- Email: [email protected]
Atlanta
CITY PROFILE
Atlanta Ebenezer Aka I
I
Atlanta mushroomed from a 79thcentury railroads terminus to a ZCVhcentury regional, commercial and adminisfrative giant of the south-easf of the USA because of its excellent quality of life, livability factors, and favourable business and legal climates. City planning always revolves around economic development, neighbourhood revitalizafion and transport improvemenf and construction. Since 1986 the central area has been the focus of development through an enterprise zone programme. If Atlanta is to maintain its regional economic and administrative prominence it must continue to diversify its economy while maintaining infrastrucUral balance. The author is with the Urban Program, Morehouse College, Georgia, USA.
Studies Atlanta,
‘T.J. Crimmins, ‘The Atlanta palimpsest: stripping away the layers of the past’, The Atlanta HisToricalJournal, Vol26, Nos 2-3, 1982, p 15. “Legal climate’ refers to the legal environment in which businesses operate. It covers legislative acts, court interpretations, workmen’s compensation, environmental requirements, local taxes, local ordinances etc. A survey carried out in 1972 indicated that 70% of the manufacturers who responded to questionnaires felt that the legal climate in Atlanta was more favourable than in Detroit or Chicago. See L. Mandell, ‘Quality of life factors in business location decisions’, Atlanta Economic Review, January-February 1977, pp 4-7. 3Personal interview, on the City of Atlanta’s administration, with Aaron Turpeau, Commissioner, Department of Administrative Services, 21 December 1988. The Commissioner indicated that before 1973 the city was run by the weak mayor-strong council (alderman) system. In 1973 the city voted to change the charter, and in 1974 the strong mayor system took effect.
The city of Atlanta was established in 1837 as a railroad terminus on land which belonged to the Creek and Cherokee Indians. Subsequently, in 1838, the state of Georgia officially took possession of the land as public property. The city is located at the foot of the Appalachian mountain chain and is on a Piedmont plateau which lies between a 750-foot river elevation and a 1 050-foot ridge which extends from the north-east to the south-east of the country. The early settlers in Atlanta were farmers and craftsmen from North Georgia, Virginia and North and South Carolina. Although Atlanta is a relatively new city in comparison with New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Providence and New Orleans, among others, it was not preplanned; it is the unplanned byproduct of a struggle for a common hinterland trade between the merchants of the coastal cities of Savannah, Georgia and Charleston, South Carolina.’ The idea was to establish a railhead in the northern part of the state which would connect the state’s Atlantic ports with the nation’s vast, resource-rich hinterland to the west. Atlanta actually became a leading commercial centre of the region when its railroad system was completed in the 1850s and connected it to other places of major commercial interest such as Montgomery, Alabama; Pensacola, Florida; Knoxville, Tennessee; Richmond, Virginia and other major urban centres in the north-east of the country. Atlanta is today a growth centre and a major financial, communication and transport link with other regions in the country. Atlanta’s success as one of the
nation’s unique and fastest growing cities is attributed to its favourable business and legal climates,’ quality of life, livability, and efficient executive government, which was reorganized, coordinated and reduced from 26 to 9 departments in the mid-1970s.’ In 1974 the city charter combined the former planning and budgeting departments into a single department. The merger was necessary because the city’s comprehensive development plan, which emphasizes both current and 5- to 15-year capital improvement programmes, is a guide to the preparation and execution of the budget. Atlanta’s successes notwithstanding it is currently grappling with many social problems which include poverty, inadequate housing, homelessness, a high crime and drug abuse rate, illiteracy or lack of education in the poor segment of the labour force, and air and noise pollution. Most of the poor in Atlanta are black, especially within the central business district (CBD), the southwest, north-west, east (including part of Dekalb County) and south areas. These areas constitute a major part of the central area which is to a large extent characterized by poor, dilapidated, slum housing units needing renovation, rehabilitation or outright replacement (see Figure 1). Population and employmenr The city’s population is spread out over 131 square miles with a density of about five persons per square acre. It is one of the least densely populated cities in the country. The city’s population (430 000) in 1985 represented 7% of the state of Georgia’s population of about 6 million; the
CITIES August
1990
CITY PROFILE
Figure 1. Atlanta: typical run down houses in the central area. population of the Atlanta metropolitan area (about 2.5 million) represented over 41% (see Figure 2). Between 1950 and 1987 the city’s population almost tripled (from 167 843 to 430 SOO), with an all time high in 1970 (496 973; see Table 1). The table indicates a population decline in the early 1980s which was the result of the economic recession of 1981-82 and the accompanying loss of jobs (in absolute terms) and increasing suburbanization of work and the affluent
population. However. since 1983 economic recovery has steadily boosted the city’s population by in migration. Most of the recent industrial commercial and residential developments are in the suburbs. Although the city still remains the activity hub of its region, the region’s rate of growth in recent years has been faster. For example, between 1980 and 1987 the population of the Atlanta region increased from 1.8 million to 2.2 million, a 23% increase, while the city’s population
r
Paulding
Figure 2. Atlanta metropolitan 1989: context map. Source: City of Atlanta, Comprehensive Development Plan, 7989, p 6.
