University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The interplay between green space and transit: a case study of revitalization within Atlanta’s Adair Park and its potential to improve future policy outcomes

(USC Thesis Other)

The interplay between green space and transit: a case study of revitalization within Atlanta’s Adair Park and its potential to improve future policy outcomes

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN GREEN SPACE AND TRANSIT:
A CASE STUDY OF REVITALIZATION WITHIN ATLANTA’S ADAIR PARK
AND ITS POTENTIAL TO IMPROVE FUTURE POLICY OUTCOMES
by
Brian Anthony Dollar

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

May 2020

Copyright (2020) Brian Anthony Dollar
ii
Epigraph

“You can neither lie to a neighbourhood park, nor reason with it. 'Artist's conceptions'
and persuasive renderings can put pictures of life into proposed neighbourhood parks or park
malls, and verbal rationalizations can conjure up users who ought to appreciate them, but in real
life only diverse surroundings have the practical power of inducing a natural, continuing flow of
life and use.”

Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities

iii
Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge my family and fellow classmates for motivating and
encouraging me to continue pushing towards completion of my doctoral studies and reminding
me that pursuit and completion of USC’s Doctor of Policy, Planning and Development is the first
of many “new” contributions and innovations to practice that will be uncovered in this next
phase of my professional career.
The pursuit of doctoral degree has indeed been a long and arduous journey which would
never have been a consideration without the early-life influences of my father, retired Air Force
Colonel Kenneth L. Dollar and our close long-time friend, father-figure, and fraternity brother,
Dr. William H. Dungey (January 14, 1939 – September 11, 2017). I wish he could have had the
chance, together with family in May 2020, to see me complete this major milestone and for me to
let him know how much his love and support have meant to me over the years.
I also would like to convey appreciation to my dissertation committee members and
chairperson for their patience, encouragement, and time. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the
support of my wife Aleksandra Kazmierczak, best-man Gerard Hollins, son Brian Dollar, Jr.,
daughter Elle Dollar, nephew Jaylen Dollar, my parents, and Program Director Dr. Debbie Natoli
who probably has been the most instrumental and supportive of me, the DPPD, and other
students throughout the past 7 ½ years. Thank you to everyone from the bottom of my heart!

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Epigraph .......................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables................................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ viii
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 20
Chapter 3: Case Study Overview ................................................................................................. 26
Research Problem ................................................................................................ 26
Research Questions .............................................................................................. 27
Theoretical Base of Study .................................................................................... 28
Research Methodology ........................................................................................ 28
Research Target Groups ...................................................................................... 30
Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 32
Survey Questions ................................................................................................. 43
Chapter 4: Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................ 59
Limitations ........................................................................................................... 61
Opportunities for Additional Research ................................................................ 63
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 64
Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 72
Appendix A – IRB Authorization ........................................................................ 72
Appendix B – IRB Application ........................................................................... 74
Appendix C – Interview Protocol: Survey Questionnaire:
Urban Revitalization, Green Space, & Transit .................................................... 86
Appendix D – Interview Protocol: Participant Interview Questions ................... 91
Appendix E – Research Participant Summary..................................................... 92
Appendix F – Research Participants Contact Information .................................. 94
Appendix G – Interview Transcript Summaries .................................................. 95
Appendix H – All Survey Responses Summary ................................................ 104
Appendix I – Categorization of Survey Questions ............................................ 107
Appendix J – Graphs of Responses to Survey Questions .................................. 108
Appendix K – Policy Recommendation to Atlanta Mayor
& City Councilwoman ....................................................................................... 121

v
List of Tables
1.0 Research Participants Composition ...................................................................................30
1.1 Research Participants Gender ............................................................................................30
1.2 Overall Research Participation ..........................................................................................30
2.0 Questionnaire Survey Experts Response Summary ..........................................................45
2.1 Questionnaire Survey Experts Revitalization Question (18) .............................................47
2.2 Questionnaire Survey Experts Revitalization Question (23) .............................................47
2.3 Questionnaire Survey Experts General Feelings Question (25) ........................................48
3.1 Questionnaire Survey Residents Response Summary .......................................................49
3.2 Questionnaire Survey Residents Revitalization Question (18) ..........................................51
3.3 Questionnaire Survey Residents Revitalization Question (23) ..........................................51
4.0 Questionnaire Survey Other Users Response Summary ....................................................52
4.1 Questionnaire Survey Other Users BeltLine Question (13) ..............................................54
4.2 Questionnaire Survey Other Users Gentrification Question (17) ......................................54
4.3 Questionnaire Survey Other Users General Feelings Question (18) .................................54
4.4 Questionnaire Survey Other Users Revitalization Question (23) ......................................55
4.5 Questionnaire Survey Other Users General Feelings Question (25) .................................55
5.0 Questionnaire Survey All Responses Summary ..............................................................104
5.1 Graphical Summary Response to Revitalization Question(1) .........................................108
5.2 Graphical Summary Response to Revitalization Question(2) .........................................108
5.3 Graphical Summary Response to Revitalization Question(3) .........................................108
5.4 Graphical Summary Response to Revitalization Question (6) ........................................108
5.5 Graphical Summary Response to Revitalization Question (16) ......................................109
5.6 Graphical Summary Response to Revitalization Question (18) ......................................109
vi
5.7 Graphical Summary Response to Revitalization Question (21) ......................................109
5.8 Graphical Summary Response to Revitalization Question(23) .......................................109
5.9 Graphical Summary Response to BeltLine Question (5) .................................................110
5.9.1 Graphical Summary Response to BeltLine Question (7) .................................................110
5.9.2 Graphical Summary Response to BeltLine Question (9) .................................................110
5.9.3 Graphical Summary Response to BeltLine Question (10) ...............................................110
5.9.4 Graphical Summary Response to BeltLine Question (12) ...............................................111
5.9.5 Graphical Summary Response to BeltLine Question (13) ...............................................111
5.9.6 Graphical Summary Response to BeltLine Question (14) ...............................................111
5.9.7 Graphical Summary Response to BeltLine Question (22) ...............................................111
5.9.8 Graphical Summary Response to Gentrification Question (11) ......................................112
5.9.9 Graphical Summary Response to Gentrification Question (15) ......................................112
5.10 Graphical Summary Response to Gentrification Question (17) ......................................112
5.11 Graphical Summary Response to Gentrification Question (19) ......................................112
5.12 Graphical Summary Responses to General Feelings Question (4) ..................................113
5.13 Graphical Summary Responses to General Feelings Question (8) ..................................113
5.14 Graphical Summary Responses to General Feelings Question (20) ................................113
5.15 Graphical Summary Responses to General Feelings Question (24) ................................113
5.16 Graphical Summary Responses to General Feelings Question (25) ................................114
6.0 Thematic Content Analysis – Primary Themes from Interviews.....................................115
6.1 Thematic Content Analysis – Primary & Sub-Themes from Interviews .........................116
6.2 Thematic Content Analysis – Primary & Sub-Themes (Quotes from Interviews) ..........117

vii
List of Figures
1.0 BeltLine Concept Map with Connectivity Points ................................................................2
1.1 The New York Highline.......................................................................................................3
1.2 Current MARTA Transit Stations ........................................................................................6
1.3 Current and Expanded MARTA Transit Stations ................................................................7
1.4 Southwest Atlanta Communities..........................................................................................8
1.5 Residential Construction Trends in Adair Park ...................................................................9
1.6 Adair Park Map with Street Detail.....................................................................................12
1.7 Metro Atlanta Map .............................................................................................................13
1.8 Atlanta In-town Neighborhood Map ..................................................................................13
1.9 The Chicago 606 Trail Map ...............................................................................................16
2.0 The Chicago 606 Trail Photos (Before & After) ...............................................................17
2.1 The New Orleans Lafitte Trail ...........................................................................................19

