that these extensions will secure a normal expansion of existing urban development, rather than permit the facilities to pass through large vacant or sparsely settled tracts. Public Improvements Urban development requires a continuing program of public improvements. New residential areas must have access to streets, schools and recreation facilities. A compre hensive plan, of which this report is a beginning, should delineate the general location and extent of public improve ments needed within the confines of the future urban pattern. Consistent adherence to a program of public improvements -53- that conform to a sound comprehensive plan will help to secure the desirable and logical location of future resi dential development. Further, the installation of these improvements in a logical progressive manner will assist in preventing scattering of the residential districts. Public Understanding and Support The proposals set forth in this report are designed to create an urban community that will provide maximum benefits and advantages for the entire population. The achievement of a desirable pattern of growth thus requires full under standing and support on the part of everyone. An enlightened citizenry will make possible the successful administration of regulatory measures and public works programs. Backed by the understanding and support of the citizens, public officers responsible for enforcement and administration can perform efficiently and effectively. By means of this collaborative effort, the coordination and administration of the public improvement programs in the separate political units comprising the Fulton County urban area are made much easier. With county and city officials and the combined citizenry cooperatively supporting the necessary measures and procedures, the attainment of a desirable future urban pattern of development can be assured. DATE DUE