CITIES
August
1990
187
CITY PROFILE Table 1. Atlanta: population by racial groups, 1950-87. Category White ‘Black and other; b not available. Sources: ‘Number of Inhabitants, Georgia’, US Census of Population. 1980; Bureau of Census, Atlanta. Georgia: Atlanta Regional Commission and Atlanta Bureau of Planning, 1988; City of Atlanta. Comprehensive Development P/an, 1982 and 1989.
%ity of Atlanta. Comprehensive Development f/an, 7989, p 14. 5Atlanta Regional Commission, Bureau of Planning, 1988. 6A.W. Niemi Jr, ‘The Georgia economy’, Georgia Trend, August 1988, p 18.
Black All others Total
167 843 (100.0%)
1970
300 635 (61.7%) 186 464 (38.3%) 356 (0.1%) 487 455 (100.0%)
240 503 (48.4%) 255 051 (51.3%) 1 922 (0.4%) 496 973 (100.0%)
1980 137 870 (32.4%) 282 912 (66.6%) 4 022 (I .o%j 425 022 (100 0%)
1987 132 600 (30.8%) 297 900 = (?:%’ 430 500 (100.0%)
urban areas. The rapid increase in the percentage of blacks between 1960 and 1970 was mainly due to the passage of the civil rights law in the early 1960s: this assured blacks all over the country a greater measure of socioeconomic and political freedom. The city of Atlanta was the seat of the civil rights movement under the leadership of the late Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr Martin Luther King. The increased migration of blacks to Atlanta was predicated on social. political. educational, religious and economic foundations. Blacks became the majority for the first time in 1970 when they became 51.3% of the city’s total. The reason why Atlanta is a major growth centre lies in its provision and distribution of goods and services to its region and hinterland. The city’s economic strength derives from the diversity of its economy -commercial, retail. industrial and construction (see Table 2) - and a number of resourceful individuals. In recent years the economic disparity between the state of Georgia and other states in the nation has narrowed because of the enormous economic activity of the Atlanta region.h Atlanta and Georgia survived the economic downturn of the early 1980s because of the enormous increase in less volatile service employment in those years, an in-
and projections
Sector
1985
1989
1993
2003
232 803 (61.9%) 48 030 (12.8%) El0 770 (21.5%) 14 732 (3.9%) 376 415 (100.0%)
269 747 (63.0%) 52 585 (12.3%) 90 320 (21.1%) 15248 (3.6%) 427 900 (100.0%)
295 629 (63 1%) 57 502 (12.3%) 96 903 (20.7%) 18 510 (4.0%) 468 544 (100.0%)
352 731 (64.8%) 64 304 (11.8%) 105 671 (19.4%) 21 925 (4.0%) 544 631 (100.0%)
Industrial Construction
188
(3Y%’
1960
Table 2. Atlanta: employment
Retail
CornmIssion,
108 580 (64.7%) 59 263
increased from 425 022 to 430 500, an increase of only 1.3%.4 The city’s population is expected to increase steadily into the next century with an estimated population of 443 199 in 1989 and a projected population of 449 617 in 1993 and 477 911 in the year 2000.’ The n-mber of people 65 years and older has been increasing since 1970 because of a lower birth rate and longer life expectancy within the city. In 1970 the elderly were about 9% of the city’s population; in 1980 they formed about 11% and were over 12% in 1987. Nearly three-quarters (74.3%) of Atlanta suburbanites are white and almost two-thirds (66.6%) of the city’s residents are black. The black population of the city has been increasing since the American Civil War (1860-65). In 1860 blacks (1 910) formed 20% of the city’s population (9 554); fifty years later the black population (51 900) had increased to 33.5% of the city total (154 X00). Up to 1950 neither city nor black popuiations increased much (see Table 1). Between 1950 and 1987 the black population doubled from 35.3% to 69.2% while the proportion of whites declined by more than one-half from 64.7% to 30.8%. During the late 1960s the city lost a large number of young people, particularly highly educated whites, to the surrounding suh-
Commercial
Sources: City of Atlanta Comprehensive Development Plan. 7989, p 22: Atlanta Regional
1950
Total
(services)
1985-2003
and Atlanta Bureau of Plannmg.