viii
Abstract

Urban revitalization, green space, and transit connectivity projects are rapidly developing
and helping mold the way cities and communities meet their growth needs. Revitalization
schemes comingling green space and transit are key components of economic development
strategies in several cities including Chicago, New Orleans, and Atlanta. The continued
proliferation of such schemes has been met with equal amounts of praise and criticism for
generating both good and bad outcomes. Is it possible to be deeply engrained in an urban
revitalization strategy led by green space and transit in a perfect configuration where interests of
all stakeholders are addressed without creating clear “Losers” and “Winners?”
The research herein explores the relationship amongst urban revitalization, green space,
and transit while providing an understanding of the prevailing attitudes and concerns inside and
outside of urban communities such as Atlanta’s Adair Park Neighborhood. Hopefully these
insights and recommendations will provide a good context for community activists and elected
officials to develop new or revised policies that help make urban communities sustain, prosper,
and maintain while embracing change that comes with urbanization inside of economically
depressed communities.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Through a case-study format, I completed an assessment of the City of Atlanta’s key
policy initiative for economic revitalization, the Atlanta BeltLine (Figure 1.0), and its impact on
the Adair Park Neighborhood to better understand current policies from the perspectives of
multiple stakeholders. This heightened understanding provided a basis to improve policy
outcomes for neighborhoods near the BeltLine as well as other neighborhoods impacted by
revitalization projects tied to green space and transit in other cities, domestically and
internationally. The BeltLine is a multiphase, long-term project at the cornerstone of repurposing
land, advocating for alternate modes of transit, and serving as a catalyst for revitalization and
economic development.
Revitalization seeks to spur economic activity by encouraging new and re-purposed
projects that are well-planned with transportation and supportive infrastructure.1 Some of the
common questions and themes within urban revitalization include impacts on job creation,
housing pricing, education, business formation, and gentrification were studied during
exploration of the literature and where appropriate, highlighted within the literature review.
“Gentrification is a process in which working class area demographics change following the
influx of middle classes and eventually the displacement of working classes.”2 Gentrification
was a major component of this study. The concept of BeltLine was developed from the research
efforts of Ryan Gravel, a former graduate student at the Georgia Institute of Technology who
advocated for the strategic repurposing of abandoned rail spurs throughout the City of Atlanta to

1. “Goals of Urban Renewal,” Urban Renewal Strategy Study – The Government of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region, https://www.pland.gov.hk/ (accessed March 1, 2019).

2. Joyothi Chava et al., “Gentrification in New-Build and Old-Build Transit-Oriented Developments: The
Case of Bengaluru.” Urban Research & Practice, no. 0 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2018.1437214
(accessed February 16, 2018).

2
encourage new economic development.3 The BeltLine is “the 22-mile loop around the city that
aspires to revitalize neighborhoods, improve transit, and connect communities.”4 Original plans
for BeltLine called for multiple points of connectivity featuring BeltLine trail and transit as
depicted below.
Figure 1.0. BeltLine Concept Map – Multiple Modes of Connectivity (Planned). “Adair Park Demographics,”
accessed April 15, 2019 https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e1/72/e0/e172e0f493fdca9c4477b45b9e490fb0.jpg

Since its inception, The BeltLine has spurred a great deal of activity for the city; while it was a
forward-thinking idea conceptualized by Mr. Gravel, it was not the first of its kind. “There is a

3. Vitisia Paynich, “Tracking the Atlanta BeltLine: How Social Equity is Breaking Down Barriers and
Connecting Communities.” National Parks & Recreation Magazine, December 7, 2017

4. Nedra Rhone, “Only in the AJC Atlanta BeltLine: Can BeltLine Solve its Image Problem? Eastside Trail
is a Lesson on Risks of Gentrification on Other Trail Segments.” The Atlanta Journal Constitution (May 1, 2018)
3
range of possibilities opened up through the adaptive use of obsolete or underused urban
infrastructure, such as rail corridors, underutilized back alleys, urban streets, abandoned transport
or utility corridors, and remediated brownfields.”5 One of the more notable revitalization
initiatives is New York’s High Line project (Figure 1.1) that made use of abandoned elevated
train tracks.6 Similar projects were reviewed in the course of this study including Chicago’s 606
trail and the Lafitte trail in New Orleans.

Figure 1.1. New York High Line Project – Repurposed Rail Made into Public Green Space “New York High
Line Photos,” accessed November 19, 2018 http://www.gardinergreenribbon.com/elevated-transit/

Atlanta’s BeltLine is playing a critical role in the city’s growth as its population is
expected to increase, from addressing new challenges with reducing traffic congestion,
enhancing green space, and preserving affordable housing. “A long-range forecast prepared by

5. Jennifer R. Wolch et al, “Urban Green Space, Public Health, and Environmental Justice: The Challenge
of Making Cities ‘Just Green Enough,” Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014) 234-244

6. Wolch et al.
4
the Atlanta Regional Commission has revealed that the population in Metro Atlanta is expected
to hit 8 million by 2040.”7 Atlanta ranks as the ninth largest Metropolitan Statistical Area
(“MSA”) in the United States with a current population of 5,789,700.8
The projected uptick in Atlanta’s population has placed greater emphasis on smart
growth practices including reducing traffic, becoming more environmentally conscious, and
more wisely utilizing resources such as land. Smart growth is well-planned growth the combines
economic development and job creation while balancing quality of life to preserve built and
natural environments; moreover, it discourages development on natural open space in favor of
growth on previously developed land with installed infrastructure.9 I believe Atlanta’s growth
will not only come from continued urban sprawl but also from aspiring city dwellers focusing on
up-and-coming areas near the BeltLine such as the neighborhoods of Adair Park, West End, and
Pittsburgh on the south side of Atlanta. Atlanta’s transit operator, Metropolitan Area Rapid
Transit Authority (MARTA), will also play a role in the city’s future growth as they have a long-
standing strategic relationship, best summed up as follows: “The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority has worked with the Atlanta BeltLine from its earliest days of implementation
playing a key role as a partner on the critical transit studies and planning activities and will
continue to play a role as a partner as transit is developed on the Atlanta BeltLine and elsewhere
in the City of Atlanta.”10

7. Dave Williams, “Metro Atlanta Population Expected to Hit 8 Million by 2040,” Atlanta Business
Chronicle, (September 18, 2015, 18A)

8. Mark Niesse, “Census: Metro Atlanta’s Population Approaches 5.8 Million,” Atlanta Journal
Constitution (April 10, 2017)

9. “Smart Growth,” New York Department of Environmental Conservation,
https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/45970.html (accessed April 16, 2019).

10. “Atlanta BeltLine Partners,” Atlanta BeltLine, https://beltline.org/atlanta-beltlinepartners/marta/
(accessed April 17, 2019).

