ATL Urbanist

Marietta Street, Atlanta, before cars took over.

Here's a note of warning from an article titled "The Automobile Ordinance," from the Atlanta Constitution, June 23, 1904.

*******

The general council of Atlanta is to be congratulated on adopting an ordinance regulating the operation of automobiles on the streets of the city. The rapidly increasing local use of these machines, the number of more or less serious accidents of the last few months, and the fact that no municipal laws existed governing their operation, combine to make the passage of the ordinance very timely and advisable.

That portion of the ordinance which restricts speed of the "devil wagons" in and outside the fire limits is so framed as to be just, both to the automobilists and the public, generally. The speed of 8 miles an hour inside of the fire limits and 15 outside ought to satisfy the owners and chauffeurs, inasmuch as it should meet all of their demands, both of a business and pleasurable nature. It also places the maximum of speed at such a limit as will enable a swift stopping of the machine in the presence of danger or of an unforeseen emergency. The ordinance committee likewise displayed wisdom in decreeing that all operators of self-propelled machines shall be licensed. An automobile, however simple its construction, is very similar to a locomotive, and it is very certain that no railway would trust a novice with the operation of one of these complicated pieces of mechanism.

Similarly, the idea that an inexperienced person should be allowed to send one of these powerful machines flying through the streets, imperiling the lives of pedestrians and hampering other modes of traffic, is not to be entertained for a moment. The provisions of the ordinance in this respect are so lenient and sensible as to appeal to the most fanatical automobilist. They are easily complied with and they give the footgoing public a satisfactory guarantee of safety.

****

The messaging can be complex, but that's OK... Blaming drivers for the faults of the city is wrong; we're all stuck in the car-dependent results of bad planning. But blaming drivers *who oppose the urbanism that will reduce car dependency because they fear any inconvenience* is not wrong. We have to change, and accept imperfect transitions.

Darin Givens | June 30, 2026

I'd like to address the criticisms many in Atlanta are making about the name South Downtown as the district gains media attention following extensive renovations. I don't want to dismiss the concerns -- I felt weird about "West Midtown" when it appeared -- but I do want to put the name in perspective.

[Note: many of today's neighborhood names were established in the 1970s as part of the development of Atlanta's NPU system; very few of them date to the earliest years of the city.]

The term South Downtown slowly emerged about 20 years ago to describe an area south of Five Points MARTA Station, north of Garnett Station, and east of Castleberry Hill, which was largely filled with empty buildings and parking lots. Some properties were being eyed for potential renovation and the place needed a descriptor.

What was here before the parking lots?

Above: a 1919 map showing the part of South Downtown near what is today's Garnett MARTA Station. This was a bustling commercial district for decades. During the White Flight and urban disinvestment of the 1950s-60s, along with booming suburban sprawl, many businesses moved out.

If you zoom in with Zillow, you'll see the original property lines around Garnett MARTA Station in Atlanta, before the properties were destroyed to make way for parking lots:

In 1984, there was a plan to brand this area as Government Walk because most of the occupied space was government buildings. The idea was to spend nearly $100 million on renovations, on both streets and buildings.

It didn't happen, though some smaller scale investments took place in preparation for the 1996 Olympics, and a couple of commercial buildings were converted to residential.

Yes, 'South Downtown' is jarring to many who are hearing it for the first time. And concerns about cultural erasure are always valid. But the area that the city officially defines as Downtown is enormous and has clearly distinct subdistricts in it. Naming them is good for wayfinding and for our sense of attachment to places.

On a personal note, I first encountered the area in the late 80s and early 90s as a musician/artist performing in rugged art spaces. It was shocking to see the disinvestment. Later, I was on the board of Eyedrum when it was in South Downtown in a spot that struggled to draw people in.

Bottom line: today's investments & renovations are a joy for me to see, especially given my experience with this place over the decades, and I hope the name South Downtown becomes a beacon for renewal.

The good news:

After this new residential project is built at Centennial Yards in Downtown Atlanta (plans have been filed with the City), these blocks will be filled with attractive architecture and active spaces. It'll be nicer to walk around in the heart of the city, and that's a win for everyone.

Also, a rep from Centennial Yards tells me there will be an affordable component, with details to come.