CITIES August 1990
CITY PROFILE
Figure 3. Atlanta: central area skyline. crease which occurred in spite of the decline in manufacturing employment. In 1988 about 1.6 million of Georgia’s 2.1 million service jobs were in the state’s seven metropolitan areas - Atlanta, Albany, Athens, Augusta, Columbus, Macon and Savannah. The Atlanta area alone accounts for 54% of the state’s service employment and service jobs in the area account for 81% of total employment. In 1985 total employment within Atlanta was nearly 34% of regional employment. A recent estimate indicates that by the year 2003 employment in the city will account for 27% of all employment in the region. The slight decline is not surprising since the current rate of growth and employment in the region is higher than in the city. Between 1975 and 1985 there was a steady increase in total employment in the city: total employment in 1975, 1978, and 1985 was 323 979, 337 246 and 376 415 respectively. Between 1975 and 1985 more than 50 000 jobs were added. a 16.2% increase. According to the city’s recent comprehensive development plan over 21 000 jobs were added in the city between 1980 and 1985, 18 200 of which were in the service sector. It is estimated that between 1985 and 1990 the city’s total employment will increase by over 14%. Of course, 72% of this increase will be in service employment. This increase is projected to continue to the year 2003 (see Table 2). The rosy economic picture of the city and region outlined above undoubtedly masks a great disparity in the socioeconomic conditions experi-
CITIES August
1990
enced by different classes in the city. For example, the unemployment rate in the city increased from 7.5% to 8.1% between 1980 and 1985. Today many Atlantans are not employed, or not employable, and/or lack the skills necessary to take advantage of the growing employment opportunities. Unemployment within the city is often twice that of the suburbs. In 1982 about 18 600 persons in the city were unemployed. In the same year unemployment among teenagers exceeded 20% ; among skilled and unskilled blue collar workers it was about 15%; among black males aged 20 to 24 years it was about 25%. In 1980 over 20% of the city’s households were living beneath the poverty level, with the highest incidence occurring in the black majority group concentrated in the central core and southern portion of the city. This is the central area, which is an expanded downtown. It includes the traditional central business district, Midtown to the north, the historic West End community and many peripheral residential and commercial districts (see Figure 3). Efforts in recent years have been directed at making this area more livable and attractive. The central area The central area is the heart of the Atlanta metropolitan area and the centre of government and the business activities of the area (see Figure 3). Population and employment in the area have been declining since the late 1970s because of the suburbanization of the rich, especially the whites, and the decentralization of retail business,
189
CITY finance and insurance industries. The central area’s share of the total metropolitan office space dropped from 32% in 1978 to 26% in 1982. Within these five years the central area averaged only 968 000 square feet while the metropolitan area averaged 3.24 million square feet. The service sector accounts for 75% of central area employment. The area’s population in 1987 was 99 138, with total employment 204 316 in 1985. There is a higher proportion of elderly and low income individuals in this area than in the city as a whole. One-fourth of the population are between 20 and 34 years old. In 1980 57.1% of the population was classified as low income. The unemployment rate is twice that of the metropolitan area: today 47% of the population in this area are in employment as against 59% city-wide and 68% in the metropolitan area. Only 24% of those who work in the area live there. Planning and development Public safety, maintenance and the image of the central area have deteriorated substantially in recent years to the extent that efforts are now focused on its revitalization - specifically, how to keep the area alive for 24 hours a day. Recent efforts have attempted to attract new middle and upper income families. Such an influx would produce a mix of incomes, interests and lifestyles in the area. Other redevelopment efforts in the area include wider and better designed sidewalks and spaces, the preservation of historic buildings to provide character and historic context for the streets, and the construction of pedestrian malls. In 1987, as part of the redevelopment effort, the central area was designated a housing, commercial and These industrial enterprise zone. zones are within the downtown development area boundary (see Figure 4), which has above average unemployment and poverty rates and a measure of physical decline. They were in accordance with the 1986 state of Georgia’s general assembly enterprise zone legislation. Urban enterprise zones are a type of bootstrap
190
operation which spurs development through a series of incentives to developers. In the case of Georgia the legislation is to provide property tax abatement on a IO-year schedule for eligible areas within the central business district and nearby locations. It is expected that jobs and investment will result in improvement to the physical fabric and in the hiring of disadvantaged workers. A recent project in the central area is the New Underground (see Figure 5). The New Underground is a 12-acre centre which covers about six city blocks. With approximately 205 000 square feet of retail space available about 140 businesses are expected to be part of the complex. Different types of businesses operate in the complex which consists of a threetiered array of places to eat, music halls and specialist shops. Since its opening on 15 June 1989 the larger, redesigned New Underground has attracted more than five million visitors. The smaller-scale old version was a refurbished viaduct of major downtown streets formed about 75 years ago. The bilevel street network was necessary to solve the problem of dust, soot and noise caused by railroad grade crossings. Over time merchants and business firms moved their establishments up to the new street level, using the lower level for storage and delivery. In the late 1960s the lower level was refurbished as an underground entertainment centre. However, in 1982 the enterprise folded for several reasons, which included severe economic recession, white flight to the suburbs, the perception of increased crime in the downtown area and the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) construction which struck the final blow at the venture. According to planners and policy makers in Atlanta the New Underground is expected to transform downtown Atlanta from a place where the sidewalks are empty after dark to a bustling locale for locals and visitors; to create a downtown that is the healthy centre of a prosperous metropolitan area; to encourage commercial and residential
CITIES August 1990
CITY PROFILE
Figure 4. Downtown Atlanta: central area enterprise zone.
Figure 5. The New Underground, Atlanta: entrance.