5
Configurations of MARTA Transit Stations, strategically located throughout
Metropolitan Atlanta, are provided in Figure 1.2 (current) and Figure 1.3 (expanded). The
expanded configuration features the new Orange and Purple Lines which would provide for
enhanced connectivity and accessibility, but these new routes have not moved forward due to
funding challenges: “the State of Georgia has yet to make any contribution to MARTA – the
only major mass transit system in the country that does not receive state support.”11. MARTA
has a long-view on Atlanta based on plans for expansion of rail service coupled with a
commitment to “dedicate more than $570 million dollars to lining 15 miles of the Atlanta
Beltline with streetcar tracks—a significant jump from the seven miles of BeltLine transit
outlined in the earlier plans.”12

11. “A MARTA Story: Why the State Never Contributed Funding – From Day One,” Saporta Report,
https://saportareport.com/a-marta-story-why-the-state-never-allocated-money-from-day-one/ (accessed April 17,
20190.

12. Sean Keenan, “After BeltLine Transit Win, More MARTA Project List is Officially Approved,”
Curbed, https://atlanta.curbed.com/2018/10/5/17940638/beltline-transit-advocates-more-marta-boardrevised-
approved (accessed April 17, 2019).
6
Figure 1.2. Current MARTA Transit Stations Service Areas (Inside/Outside - 285 Perimeter)
https://www.itsmarta.com/train-stations-and-schedules.aspx
7

Figure 1.3. Current MARTA Transit Stations with Future Orange and Purple Line Extension
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/07/22/major-marta-expansion-could-transform-the-atlanta-region/

The focal point of this proposal is southwest Atlanta, specifically Adair Park, because it
is part of a rapidly-developing area that is revitalizing with an influx of new business starts,
8
transplanted residents, legacy resident families, as well as the host of challenges that come with
such changes, including transit, gentrification, cultural identity, green space, and historic
preservation. Moreover, Adair Park is in the path of growth with its proximity to the Atlanta
BeltLine (Westside Trail) and West End MARTA Station. This foundational information
provided on the revitalization, gentrification, and the BeltLine project sets the stage to offer
background information on the Adair Park Neighborhood the focus of the case study area.
Adair Park is located within southwest Atlanta near downtown (Figure 1.4) and the
neighboring communities of Pittsburgh and West End. A primarily residential area with a great
deal of charm and numerous architectural styles, Adair Park Historic District is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places and was “developed from the 1890s to the 1940s when
Atlanta was transitioning from a railroad town to a true city.”13

Figure 1.4. SW Atlanta Neighborhoods “Adair Park,” https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7318641,-
84.4298942,14z (accessed April 15, 2019)

13. “Adair Park Historic District,” National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/atlanta/ada.htm
(accessed March 15, 2019).

9
Adair Park is located within Atlanta’s Census Tract 58, the neighborhood has a
population of 1,924, median age of 32.9, median income of $31,625, 34.7% of residents live
below poverty line (1.5 times the rate in Atlanta), 21% of the residents are married, and 31% of
the community’s residents have a bachelor’s degree or higher.14
The trend in development is best followed graphically as shown in Figure 1.5 which
chronicles the real estate development trends that occurred early in Adair Park’s history and the
new growth that started with the announcement of the BeltLine project in the 2000’s. “Due to the
massive surge in interest in BeltLine adjacent properties and subsequently increased pricing of
such properties, many property developers have purchased land in previously low-income
neighborhoods and transformed them into luxury living…After having promised to create 5,600
units of affordable housing, the Atlanta BeltLine Inc., has only funded 785, as of July 2017.”15

Figure 1.5. Changes in construction activity, 1939 – 2010 or Later. “Adair Park Demographics,”
https://www.point2homes.com/US/Neighborhood/GA/Atlanta/Adair-Park-Demographics.html (accessed March 1,
2019).

14. “Census Tract 58, Fulton, GA,” Census Reporter, www.censusreporter.org. (accessed April 21, 2019).

15. “Wikipedia: BeltLine,” Wikimedia Foundation, last modified February 5, 2019, 09:38,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeltLine

10
The affordable housing goals of the BeltLine project have fallen short due to funding
challenges commonly found in mission-based housing projects. These types of projects, unlike
market-rate (for-profit) ones, are geared towards renters with lower incomes and have federally
mandated rent caps based on their earnings (typically rents earning less than 60% of Area
Median Income) and sized of the respective household which essentially means these types of
deals are not as profitable as market-rate deals and fee driven developers are not motivated to
produce large numbers of affordable projects as the land in-and-around the BeltLine is expensive
and the revenue from missioned based real estate projects does not merit the high development
costs (land being the primary factor) Moreover, affordable housing projects depend on multiple
sources of financing with the primary one being limited pools of federal and state tax-credits that
have to be procured competitively, year-over-year. As such, completing affordable housing
project to generate the number of units the BeltLine originally projected would have required a
great deal of well executed coordination, opportune timing, exorbitant philanthropic funding, and
unprecedented political favor (to secure tax credits-primary source of funding).
The City of Atlanta is divided into twenty-five (25) Neighborhood Planning Units
(NPUs), which are citizen advisory councils that make recommendations to the Mayor and City
Council on zoning, land use, and other planning-related matters. The NPU system was
established in 1974 by the late Mayor Maynard Jackson to provide an opportunity for all citizens
to actively participate in the Comprehensive Development Plan, which is the city’s vision for the
next five, ten, and fifteen years. Since then the NPU system has evolved into what it is today –
the official avenue for citizens to receive updates concerning all functions of City government,
11
enabling citizens to express concerns and provide input helps the City in developing plans that
best meet the needs of each neighborhood. 16
Adair Park (Figure 1.6) is part of the City of Atlanta’s Neighborhood Planning Unit V,
which consists of Mechanicsville, Peoplestown, Pittsburgh, and Summerhill Communities.
Metropolitan Atlanta is defined by areas inside and outside its perimeter boundary which is
Interstate-285, a primary transit expressway that encircles the entire city (Figure 1.7). The areas
within the city limits are said to be inside the perimeter and areas outside limits are outside the
city’s perimeter. Figure 1.8 provides good orientation of the City of Atlanta’s primary
neighborhoods inside of the perimeter , including Adair Park nestled amongst the WestEnd,
Capitol View, and Mechanicsville communities.
Most the data analyzed for the study would suggest revitalization is represented by
increases in home and land values. A better representation is the long-term sustained changes
that improve economic vibrancy of an area in such a way that the profile of the community
changes for the better. There changes would include the aforementioned increases in value, as
well as reduction in crime, creation of new schools, opening of new businesses, gains in
population, and lower rates of poverty.

16. “Neighborhood Planning Unit,” City of Atlanta
https://www.atlantaga.gov/government/departments/city-planning/office-of-zoning-
development/neighborhoodplanning-unit-npu (accessed March 4, 2019).
12

Figure 1.6. Adair Park Map – Street Level Detail “Adair Park,” https://www.commercialcafe.com/commercial-real-
estate/us/ga/atlanta/adair-park/?Zoom=16&Viewport=84.42022419765794,33.72161857822418,-
84.40330589581367,33.73495947283022&GeopickerOutput=-
84.4149026949724,33.7329787070134,106&GeopickerType=radius (accessed April 16, 2019).

The emerging trend of using green space and transit to lead revitalization and Atlanta’s
choice to adopt this strategy as its primary policy tool merit further exploration. The need for the
proposed case study arises from the projected increase in population, the fact that Adair Park is
part of the BeltLine’s next development phase, and from the criticism the Beltline project has
received for failing to deliver on strategic promises, particularly the lack of generation of
affordable housing and preservation of cultural identity. There is a tremendous opportunity to
make improvements to better serve neighborhoods, residents, visitors, and those who transverse
the city over the next 10-15 years.