This is coming to the vacant lot in between Mitchell St, MLK Dr, and the Richard Russell federal building.

The less good news:

The parking ratios are too high for a Downtown project, IMO, and bike parking is too low.

The parking breakdown is...

RETAIL – 61,990 SF

155 SPACES (2.5 SPACES / 1,000 SF)

RESIDENTIAL - 279 UNITS

446 SPACES

1 BEDROOM (140 UNITS)

154 SPACES (1.1 SPACES / UNIT)

2 OR MORE BEDROOMS (139 UNITS)

292 SPACES (2.1 SPACES / UNIT)

BICYCLE PARKING 66* SPACES

Could CIM be convinced to share some of that parking capacity with developments outside the Gulch and reduce the number of spaces dedicated to this one build?

Could Atlanta be convinced to lower the maximum-allowed number of parking spaces for Downtown developments, and require more bike parking? (Note: Councilmember Jason Dozier did get a win in 2022 with lowering maximums a bit; IMO they could be even lower in Downtown.)

Lots to ponder. Lots of work to be done. For now, enjoy the renderings and imagine that nicer streetscape of the future.

--

CORRECTION

A previous edit of this post said that there would be no affordable housing in this project, and in a roundabout way I blamed it on the GA ban on rent control. I removed that. I was wrong about the lack of rent control being at fault, per Dan Immergluck.

And according to Centennial Yards...

"There will be affordable housing we are still planning the details for the property."

As the Atlanta Business Chronicle reports...

-----

Atlanta City Council passed an ordinance on June 15 to explicitly require temporary pedestrian routes for construction and excavation projects. The routes could be erected using the existing sidewalk and adjacent lanes, and they would have to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines.

Councilmember Kelsea Bond introduced the ordinance after hearing from Old Fourth Ward resident Darin Givens about the lack of pedestrian access along Pine Street. Atlanta Housing is working with a development team to build senior apartments in the area as part of the Civic Center redevelopment.

"My argument was that all pedestrians deserve this level of safety, regardless of whether or not it's a busy sidewalk," said Givens, the co-founder of urbanism advocacy group ThreadATL. "In fact, some of the less busy sidewalks are on the most dangerous streets where cars drive fast and where accommodations for pedestrians are needed the most."

-----

NOTE: As Councilmember Kelsea Bond notes, and as a City lawyer explained to me, there was technically already a requirement for these pedestrian paths. But the language was weak enough that DOT staff were able to argue that they could ignore the requirement if they felt pedestrian traffic was low. Thus the need for a new ordinance with stronger language.

Darin Givens | June 3, 2026

A team from Georgia Tech has created a Complete Streets tracker where an interactive Atlanta map is used to explore how a block of street scores for completeness. Kudos to all involved. I'll give this project a big 'A' for the concept and for the excellent interactive presentation! As stated in their About section: "This project uses publicly available imagery and AI to automatically identify key street features such as sidewalks, bike lanes, and street parking. These features are translated into a compsite completeness score by assigning weights to each element."

But I find some of the resulting scores to be problematic and I wonder if some tweaks are needed to the way we think about Complete Streets, a concept which defines a paradigm shift away from traditional car-centric roadways and towards streets that are more inclusive, multimodal public spaces.

The criteria for this project -- "How Complete are Your City’s Streets?" --weighs street design elements (like sidewalks) highly, and weighs active-use destinations (like stores) low. Check it out here:

https://gt-cura.github.io/complete_streets_web/

One problem I spotted is that the desolate section of Ralph McGill Boulevard in front of the empty Civic Center gets a higher score than the block of Luckie Street in front of a streetcar stop in Downtown.

This stretch of McGill is what I would call a "car sewer" due to the number of car lanes and the lack of bike infrastructure or traffic-calming features.

Though certainly the sidewalks are decent on Ralph McGill, the block doesn't feel like part of that Complete Streets paradigm shift away from car-centric spaces.

Meanwhile, the lower-scoring block of Lukcie Street feels to me like a more welcoming for pedestrians.

This is the kind of place where I want to walk...where I feel welcome and valued. Also: there's a streetcar stop here! And a bakery! And lots of eyes on the street.