CITIES August
1990
CITY PROHLE development in the city; and generate many kinds of jobs and millions of dollars in taxes. The recent large number of visitors notwithstanding it is too early to evaluate its success. C5nclusions
Planning in the city of Atlanta is geared toward economic development, especially to attracting new economic activity, as well as to retaining existing businesses; to neighbourhood revitalization and transport improvement and construction. Many planning programmes addressing these three broad issues have been designed and implemented, especially within the last 30 years. These include the creation of a favourable business and legal climate, which has attracted a mix of energetic economic activity, including convention business; the construction and widening of expressways; the establishment of an efficient and dependable rapid transit system by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA); the building of the Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport, which has been largely responsible for the recent rapid growth of the city; and neighbourhood revitalization through urban renewal, urban industrial, commercial and housing enterprise zones, and a series of efforts which have created housing opportunities, especially for low and middle income citizens. However much remains to be accomplished, especially on the one hand in financing and on the other in managing and controlling the present rapid growth and sprawl created by the city’s dynamic economic growth and rapid urbanization and development. Although Atlanta is a fast growing city, most of the recent growth has been in the suburbs and surrounding counties and not all segments of the city population enjoy the benefits of rapid growth and development. The central area within and near the central business district (CBD) in the southern half is highly dilapidated. This area has experienced a racial transformation: the black population in the central city increased from 51% of the total population in 1970 to 67%
192
in 1980. The central city population has been declining since the 1970s especially in the categories of the well educated, the white. the affluent and the young. To avert decline the major task for the city in the coming decades should be to lure these people and their businesses and industries back to the central city. Urban design projects and amenities which will attract greater volumes of pedestrian traffic and increase the market for retailing should be promoted and encouraged. If the New Underground enterprise and other projects achieve their goals the image of the central area as dilapidated and infested should change. The city must also develop adequate crime prevention and infrastructural improvement plans for the enterprise zone. These measures should make the zone more attractive to developers and entrepreneurs. The inevitable consequence of a do nothing policy will be that Atlanta will eventually cease to be one of the country’s most thriving cities.
Judging from the economic climate of the city, its rapid growth and urbanization will continue in the future and this will lead to a greater demand for city services and put an increasing strain on the existing social and industrial infrastructure. The city must devise and articulate effective policies to improve and expand the existing ageing infrastructure and services such as roads, bridges, viaducts, sewers, solid waste and hazardous waste disposal systems. Although the provision of adequate resources for public maintenance is important, what is critically needed is adequate enforcement of existing laws to ensure proper maintenance. Policy makers must elucidate effective policies for providing adequate water supply, management and protection and for dealing with pollution of all kinds, especially air pollution, which has been above the average for other large metropolitan areas. Other areas of importance are crime prevention; the provision of affordable housing and emergency shelter, especially for the low income
CITIES August
1990
CITY PROFILE
‘See ‘Nine points for the nineties’, remarks by Commissioner George Berry, Georgia Department of Industry and Trade to the Atlanta Rotary Club, Monday 16 May 1988. *Twice in 1988 the city faced litigation over subdivision decisions and these conflicts may, at least in part, be traced to the necessity of trying to regulate 1980s’ development with an ordinance which was not written to cope with such proposals: op tit, Ref 4, p 57.
CITIES August
1990
households and the homeless; revitalization of older neighbourhoods; provision of public transport extending beyond the present authorized MARTA system to include the whole metropolitan area; and the building of a new air terminal or second airport to ease flight congestion at the Hartsfield International Airport. Road construction in the city is likely to continue, new especially to accommodate growth on the northern and southern sides. Outer loops are needed as it is at present difficult to go from east to west or west to east.’ If Atlanta is to continue to be a major regional and national growth centre the planners must also learn how to grapple with the recently changing business scene ie the relative decline of manufacturing and rapid expansion of the service sector and the industrial-office mix in a formally exclusive industrial zoned area. The fast pace of economic growth and change in Atlanta is quickly rendering traditional commercial, industrial and retail land-use designations obsolete. Today manufacturing, assembly, inventory, sales and other business functions all take place in the same building or area. In order to cope with and regulate growth and development beyond the 1980s planners must review the nature and scope of the existing ordinances and pass a new subdivision ordinance since the existing one has become ineffective.s Flexible rules are needed on industrial zoning; business parks could accommodate all business rather than having separate industrial parks and
office parks. Comprehensive land-use planning on a regional basis is urgently needed to guide area-wide growth and development and to maintain the same quality of life throughout the Atlanta region. Although the city will continue to be the economic hub of its region the suburbs and the outlying areas will continue to attract new businesses because of the availability of vast areas of land and a skilled labour force. Out migration of businesses and people from the central city to the suburbs is likely to continue unless planners devise aggressive and workable programmes to retain and attract businesses and employment. The measures should include, among others, irresistible incentives to developers and investors, as well as skill development for the existing labour force, especially the poor and less educated. The inner city problems of the poor will continue and may get worse unless a coordinated and comprehensive plan is devised to overcome them. The plan should focus on coordinated and committed job training and job creation strategies replacing the existing disjointed and piecemeal attempts of different planning jurisdictions. Finance for these city programmes will continue to be a major problem for the policy makers. Unless the cuts in federal grants for urban programmes are revised the city should work for improvement through inventive and proactive local approaches which centre on a working partnership between the public and the private sector.