13

Figure 1.7 Metropolitan Atlanta “In-town Neighborhoods,” Google Maps 2020
(accessed March 1, 2020)

Figure 1.8 Atlanta Neighborhoods “In-town Neighborhoods,”
http://environsrealestate.com/assets/pdf/atlanta-intown-neighborhoods-map-a.pdf
(accessed March 7, 2020)

I believe a gap exists in the current body of academic research on revitalization tied to
green space and transit, as none of the current literature provides insights from a multifactor
14
approach, nor has any research been conducted comparing projects to each other to help them
achieve their stated objectives. “Public investments in infrastructure such as for TOD are often
made without understanding the existing situation and possible outcomes of plans.”17
The purpose of this study is to improve the existing policy framework and outcomes for
revitalization projects featuring green space and transit. The setting for the proposal, via case
study, will be the Adair Park Neighborhood. An assessment of stakeholder views on
revitalization will be delivered that will facilitate development of a set of policy
recommendations to improve effectiveness, community connectedness, and sphere of influence.
There are several revitalization projects led by green space and transit projects outside of
Atlanta worth examining to better understand challenges faced with revitalization projects and
the neighborhoods they influence.
Chicago’s 606 trail (The 606) depicted in Figure 1.9 (page 16), like the Atlanta BeltLine,
is a revitalization project that gave life to railroad tracks there were no longer in service. The key
differences between the projects are their size, duration, and geographic footprint. The Atlanta
BeltLine is a long-term 20-year project impacting a 22-mile radius inside and outside the city.
The 606 does not follow a path that encircles the entire city of Chicago; it represents a small
segment of elevated railroad tracks that were placed out-of-service impacting a six-mile stretch
of a few neighborhoods (Figure 2.0 – page 17). The project timeline for The 606 was 10 years
and it is currently fully operational, whereas the Atlanta BeltLine completion is occurring over
several phases. In addition, The 606 lends itself more to revitalizing neighborhoods and drawing
patrons to utilize green space as opposed to promoting reliance on alternate forms of
transportation, increasing ridership, exploring new areas within the city, or reducing harmful

17. Yamini Jain Singh et al., “Measuring Transit Oriented Development: A Spatial Multi Criteria
Assessment Approach for the City Region Arhhem and Nijmegen,” Journal of Transport Geography, 35 (February
1, 2014) 130-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.01.014 (accessed September 18, 2018).
15
impacts to the environment. Despite this difference, The 606 Trail serves a good project to
compare as it was built from repurposing abandoned rail tracks like the BeltLine and High Line
projects. Revitalization strategies (policies) led by green space and transit have proven to provide
a stimulus to areas that need an economic boost. “Vegetation and green space are associated with
a reduction in crime and incivilities within Chicago’s disadvantaged neighborhoods.”18 The
reduction in crime and affinity towards greenspace lend themselves towards greater interest in
neighborhoods connected by 606 Trail. “The 606 Trail has become a recreation destination that
attracts user from all over Chicago, the trail extends over several neighborhoods that are
drastically different.”19
Friends of the High Line, a non-profit group affiliated with the NYC Department of
Recreation & Parks, completed a study showing how using the High Line as green space would
help New York City by increasing housing pricing and tax revenues beyond its initial
investment, costing $65 million dollars yet generating $140 million dollars over 20 years.20

18. Brandon Harris et al., “Different Views from the 606: Examining the Impacts of an Urban Greenway in
Chicago,” Environment and Behavior 2018, Vol. 50(1) 56-85

19. Harris et al.

20. Steven Lang and Julia Rothenberg, “Neoliberal Urbanism, Public Space, and the Greening of the
Growth Machine: New York City’s High Line Park,” Environment and Planning A 2017, Vol.49(8) 1743 - 1761

16

Figure 1.9. Chicago 606 Trail Map with Neighborhood Connectivity, “606 Trail” (accessed November 11, 2018), http://www.the606.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/05/The606_printable_map.pdf

17

Figure 2.0. Chicago 606 Trail Pre/Post Redevelopment “606 Trail Images,”. http://www.the606.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Tribune-Borrelli-Photo.jpg
https://chicago.curbed.com/2016/10/10/13228150/606-trail-chicago (accessed October 17, 2018).

18
The Lafitte Greenway (Lafitte trail), the smallest (6.2 miles) of the green space transit
revitalization projects evaluated in the literature, was repurposed from canals that connected
various parts of New Orleans, costing the city $9.1 million dollars and requiring just one year to
complete.21 This project (Figure 2.1) seems to be more of a recreational amenity and its layout
follows a linear path primary for social gatherings and recreational biking, walking, or running.
Its conceptualization and implementation were not part of an elaborate transit scheme like the
Atlanta BeltLine. The surveyed literature did not provide guidance on increases in home values,
housing affordability, environmental impacts, crime reduction, or public transit utilization pre-
and post-installation of the Lafitte trail. It would be useful to evaluate this project relative to these
types of metrics and gather data to reflect the opinions of those in the community to provide an
informed assessment of the impact of the trails and gauge the degree to which stakeholders are
satisfied.

21. “Lafitte Greenway FAQ,” Friends of the Lafitte Greenway. https://www.lafittegreenway.org/faq
(accessed September 30, 2018).

19

Figure 2.1. Lafitte Greenway Points of Interest (labelled 16-21) “Lafitte Greenway Parks, Pools, Sports Fields,” https://www.lafittegreenway.org (accessed November 1,
2018).

20
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The research covering urban revitalization covers many themes. The intent of my
exploration of the literature was to provide some context to address the proposed research
question and gain a sense of the common themes within peer-reviewed contributions exploring
the relationships amongst revitalization, green space, transit, and gentrification. Further
exploration was also done on affordable housing, transit-oriented development (TOD) and
environmental justice as well as revitalization projects in Chicago, New York, and New Orleans
that offer good points of comparison for Atlanta’s BeltLine revitalization project. My
exploration of the literature showed differing views as to whether revitalization causes
gentrification, increase the likely of it occurring, or has no connection at all.
The research from Dawkins and Moeckel examines the connection between transit and
gentrification as well as policy mitigation measures to increase affordability. Their research was
conducted via case study method by distributing surveys to residents and transit users within
newly established transit-oriented developments serviced by Washington D.C.’s Metro system.
The findings produced two primary views on the transit and gentrification relationship: (1)
transit connectivity is reflected with land and home pricing, so any new transit related initiatives
will lead to displacement of some of the people that stand to benefit from new projects, and (2)
transit investments may increase land and home pricing, but the overall savings that people can
realize due to reduced transportation costs does not lend itself to gentrification.22
This research affirms that transit revitalization does work as intended, but it assumes the
savings associated with reduced transportation costs can be realized by all people equally, that
the savings associated with reduced need for transit make a large enough difference to prevent

22. Casey Dawkins and Rolf Moeckel, “Transit-Induced Gentrification: Who Will Stay, and Who Will
Go?” Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 26, NOS. 4-5 (January 2016): 801-818.