Personally, I would like to see active-use spaces like public libraries and public parks and stores included more highly in all Complete Streets criteria. If there's no place to walk to, a street seems incomplete to me.

Public transit routes in Atlanta in 1967 versus 2026. I've roughly lined up the same area in both maps. The reduction in lines over the decades is significant.

Stuff you think about when coming back from a trip to European cities with excellent transit investments.

I've said it before many times and I'll keep saying it: MARTA's biggest need is a larger stream of operations funds. Without more of that, MARTA can't truly expand service. All they can do is shift the existing level of service around, making cuts in some areas in order to make gains elsewhere.

Darin Givens, May 27, 2026

Someone sent me a good question: "can you please tell me wtf these are? I see them often in wooden parts of the city. This one is near the Perkerson Park baseball fields, but they’re also all over Cascade Nature Preserve."

These are elevated manholes for the sewage system that runs all underneath the city.

Some of these are elevated because they're near creeks that can flood; the Cascade Nature Preserve, for instance, is built around South Utoy Creek, a known flood zone.

Here's a map from FEMA showing the Utoy Creek flood area designation.

(In Perkerson Park they may be elevated for other reasons; this does not appear to be a flood zone.)

In cases where sewer infrastructure is near flood zones, an elevated manhole will be required by the City to help prevent flood water from overwhelming the sewer system and causing gross things to happen.

Speaking of gross things...in the 19th-century, City planners used natural waterways (like creeks) as open sewers, lining their beds with pipes that carried both raw sewage and stormwater!

Then in the mid-1900s, a new problem for creeks emerged: impervious surfaces began to exacerbate flooding.

Concrete and pavement replaced much of the natural ground, meaning heavy rain could no longer soak into the earth. Instead, massive amounts of stormwater rushed into sewer pipes, overwhelming the system and dumping millions of gallons of untreated sewage mixed with stormwater directly into neighborhood parks and streams.

Decades worth of studies show that Atlanta's best future is an urbanism that's more focused on walking, cycling, and riding transit.

By Darin Givens, 5/24/2026

Posts about Atlanta's traffic are often accompanied by images of cars backed up on the Downtown Connector. And while this is definitely a clear example of congestion, my fear is that people will look at this traffic and assume we can "fix" it by improving car flow, which is a strategy that's failed over and over.

Here's one recent post I found, from Everything Georgia:

Let's face it: politically & financially, there is zero chance the Downtown Connector will be expanded or double-decked. We've tried expanding it more and more over the last several decades and it hasn't worked. See this 1967 photo of the same view:

Decades worth of transportation research has concluded that simply expanding highway capacity is an inefficient way to address congestion. Adding new travel lanes leads to induced demand, where new traffic fills the added capacity, causing congestion to eventually return to pre-expansion levels.

In short, we can't solve this congestion by finding new ways to accommodate cars. We have to accommodate the people inside them in new ways.

The future of Atlanta's mobility has to be defined by a major reduction in our dependency on cars. If everyone moving to this city drives cars at the same rate as the existing population, that's a disaster.

We can reduce our car dependency through a combination of things, such as increasing the percentage of trips taken by transit, cycling, and walking; ensuring good access to transit/bike/ped infrastructure; and expanding our supply of pedestrian-oriented places -- while guaranteeing that they're affordable to people of all incomes.

As other urbanism writers have noted, the best transportation plan for a city is a great land-use plan. Atlanta needs to embrace that statement and truly understand what it means: reversing the urban planning trends that have shaped our entire urbanism into one that demands car trips.

In doing so, we'll have to confront the vast amounts of low-density sprawl in our region. Studies have found that people living in sprawling, disconnected, single-use suburbs drive significantly more miles daily compared to those in compact, mixed-use neighborhoods with good street connectivity, and that metropolitan Atlanta has particularly suffered from the effects of its sprawl.

Likewise, a recent Brookings report reported that while Metro Atlantans overall drive thousands of miles above the national average, residents in highly walkable, dense nodes (like those along the Atlanta Beltline) have significantly reduced their reliance on cars. This is the "best transportation plan is a good land use plan" effect in action.

Again, this walkable density needs to include strong affordability components so that the benefits are available to all income groups. Pedestrian oriented places should not only be affordable to the wealthy.