193
Atlanta Ebenezer Aka I
I
Atlanta mushroomed from a 79thcentury railroads terminus to a ZCVhcentury regional, commercial and adminisfrative giant of the south-easf of the USA because of its excellent quality of life, livability factors, and favourable business and legal climates. City planning always revolves around economic development, neighbourhood revitalizafion and transport improvemenf and construction. Since 1986 the central area has been the focus of development through an enterprise zone programme. If Atlanta is to maintain its regional economic and administrative prominence it must continue to diversify its economy while maintaining infrastrucUral balance. The author is with the Urban Program, Morehouse College, Georgia, USA.
Studies Atlanta,
‘T.J. Crimmins, ‘The Atlanta palimpsest: stripping away the layers of the past’, The Atlanta HisToricalJournal, Vol26, Nos 2-3, 1982, p 15. “Legal climate’ refers to the legal environment in which businesses operate. It covers legislative acts, court interpretations, workmen’s compensation, environmental requirements, local taxes, local ordinances etc. A survey carried out in 1972 indicated that 70% of the manufacturers who responded to questionnaires felt that the legal climate in Atlanta was more favourable than in Detroit or Chicago. See L. Mandell, ‘Quality of life factors in business location decisions’, Atlanta Economic Review, January-February 1977, pp 4-7. 3Personal interview, on the City of Atlanta’s administration, with Aaron Turpeau, Commissioner, Department of Administrative Services, 21 December 1988. The Commissioner indicated that before 1973 the city was run by the weak mayor-strong council (alderman) system. In 1973 the city voted to change the charter, and in 1974 the strong mayor system took effect.
The city of Atlanta was established in 1837 as a railroad terminus on land which belonged to the Creek and Cherokee Indians. Subsequently, in 1838, the state of Georgia officially took possession of the land as public property. The city is located at the foot of the Appalachian mountain chain and is on a Piedmont plateau which lies between a 750-foot river elevation and a 1 050-foot ridge which extends from the north-east to the south-east of the country. The early settlers in Atlanta were farmers and craftsmen from North Georgia, Virginia and North and South Carolina. Although Atlanta is a relatively new city in comparison with New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Providence and New Orleans, among others, it was not preplanned; it is the unplanned byproduct of a struggle for a common hinterland trade between the merchants of the coastal cities of Savannah, Georgia and Charleston, South Carolina.’ The idea was to establish a railhead in the northern part of the state which would connect the state’s Atlantic ports with the nation’s vast, resource-rich hinterland to the west. Atlanta actually became a leading commercial centre of the region when its railroad system was completed in the 1850s and connected it to other places of major commercial interest such as Montgomery, Alabama; Pensacola, Florida; Knoxville, Tennessee; Richmond, Virginia and other major urban centres in the north-east of the country. Atlanta is today a growth centre and a major financial, communication and transport link with other regions in the country. Atlanta’s success as one of the
nation’s unique and fastest growing cities is attributed to its favourable business and legal climates,’ quality of life, livability, and efficient executive government, which was reorganized, coordinated and reduced from 26 to 9 departments in the mid-1970s.’ In 1974 the city charter combined the former planning and budgeting departments into a single department. The merger was necessary because the city’s comprehensive development plan, which emphasizes both current and 5- to 15-year capital improvement programmes, is a guide to the preparation and execution of the budget. Atlanta’s successes notwithstanding it is currently grappling with many social problems which include poverty, inadequate housing, homelessness, a high crime and drug abuse rate, illiteracy or lack of education in the poor segment of the labour force, and air and noise pollution. Most of the poor in Atlanta are black, especially within the central business district (CBD), the southwest, north-west, east (including part of Dekalb County) and south areas. These areas constitute a major part of the central area which is to a large extent characterized by poor, dilapidated, slum housing units needing renovation, rehabilitation or outright replacement (see Figure 1). Population and employmenr The city’s population is spread out over 131 square miles with a density of about five persons per square acre. It is one of the least densely populated cities in the country. The city’s population (430 000) in 1985 represented 7% of the state of Georgia’s population of about 6 million; the
CITIES August
1990
CITY PROFILE
Figure 1. Atlanta: typical run down houses in the central area. population of the Atlanta metropolitan area (about 2.5 million) represented over 41% (see Figure 2). Between 1950 and 1987 the city’s population almost tripled (from 167 843 to 430 SOO), with an all time high in 1970 (496 973; see Table 1). The table indicates a population decline in the early 1980s which was the result of the economic recession of 1981-82 and the accompanying loss of jobs (in absolute terms) and increasing suburbanization of work and the affluent
population. However. since 1983 economic recovery has steadily boosted the city’s population by in migration. Most of the recent industrial commercial and residential developments are in the suburbs. Although the city still remains the activity hub of its region, the region’s rate of growth in recent years has been faster. For example, between 1980 and 1987 the population of the Atlanta region increased from 1.8 million to 2.2 million, a 23% increase, while the city’s population
r
Paulding
Figure 2. Atlanta metropolitan 1989: context map. Source: City of Atlanta, Comprehensive Development Plan, 7989, p 6.