21
residents from getting pushed out due to increase housing costs, that existing or proposed transit
options will allow residents to reach desired locations efficiently and economically, and that
residents can handle any increase in costs even if there may be savings. Given the projected
increases in housing costs and limited stock, the authors advocate for inclusionary zoning rules
requiring new development projects to keep a portion of all new projects at affordable incomes
levels. Affordable housing is considered having to pay rents that don’t exceed 30% of a
household’s Area Median Income (“AMI”).23
The research from Wolch, Byrne, and Newell provides insights on urban green parks
and how lower income communities typically fail to realize the benefits from revitalization tied
to green space creation in the same manner as more affluent communities. Using examples of
green space revitalization projects such as Central Park, the New York City High Line, and
Greenpoint neighborhood in Brooklyn, they affirm that revitalization projects undoubtedly raise
land and housing values as intended, yet do not improve the lives of those they have served for
so long, creating the need for a new approach to green revitalization which encourages more
focused policy initiative that impacts a smaller footprint and encourages legacy residents and
new residents to work together to reduce the impact of gentrification.
Rigolon and Nemeth examine large green infrastructure projects such as the New York
High Line and Chicago’s 606 Trail Project (primary emphasis) via case study approach by
mapping gentrification trends along the projects, tracking movement of property values, and
using geospatial analysis to understand changes in socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and
housing affordability in recent years. The findings lead them to conclude that environmental
gentrification is an inescapable outcome for large-scale projects because they tend to be

23. “Affordable Housing Guide,” HUD, https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/State/documents/2018-
Affordable-Housing-Guide.pdf (accessed April 15, 2019).

22
managed and led by narrowly focused non-profits. Such a singular focus (primary mission)
tends to limit the broad-based benefits that come with large green infrastructure projects. A park
non-profit that may be focused on conservation and protectionism probably pays little to no
attention to affordable housing creation and maintenance and vice-versa. “Environmental
Gentrification is an environmental justice issue, but most of research focuses on distributional
justice (determining if projects did or did not contribute to gentrification of neighborhoods
rather than procedural justice, which focuses on how the planning process can shape project
outcomes.”24 They advocate for collaboration with various stakeholders in terms of day-to-day
operations and decisions (housing specialists, conservationists, etc.). The primary takeaway is
that non-profits, more times than not, will lead large-scale green infrastructure projects down
the wrong path. Couldn’t the same happen with a for-profit entity if it had the wrong culture or
vision? Further, it makes me wonder about the non-profit entity that manages the Atlanta
Beltline. Does it face challenges related to a singular focus as the article suggests? Are there any
examples of large green infrastructure projects that are successful by article’s standards?
The literature from Cole, Lamarca, Connolly, and Anguelovski explores the connection
between green space and gentrification to understand how different socioeconomic classes
benefit from new green space projects. The authors feel that the benefits which come from
green space are not realized in an equitable manner, meaning those from more affluent
backgrounds stand to gain more than those from meager backgrounds. This class distinction is
seen as a form of social injustice. In order to better understand the underlying issues
surrounding social injustice, an evaluative policy framework is introduced. “The Green and
Health Equity Model provides a framework for understanding and testing whether gentrification

24. Alessandro Rigolon and Jeremy Nemeth. “We’re Not in the Business of Housing: Environmental
Gentrification and the Nonprofitization of Green Infrastructure Projects,” Cities. Vol 81 (November 2018) 71-80.

23
associated with green space may modify the effect of green space on health.”25 Gentrification is
addressed throughout the literature relative to residents getting pushed to move, but not the lack
of healthy equity. It seems that greater understanding of the impacts of gentrification is needed
to prevent underestimation. This expanded evaluation approach in which health equity is
considered might yield some interesting results within Adair Park that should be part of the
evaluative network.
The research contribution from Verbich, Badami, and El-Geneidy provides yet another
framework for evaluation of urban transit. Using a series of metrics gauging service quality,
reliability, viability, satisfaction, utilization, and affordability relative to outcomes and tradeoffs
amongst and between them to understand the effectiveness of urban transit from the perspective
of riders and service providers in fourteen North American cities with populations greater than
three million. The research provides a plethora of data points for which urban transit can be
graphically plotted and analyzed to facilitate comparisons amongst the largest transit operators
in fourteen cities, including Atlanta’s operator MARTA, who has played a major role in
Atlanta’s expansion.
The literature from Harris, Larson, and Ogletree (2018) provides another useful metric
to evaluate TOD (all variants including Green Space TOD) impact on surrounding
neighborhoods by analyzing trends in criminal activity from 2011-2015 in the area of what
came to be called The 606. The impact of The 606 in reducing or increasing crime was analyzed
for the periods during and after its installation which showed public green space has a direct and
positive correlation to a reduction in crime. However, in some instances, crime shifted to other
areas as the socioeconomic profile of areas of neighborhoods changed forcing criminal activity

25. Helen Cole et al., “Are Green Cities Healthy and Equitable: Unpacking the Relationship between
Health, Green Space, and Gentrification,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (November 1, 2017)
1118-1121.

24
to other already-plagued areas. The article also speaks to the importance of community
engagement in making projects like The 606 a success, as green space projects may usher in
new residents and visitors to areas which changes the character and identity and, in some cases,
pushes legacy residents out. Any trend in criminal trends, increases or decreases, would be good
to understand in the context of evaluation of TOD. This is particularly applicable to
neighborhoods on the southern portion of the Atlanta Beltline, like Adair Park which have been
economically depressed and may have higher historical crime rates.
Article by Cervero and Sullivan speaks to what the authors believe is the need to combine
TOD and sustainability to yield greater results. “Green TOD is a marriage of TOD and green
urbanism…. the combination can create synergies that yield environmental benefits beyond the
sum of what TOD and green urbanism can offer individually.”26 Projects are reviewed in
Sweden, Germany, and Australia verifying the impact Green TOD, rather than separate impacts
TOD and green urbanism. Traditional TOD focuses on reduced reliance on auto transport to
reduced energy consumption and harmful emissions, whereas green urbanism focuses on
reducing energy consumption, emissions, water pollution, and waste. This article speaks to what
my research proposal is advocating for in terms of considering more than one metric for
evaluation and projected impact of TOD projects, but it could it could offer an expanded
criterion to address more stakeholders. There is no mention of gentrification, which is discussed
frequently in the surveyed literature, as are social equity and public perception. This is probably
due to the authors slant towards quantitative analysis, but I believe a stronger argument could be
made with some qualitative research considerations. Conversely, the environmental and green

26. Robert Cervero and Cathleen Sullivan. “Green TODs: Marrying Transit Oriented Development and
Green Urbanism,” International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 18, no.3 (June 1, 2011)
210-218

25
considerations described within this article would be helpful considerations for the Atlanta
Beltline.

26
Chapter 3: Case Study Overview

Research Problem
Gains in population have put a strain on Atlanta’s current infrastructure, particularly,
transit, bringing to the light the need for more smart growth strategies. The Atlanta BeltLine is
the city’s key strategy for urban economic growth and revitalization. This strategy will impact
neighborhoods including those that have been neglected for long periods of time such as Adair
Park.
“The demand for smart growth which includes TODs, is artificially constrained by zoning
laws in most municipalities across the United States and…demand has been found to be within
the range of 10-25% of all households.” 27 “The hot market for TOD stems from the reality that
the current supply is low…the average TOD accommodates about 10,000 residents, thus the
current supply of 100 TODs only serves about 0.5% of the American population…if the current
studies are correct, 800 new TODs would be required to accommodate demand at the 10% level
and over 2,000 would be required to accommodate at the 25% level.”28 Reliance on TODs or
green space projects with an emphasis on transit is increasing difficult because of the lack of
understanding, absence of standardization, and required collaboration amongst stakeholders.
These ongoing challenges, increased reliance on revitalization tied to green space and transit, and
the 20-year project timeline for the BeltLine make the case for undertaking more insightful
research.