CITIES
August
1990
187
CITY PROFILE Table 1. Atlanta: population by racial groups, 1950-87. Category White ‘Black and other; b not available. Sources: ‘Number of Inhabitants, Georgia’, US Census of Population. 1980; Bureau of Census, Atlanta. Georgia: Atlanta Regional Commission and Atlanta Bureau of Planning, 1988; City of Atlanta. Comprehensive Development P/an, 1982 and 1989.
%ity of Atlanta. Comprehensive Development f/an, 7989, p 14. 5Atlanta Regional Commission, Bureau of Planning, 1988. 6A.W. Niemi Jr, ‘The Georgia economy’, Georgia Trend, August 1988, p 18.
Black All others Total
167 843 (100.0%)
1970
300 635 (61.7%) 186 464 (38.3%) 356 (0.1%) 487 455 (100.0%)
240 503 (48.4%) 255 051 (51.3%) 1 922 (0.4%) 496 973 (100.0%)
1980 137 870 (32.4%) 282 912 (66.6%) 4 022 (I .o%j 425 022 (100 0%)
1987 132 600 (30.8%) 297 900 = (?:%’ 430 500 (100.0%)
urban areas. The rapid increase in the percentage of blacks between 1960 and 1970 was mainly due to the passage of the civil rights law in the early 1960s: this assured blacks all over the country a greater measure of socioeconomic and political freedom. The city of Atlanta was the seat of the civil rights movement under the leadership of the late Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr Martin Luther King. The increased migration of blacks to Atlanta was predicated on social. political. educational, religious and economic foundations. Blacks became the majority for the first time in 1970 when they became 51.3% of the city’s total. The reason why Atlanta is a major growth centre lies in its provision and distribution of goods and services to its region and hinterland. The city’s economic strength derives from the diversity of its economy -commercial, retail. industrial and construction (see Table 2) - and a number of resourceful individuals. In recent years the economic disparity between the state of Georgia and other states in the nation has narrowed because of the enormous economic activity of the Atlanta region.h Atlanta and Georgia survived the economic downturn of the early 1980s because of the enormous increase in less volatile service employment in those years, an in-
and projections
Sector
1985
1989
1993
2003
232 803 (61.9%) 48 030 (12.8%) El0 770 (21.5%) 14 732 (3.9%) 376 415 (100.0%)
269 747 (63.0%) 52 585 (12.3%) 90 320 (21.1%) 15248 (3.6%) 427 900 (100.0%)
295 629 (63 1%) 57 502 (12.3%) 96 903 (20.7%) 18 510 (4.0%) 468 544 (100.0%)
352 731 (64.8%) 64 304 (11.8%) 105 671 (19.4%) 21 925 (4.0%) 544 631 (100.0%)
Industrial Construction
188
(3Y%’
1960
Table 2. Atlanta: employment
Retail
CornmIssion,
108 580 (64.7%) 59 263
increased from 425 022 to 430 500, an increase of only 1.3%.4 The city’s population is expected to increase steadily into the next century with an estimated population of 443 199 in 1989 and a projected population of 449 617 in 1993 and 477 911 in the year 2000.’ The n-mber of people 65 years and older has been increasing since 1970 because of a lower birth rate and longer life expectancy within the city. In 1970 the elderly were about 9% of the city’s population; in 1980 they formed about 11% and were over 12% in 1987. Nearly three-quarters (74.3%) of Atlanta suburbanites are white and almost two-thirds (66.6%) of the city’s residents are black. The black population of the city has been increasing since the American Civil War (1860-65). In 1860 blacks (1 910) formed 20% of the city’s population (9 554); fifty years later the black population (51 900) had increased to 33.5% of the city total (154 X00). Up to 1950 neither city nor black popuiations increased much (see Table 1). Between 1950 and 1987 the black population doubled from 35.3% to 69.2% while the proportion of whites declined by more than one-half from 64.7% to 30.8%. During the late 1960s the city lost a large number of young people, particularly highly educated whites, to the surrounding suh-
Commercial
Sources: City of Atlanta Comprehensive Development Plan. 7989, p 22: Atlanta Regional
1950
Total
(services)
1985-2003
and Atlanta Bureau of Plannmg.
CITIES August 1990
CITY PROFILE
Figure 3. Atlanta: central area skyline. crease which occurred in spite of the decline in manufacturing employment. In 1988 about 1.6 million of Georgia’s 2.1 million service jobs were in the state’s seven metropolitan areas - Atlanta, Albany, Athens, Augusta, Columbus, Macon and Savannah. The Atlanta area alone accounts for 54% of the state’s service employment and service jobs in the area account for 81% of total employment. In 1985 total employment within Atlanta was nearly 34% of regional employment. A recent estimate indicates that by the year 2003 employment in the city will account for 27% of all employment in the region. The slight decline is not surprising since the current rate of growth and employment in the region is higher than in the city. Between 1975 and 1985 there was a steady increase in total employment in the city: total employment in 1975, 1978, and 1985 was 323 979, 337 246 and 376 415 respectively. Between 1975 and 1985 more than 50 000 jobs were added. a 16.2% increase. According to the city’s recent comprehensive development plan over 21 000 jobs were added in the city between 1980 and 1985, 18 200 of which were in the service sector. It is estimated that between 1985 and 1990 the city’s total employment will increase by over 14%. Of course, 72% of this increase will be in service employment. This increase is projected to continue to the year 2003 (see Table 2). The rosy economic picture of the city and region outlined above undoubtedly masks a great disparity in the socioeconomic conditions experi-
CITIES August
1990
enced by different classes in the city. For example, the unemployment rate in the city increased from 7.5% to 8.1% between 1980 and 1985. Today many Atlantans are not employed, or not employable, and/or lack the skills necessary to take advantage of the growing employment opportunities. Unemployment within the city is often twice that of the suburbs. In 1982 about 18 600 persons in the city were unemployed. In the same year unemployment among teenagers exceeded 20% ; among skilled and unskilled blue collar workers it was about 15%; among black males aged 20 to 24 years it was about 25%. In 1980 over 20% of the city’s households were living beneath the poverty level, with the highest incidence occurring in the black majority group concentrated in the central core and southern portion of the city. This is the central area, which is an expanded downtown. It includes the traditional central business district, Midtown to the north, the historic West End community and many peripheral residential and commercial districts (see Figure 3). Efforts in recent years have been directed at making this area more livable and attractive. The central area The central area is the heart of the Atlanta metropolitan area and the centre of government and the business activities of the area (see Figure 3). Population and employment in the area have been declining since the late 1970s because of the suburbanization of the rich, especially the whites, and the decentralization of retail business,
189
CITY finance and insurance industries. The central area’s share of the total metropolitan office space dropped from 32% in 1978 to 26% in 1982. Within these five years the central area averaged only 968 000 square feet while the metropolitan area averaged 3.24 million square feet. The service sector accounts for 75% of central area employment. The area’s population in 1987 was 99 138, with total employment 204 316 in 1985. There is a higher proportion of elderly and low income individuals in this area than in the city as a whole. One-fourth of the population are between 20 and 34 years old. In 1980 57.1% of the population was classified as low income. The unemployment rate is twice that of the metropolitan area: today 47% of the population in this area are in employment as against 59% city-wide and 68% in the metropolitan area. Only 24% of those who work in the area live there. Planning and development Public safety, maintenance and the image of the central area have deteriorated substantially in recent years to the extent that efforts are now focused on its revitalization - specifically, how to keep the area alive for 24 hours a day. Recent efforts have attempted to attract new middle and upper income families. Such an influx would produce a mix of incomes, interests and lifestyles in the area. Other redevelopment efforts in the area include wider and better designed sidewalks and spaces, the preservation of historic buildings to provide character and historic context for the streets, and the construction of pedestrian malls. In 1987, as part of the redevelopment effort, the central area was designated a housing, commercial and These industrial enterprise zone. zones are within the downtown development area boundary (see Figure 4), which has above average unemployment and poverty rates and a measure of physical decline. They were in accordance with the 1986 state of Georgia’s general assembly enterprise zone legislation. Urban enterprise zones are a type of bootstrap
190
operation which spurs development through a series of incentives to developers. In the case of Georgia the legislation is to provide property tax abatement on a IO-year schedule for eligible areas within the central business district and nearby locations. It is expected that jobs and investment will result in improvement to the physical fabric and in the hiring of disadvantaged workers. A recent project in the central area is the New Underground (see Figure 5). The New Underground is a 12-acre centre which covers about six city blocks. With approximately 205 000 square feet of retail space available about 140 businesses are expected to be part of the complex. Different types of businesses operate in the complex which consists of a threetiered array of places to eat, music halls and specialist shops. Since its opening on 15 June 1989 the larger, redesigned New Underground has attracted more than five million visitors. The smaller-scale old version was a refurbished viaduct of major downtown streets formed about 75 years ago. The bilevel street network was necessary to solve the problem of dust, soot and noise caused by railroad grade crossings. Over time merchants and business firms moved their establishments up to the new street level, using the lower level for storage and delivery. In the late 1960s the lower level was refurbished as an underground entertainment centre. However, in 1982 the enterprise folded for several reasons, which included severe economic recession, white flight to the suburbs, the perception of increased crime in the downtown area and the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) construction which struck the final blow at the venture. According to planners and policy makers in Atlanta the New Underground is expected to transform downtown Atlanta from a place where the sidewalks are empty after dark to a bustling locale for locals and visitors; to create a downtown that is the healthy centre of a prosperous metropolitan area; to encourage commercial and residential
CITIES August 1990
CITY PROFILE
Figure 4. Downtown Atlanta: central area enterprise zone.
Figure 5. The New Underground, Atlanta: entrance.