27. “Hidden in Plain Sight: Capturing the Demand for Housing Near Transit,” Center for Transit Oriented
Development, http://ctod.org/pdfs/2004HiddenPlainSight.pdf (accessed June 1, 2018).

28. John L. Renne, “From Transit-Adjacent to Transit Oriented Development,” Local Environmental Journal
14, no.1 (January 2009). 1-15. https://doi.org/10/1080/13549830802522376.

27
Research Questions
The primary question guiding the study was: can urban revitalization initiatives, led by
green space and transit, be undertaken without giving rise to or generating concerns related to
gentrification? This is particularly important as exploration of the literature detailed several
instances of what appear to be connections between gentrification and revitalization, as well as
ambiguity as to whether revitalization projects are successful and how they should be evaluated.
The research generated from the survey instruments, described in the next section, was used to
address the primary research question.
I also looked to answer the following seven (7) secondary questions to provide more
context to address the primary question:
1. Why is there a connection between urban revitalization and gentrification?

2. Could the connection between urban revitalization and gentrification be overstated?

3. Do all revitalization efforts, not only those led by green space and transit, give rise to
gentrification?

4. Are there are other forces, aside from revitalization initiatives, that lend themselves to
gentrification?

5. If gentrification risks can be only be partially addressed, under what circumstances
should revitalization initiatives continue or stop moving forward?

6. If gentrification risks can’t be addressed, under what circumstances should
revitalization initiatives stop or continue moving forward?

7. Can the risk of gentrification be addressed (mitigated) in urban revitalization?

The secondary questions will also make use of the data derived from the survey instruments
described herein, as well as additional secondary data sources to provide guidance for further
understanding.

28
Theoretical Base of Study
This research study was led from the perspective of an experienced mixed-use real estate
professional holding a pragmatic worldview relative to many of today’s societal challenges and
possible solutions surrounding the commingling of public green space, TOD, urban
revitalization, affordable housing, and environmental injustice. “Pragmatism as a worldview
arises out of the actions, situations and consequences rather than antecedent conditions….there
is a concern with applications—what works—and solutions to problems.”29 As principal
investigator, I leveraged my knowledge base with the expertise from professionals with
experience in urban revitalization, affordable housing, and governance to arrive at the
prescriptive approach, based on grounded theory, to evaluate revitalization projects tied to green
space and transit within emerging neighborhoods and to improve related policies. In grounded
theory, “Inquirers hope to discover a theory that is grounded in the information from
participants.”30
Research Methodology
The study was carried out using a qualitative approach to analyze primary data gathered
and analyzed from responses to two research instrument tools, a 25-item Likert-scale survey
questionnaire (Appendix C) and five open-ended interview questions (Appendix D). Data
collection efforts focused on 36 potential research participants (Appendix E – F) who were
identified and recruited from June to December 2019 through professional contacts, industry
relationships, and grassroot campaigning (attending community events, walking door-to-door,
approaching users of Atlanta’s Westside BeltLine trail, and forging relationships with

29. M.Q. Patton. “Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods,” (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991), 73-74

30. A. Straus and J.Corbin. “Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques,” (1st ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990.

29
community activists, politicians, and religious leaders). Participants were targeted because they
represented various diverse groups of stakeholders including elected officials, green space users,
community activists, long-standing residents of Adair Park, new residents of Adair Park, public
housing advocates, and capital providers (banks/investment firms) engaged in or impacted by
urban revitalization. The Adair Park Residents were targeted for participation based on field
research (observation – walked and drove through the neighborhood), which revealed many of
the neighborhood homes had been recently renovated while others had not been well-maintained
since original construction. Homes in Adair Park were developed, 1890 – 1940, as the area
transitioned from a rail town to urban enclave.31 The majority of the people within the group of
resident research participants were new to Adair Park, renting or owning newly renovated
homes. Moreover, they were open to discussing anything related to the research study or City of
Atlanta, which made them good targets for participation in the study. The resident’s willingness
to participate was thought to be because they didn’t have deep-rooted feelings or ties to the area,
or they previously lived near Adair Park or a similar neighborhood that is part of a revitalization
effort influenced by green space and transit.
There were some major challenges with the primary data collection from first segment
group beyond simply encouraging participation. This stemmed from the fact that members within
this target segment held professional aspirations or sensitivities related to the study as they or
their employers have direct or indirect ties to the Adair Park. This risk was mitigated through: (1)
survey respondents disclosing their participation and if necessary obtaining approvals, (2) my
reassurance that I would keep the identities of respondents anonymous, (3) all respondents had
the option to submit responses electronically, removing the risk of discovery from others, and (4)

31. Wikipedia, ”Adair Park,” last modified July 11, 2018,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adair_Park

30
that fact that I disclosed results of the survey and research data analysis would be used for
academic-purposes only.
Research Target Groups
Most of the targeted participants (83%) were either residents or people that held
specialized knowledge or skills germane to urban revitalization. The remaining participants were
governmental officials, community activists, or green space users. A collective depiction of the
targeted participants is provided within Tables 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2.
Table 1.0. Research Participants - Overall Composition
Category Number Percentage
Resident 14 39%
Industry Expert 16 44%
Government 3 8%
Community Activist 1 3%
Green Space User 2 6%
Total 36 100%

Table 1.1. Research Participants - Gender
Gender Number Percentage
Male 24 67%
Female 12 33%
Total 36 100%

Table 1.2. Actual Research Participation
Participation Tool Number Percentage
Surveys 22 61%
Interviews 8 22%
Total 30 100%

The participant group’s diversity, in terms of their vocations and familiarity with the project,
aided in producing meaningful data to gain high-level and granular understandings of the
feelings and concerns about revitalization, gentrification, green space, the BeltLine, and Adair
Park. This data was used to answer the primary and secondary research questions; as well as

31
arriving at policy recommendations to aid in improving effectiveness of urban revitalization
projects.
Research participants were invited via email, handout, and from fellow research
participants to complete one, both, and none of research instrument tools (1) on-line, (2) in-
person, (3) by phone, or (4) via US Mail. The plethora of options to participate worked well as
the surveys were designed to take no more than 25 minutes time to complete and interviews were
conducted in-person and via phone with an additional option of video teleconferencing for what
generally ranged 30 minutes to 60 minutes. Additional follow-up with research participants
occurred via email or telephone for clarification as needed to address any specific concerns or
questions with the surveys and interviews.
Most of the research participants opted for the survey questionnaire while fewer
participants were available, comfortable, or willing to commit to an interview. The survey was
easier to administer, took less time, and participants felt better about participating without fear or
consequences like conflict of interest or political sensitivities. Responses from the survey
questionnaires were organized, synthesized, and coded to facilitate meaningful analysis using
Microsoft Excel (Appendix I – K).
The participants that agreed to interviews were very rooted in the community through
their professional vocations, interest in advocacy, or desire to seek political office.
All completed interviews were coded using thematic content analysis, to facilitate heightened
understanding by primary and sub-themes (Appendix H).
Both research instruments were analyzed and synthesized to help provide context
to answer the research question guiding this study: can urban revitalization initiatives,
led by green space and transit, be undertaken without giving rise to or generating
concerns related to gentrification?

32
Data Analysis
Research data was collected and analyzed from eight participant interviews and 22
questionnaires fully described within the Research Methodology section. These two research
methods provided insights as to the themes, sub-themes, and feelings of stakeholders impacted
by revitalization, gentrification, The BeltLine, as well as more specific guidance applicable to
neighborhood needs, criticisms of current public policies, and predictions for future
revitalization inside Atlanta’s BeltLine neighborhoods.
The participant interviews were analyzed and coded using thematic analysis which
looked at responses to five open-ended questions summarized within Appendices G-H.
The study targeted ten interview participants for one-on-one or group sessions; however,
efforts to recruitment efforts yielded eight or 80% of the target audience from the pool of 36
potential participants. Based on the eight interviews several primary themes emerged including:
(1) government intervention is needed past the implementation stage of revitalization policies
and projects, (2) the BeltLine has been true to its original mission but could be better, (3) a
multi-factor evaluation approach is well supported, (4) the BeltLine project has fallen short on
strategic promises, (5) the original mission of the BeltLine is not clear but it has provided
stimulus, (6) the BeltLine has provided public benefit, and (7) the gentrification and capitalism
connection is strong and hard to overcome.
The first primary theme I would like to highlight from the interview questions is
participants felt government intervention would allow stakeholders to make changes to improve
outcomes early, mid-stream, or late within a program or policy implementation lifecycles rather
than waiting post completion. The associated subtheme is that intervention is needed for
revitalization projects to work effectively and equitably. I agree, these sorts of projects and
policies would benefit from periodic governmental intervention serving as a tool for check-and-

33
balance accountability rather than having them run their course without accountability and
oversight. In the case of the BeltLine, the interview data suggested a lot of the project’s initial
promises have not been realized, so an intervention led by a mid-term assessment seems like a
logical step to take to understand areas of opportunity for improvement. Such an assessment
should be undertaken by a qualified consultant with verified experience in project similar to the
BeltLine.
The data from the survey question on The BeltLine’s original mission highlighted the
primary theme that project has done well but fallen short on some strategic promises. The
participants felt the BeltLine would be a better revitalization initiative with more collaboration
amongst the City of Atlanta, The Atlanta BeltLine, MARTA, and real estate developers to
address affordable housing needs of residents, and development of transit interconnectivity. The
emerging subtheme from the participant’s responses was BeltLine success can’t only be based on
meeting a few of the project’s original goals. I think the BeltLine has been very successful and
some of the goals related to transit connectivity and affordable housing were too aggressive and
probably would have never been met. I think the BeltLine connectivity plans were
conceptualized without giving much thought to funding, which is why not much has happened
with connecting the BeltLine with the MARTA transit system, existing trails, and proposed light
passenger rail. Second, I think The BeltLine’s original roots were in transit and revitalization, so
expecting a windfall production of affordable housing to meet the insatiable demand for housing
in a City with a dwindling supply is not reasonable. What the BeltLine has done is to serve as a
catalyst for change by providing economic stimulus. Most of the change should be considered
desirable as many of the neighborhoods, along the BeltLine have struggled for years and needed
a boost to help them move towards revitalization.

34
The overarching primary theme amongst participants regarding the BeltLine’s focus was
the project remained true to its mission; however, there is room for improvement. The BeltLine
originally, based on my research, was intended to be a revitalization project designed to
generate robust economic activity. Repurposing abandoned train tracks to create community
connectivity throughout Atlanta’s various communities has been very successful evidenced by
high usage, increased housing pricing, new business expansion, and gains in population. The
participant’s primary concern seemed to be the BeltLine had not delivered on promises
surrounding affordable housing production, falling short of projections which created a need for
improvement to address the city’s limited supply of affordable housing.
There is no question, based on the interview data that the BeltLine has been very
impactful, and participants believed it has remained true to its original mission even though
none of the participants articulated what the original mission of the project was supposed to be.
I think that was because of less than optimal public relations messaging behind the project has
failed to be as precise at it could be and that the project in its truest form is an economic
development initiative that seeks to improve community interconnectivity, provide access to
multiple modes of transit, and stimulate economic revival in urban communities. Because of the
complexity of the project itself, changes in Atlanta’s local government, the fact that the project
has completely transformed, and limited guidance on what was the BeltLine’s original purpose,
community stakeholders are predisposed to confusion surrounding its mission, focus, and
effectiveness. I agree with the consensus participant view that the BeltLine could be improved
in terms of affordable housing production and transit connectivity.
The research study led me to struggle, with conceptualizing, a broad-based understanding
of the BeltLine. What is the BeltLine project supposed to represent and what does it represent to
other people? Is it a transit-project; a housing revitalization plan; a broad-based revitalization

35
tool; a transit-oriented development; or a hybrid policy initiative? This classification and
identity challenge make it hard to evaluate and appreciate the BeltLine and I think it plagued the
research participants as the data seems to suggest. Moreover, this situation lends itself to
dissatisfaction as people look at BeltLine through one lens based on their own categorization of
the project.
The primary theme from the evaluation interview question data suggested a multi-factor
approach (several factor combined or used individually) is highly recommended to gauge
performance and effectiveness. Moreover, participants felt the BeltLine had been effective but
there was room for improvement. The emerging subtheme from the evaluation question data
was no one method of evaluation is superior to another. Participants advocated for an
evaluation approach that makes use of several methods analyzed over a long period of time.
The methods of evaluation included trail usage, general interest – inquiries or usage patterns,
and increases in home values near the BeltLine.
I think evaluation can take place in many forms and that for a complex project like the
BeltLine, classification is a challenging area that pushes the evaluation lenses making it hard to
view and evaluate through a single lens. As such, a combination of evaluation methodologies is
highly advisable.
The overarching theme among research participants was the BeltLine has provided
benefits to general public; however, a subtheme emerged that questioned who benefits the most
based on classification as a renter or homeowner. The data did not address the differences
between owners and renters, as well as nuisances unique to individual neighborhoods which
might hinder the benefits they could reap from the BeltLine.
There may be some merit to saying the most benefit, economically, is available to
homeowners and investors who can gain as the neighborhoods along the BeltLine improve with

36
increased property values, etc., but the problem with that thinking is that the users of the
BeltLine are not just limited to homeowners and speculators but include the larger general
public. Benefits should not be viewed in terms of one segment of user beneficiaries over the
other segments. Benefits can be viewed in many ways such as the right to enjoy public green
space, increased community connectivity, or renewed interest in communities that experienced
years of stagnation. The general theme of the research participants regarding benefits and usage
was that everyone derives some type of benefit, equally, not more or less. I do believe benefits
are passed to the general public in that no one benefits more-or-less because they are or are not
closer to the BeltLine. Benefits are available to anyone who takes advantage of the ability to
use the BeltLine and those who use the trail the regularly will benefit the most. Moreover, I
think the nature of potential benefit will expand as BeltLine is built-out and transit connectivity
is more widely addressed. Transit connectivity is the ability to travel and access other areas via
multiple modes of transit with easy effort.
A smaller segment of the participants felt people who live in close to the BeltLine derive
the most benefit, specifically homeowners as they experienced increases in home values and
corresponding interest from real estate investors. I don’t completely agree with this notion
because of the nuances of the various neighborhood along the BeltLine particularly the fact that
some areas have a larger concentration of renters than homeowners. Home ownership is a great
avenue for economic empowerment but the differences between neighborhoods with respect to
homes vs. apartments and property values make it too hard to assert who has the most to gain.
The final primary theme that emerged from the research was revitalization and
gentrification have a strong, unbreakable, connection with capitalism fueling the pace at which
change occurs in communities. I agree, the connection between gentrification and capitalism is