CITIES August
1990
CITY PROHLE development in the city; and generate many kinds of jobs and millions of dollars in taxes. The recent large number of visitors notwithstanding it is too early to evaluate its success. C5nclusions
Planning in the city of Atlanta is geared toward economic development, especially to attracting new economic activity, as well as to retaining existing businesses; to neighbourhood revitalization and transport improvement and construction. Many planning programmes addressing these three broad issues have been designed and implemented, especially within the last 30 years. These include the creation of a favourable business and legal climate, which has attracted a mix of energetic economic activity, including convention business; the construction and widening of expressways; the establishment of an efficient and dependable rapid transit system by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA); the building of the Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport, which has been largely responsible for the recent rapid growth of the city; and neighbourhood revitalization through urban renewal, urban industrial, commercial and housing enterprise zones, and a series of efforts which have created housing opportunities, especially for low and middle income citizens. However much remains to be accomplished, especially on the one hand in financing and on the other in managing and controlling the present rapid growth and sprawl created by the city’s dynamic economic growth and rapid urbanization and development. Although Atlanta is a fast growing city, most of the recent growth has been in the suburbs and surrounding counties and not all segments of the city population enjoy the benefits of rapid growth and development. The central area within and near the central business district (CBD) in the southern half is highly dilapidated. This area has experienced a racial transformation: the black population in the central city increased from 51% of the total population in 1970 to 67%
192
in 1980. The central city population has been declining since the 1970s especially in the categories of the well educated, the white. the affluent and the young. To avert decline the major task for the city in the coming decades should be to lure these people and their businesses and industries back to the central city. Urban design projects and amenities which will attract greater volumes of pedestrian traffic and increase the market for retailing should be promoted and encouraged. If the New Underground enterprise and other projects achieve their goals the image of the central area as dilapidated and infested should change. The city must also develop adequate crime prevention and infrastructural improvement plans for the enterprise zone. These measures should make the zone more attractive to developers and entrepreneurs. The inevitable consequence of a do nothing policy will be that Atlanta will eventually cease to be one of the country’s most thriving cities.
Judging from the economic climate of the city, its rapid growth and urbanization will continue in the future and this will lead to a greater demand for city services and put an increasing strain on the existing social and industrial infrastructure. The city must devise and articulate effective policies to improve and expand the existing ageing infrastructure and services such as roads, bridges, viaducts, sewers, solid waste and hazardous waste disposal systems. Although the provision of adequate resources for public maintenance is important, what is critically needed is adequate enforcement of existing laws to ensure proper maintenance. Policy makers must elucidate effective policies for providing adequate water supply, management and protection and for dealing with pollution of all kinds, especially air pollution, which has been above the average for other large metropolitan areas. Other areas of importance are crime prevention; the provision of affordable housing and emergency shelter, especially for the low income
CITIES August
1990
CITY PROFILE
‘See ‘Nine points for the nineties’, remarks by Commissioner George Berry, Georgia Department of Industry and Trade to the Atlanta Rotary Club, Monday 16 May 1988. *Twice in 1988 the city faced litigation over subdivision decisions and these conflicts may, at least in part, be traced to the necessity of trying to regulate 1980s’ development with an ordinance which was not written to cope with such proposals: op tit, Ref 4, p 57.
CITIES August
1990
households and the homeless; revitalization of older neighbourhoods; provision of public transport extending beyond the present authorized MARTA system to include the whole metropolitan area; and the building of a new air terminal or second airport to ease flight congestion at the Hartsfield International Airport. Road construction in the city is likely to continue, new especially to accommodate growth on the northern and southern sides. Outer loops are needed as it is at present difficult to go from east to west or west to east.’ If Atlanta is to continue to be a major regional and national growth centre the planners must also learn how to grapple with the recently changing business scene ie the relative decline of manufacturing and rapid expansion of the service sector and the industrial-office mix in a formally exclusive industrial zoned area. The fast pace of economic growth and change in Atlanta is quickly rendering traditional commercial, industrial and retail land-use designations obsolete. Today manufacturing, assembly, inventory, sales and other business functions all take place in the same building or area. In order to cope with and regulate growth and development beyond the 1980s planners must review the nature and scope of the existing ordinances and pass a new subdivision ordinance since the existing one has become ineffective.s Flexible rules are needed on industrial zoning; business parks could accommodate all business rather than having separate industrial parks and
office parks. Comprehensive land-use planning on a regional basis is urgently needed to guide area-wide growth and development and to maintain the same quality of life throughout the Atlanta region. Although the city will continue to be the economic hub of its region the suburbs and the outlying areas will continue to attract new businesses because of the availability of vast areas of land and a skilled labour force. Out migration of businesses and people from the central city to the suburbs is likely to continue unless planners devise aggressive and workable programmes to retain and attract businesses and employment. The measures should include, among others, irresistible incentives to developers and investors, as well as skill development for the existing labour force, especially the poor and less educated. The inner city problems of the poor will continue and may get worse unless a coordinated and comprehensive plan is devised to overcome them. The plan should focus on coordinated and committed job training and job creation strategies replacing the existing disjointed and piecemeal attempts of different planning jurisdictions. Finance for these city programmes will continue to be a major problem for the policy makers. Unless the cuts in federal grants for urban programmes are revised the city should work for improvement through inventive and proactive local approaches which centre on a working partnership between the public and the private sector.
193