37
undeniable and hard to break. The real question in my mind is not whether there is or is not a
connection, rather does the connection have to mean a negative or unfavorable outcome?
Consensus among the participants was that gentrification is an escapable outcome of
revitalization led by capitalism, which I also believe but as some of the group suggested
government intervention might help improve outcomes for all stakeholders. There is no
question that capitalism is a metric-focused, non-empathetic, cash-driven enterprise. As a
result, the only thing that can be done is to moderate the pace at which gentrification happens or
try to find ways to incorporate legacy residents into the fabric of new communities. I think the
City of Atlanta is doing that with its inclusionary zoning, a policy tool that aims to promote
economic diversity. In the City of Atlanta all new real estate projects, near the BeltLine are
required to offer a fixed percentage of new unit offerings pegged to affordability standards
which creates new housing opportunities for displaced residents. I also think the City of Atlanta
should try to do more to increase homeownership rates of legacy residents, as home ownership
is a cornerstone of economic empowerment and generally one of the 1st key steps people can
take towards overcoming the cyclical nature of poverty and getting on the path to self-
sufficiency. Although the Atlanta Housing Authority seems to only focus on securing and
building rental units for its clients, the agency also does provide supportive services and
encourage residents to aggressively pursue economic empowerment strategies like owning a
home. Atlanta Housing and the BeltLine, both, provide down payment assistance for residents
seeking to purchase a house, duplex, or condo within the City of Atlanta jurisdiction.
The subtheme that emerged from the responses surrounding the connection between
gentrification and capitalism is that capitalism is the engine for change inside of revitalization
but does that does not mean the needs of struggling communities will be adequately addressed,
which I also happen to agree with asserting. Another sub-theme that emerged from the

38
interviews was that not much can be done to stop gentrification aside from moderating its pace
through governmental intervention. I agree, not much can be done unless local government
puts in place policies that favor stakeholders in compromised positions.
Looking at the collective interview responses and the last theme addressed, I can easily
answer the primary research question guiding this study by saying gentrification will always be
a concern inside of revitalization initiatives. The interview research participants
overwhelmingly felt there is undeniable link between revitalization and gentrification, because
of capitalism and the underlying driver of economic gain, no matter what the initial intent of a
revitalization initiative, all projects, will give rise to some degree gentrification activity
including displacement of residents, dissatisfaction of some stakeholders, and loss of cultural
identity.
As for the seven secondary research questions, the interview data suggests there is a
connection between urban revitalization and gentrification because of capitalism but none of the
responses spoke to the relationship between revitalization and gentrification being overstated
rather that it is correctly stated with an absolute direct and positive correlation.
I think the primary driving force behind revitalization is capitalism, but politics also
plays a significant role which none of the participants touched upon. I think more times than
not, all revitalization efforts and gentrification go “hand-in-hand” unless there is active
involvement by the government or stakeholders that deliberately runs contrarian to market-
based capitalistic motives. The participants and I both felt gentrification is heavily influenced
by revitalization, but the silent forces are politics and capitalism which go together.
The research data established that gentrification is intertwined with revitalization, as such
I believe so long as efforts are made to mitigate risk and address the needs of and impact on
marginalized populations then projects should be given the “green-light” to proceed. None of

39
the respondents spoke to revitalization projects moving or not moving forward with minimal to
high attention given to address gentrification risks. The decision to move forward or stop a
revitalization project is not only about mitigation but also about evaluation of the impacts which
should evaluate pros vs. cons.
More due diligence needs to be undertaken when gentrification risk can’t be mitigated at
all and the proposed actions may impose a negative impact on other stakeholders No matter
what happens in any revitalization effort there will always be some dissatisfied stakeholders.
There are several ways to go about project and policy evaluation, as discussed herein,
but a heightened level of due diligence incorporating several methods should be exercised along
with feedback from multiple stakeholders.
The final secondary question can also be easily answered based on the interview data.
Gentrification caused by urban revitalization can’t be stopped but its impact can be mitigated
through strong, consistent, government intervention. This effort should occur on a small scale
in controlled situations. I believe there is an even smaller chance for gentrification risk to be
reduced if the parties involved in a revitalization initiative make the conscious effort to be more
mission focused and steer away from any type of capitalistic mindset or associated
requirements, but this is not a normal mode of thinking or operating. I feel it’s a stretch to think
a significant number of stakeholders would follow suit. Slowing the pace of change in
communities will give policy makers a chance assist less fortunate populations to find new
housing, evaluation their lives, or to try and integrate themselves within rapidly changing
communities.
Based on the interviews, several suggestions emerged that will help form the basis of
policy recommendations to the City of Atlanta. The most common suggestion offered was the
BeltLine could be improved by adopting a more focused revitalization strategy that speaks to

40
needs of individual neighborhoods, recognizing the unique needs and challenges within all
forty-five communities within its sphere of influence. The participants felt the needs of Adair
Park underscore the need for more specialization. This might be more of any issue of
inadequate marketing but from the prospective of participants, the BeltLine uses a generalized
approach. Perhaps there are more granular initiatives they could be made aware of that are
taking place, if these activities are widely known there would be higher level of satisfaction
with community stakeholders.
One suggestion was to focus not only on residential development, but also to focus on
generation of supporting retail and office spaces giving life to communities where people can
live, work, and play. As it stands now, many of the new resident only live within Adair Park
but they are not able to have their needs, namely food and entertainment, met with the current
stock of retail. Once a community can address the needs of its new, higher educated residents it
becomes a coveted location destined for long-term economic viability. This is important for
Adair Park as it had been economic depressed for a long period of time (up until the BeltLine
announcement) and is trying to continue its path towards resurgence. I agree that creating live,
work, play communities is essential but more needs to be done to build on the community
connectivity aspect that the BeltLine promised to deliver.
Another suggestion like the prior one is that strategic adjustments need to be made for
neighborhoods that have more apartments than homes and vice-versa. One of the most
important impact effects of the BeltLine has been the uptick in housing pricing which benefits
homeowners but it’s something renters can’t take advantage of for wealth creation. I believe
this translates to more needs to be done from an educational and empowerment prospective to
get residents to transition from renters to becoming homeowners.

41
One of the interview participants felt BeltLine officials and the City of Atlanta should
have anticipated the uptick in need for more affordable housing before announcing the areas
that would go one to form the initial paths of the Beltline and areas within its sphere of
influences. I think the BeltLine officials had no idea the project would create the kind of impact
it has but were unfairly expected to produce robust amounts of affordable housing with limited
resources not tied to the project’s primary transit focus.
Several participants felt something, desperately, needs to do more to address public
education in areas with renewed residential interest, particularly new residents start families and
would like to entertain the option of sending their kids to high-quality public education near
their homes instead of public schools. Interview data also spoke to observable trends with
homeowners living in the community for short period of time and looking to move once they
start a family as public-school options are not up the requisite standards of highly educated new
residents. If one of the goals the Beltline encourage revitalization, then satisfying resident needs
to stay over a long period of time should be a point of emphasis, otherwise the project is only
going to provide short-term stimulus only appealing to people without families.
Another theme arose from the interview response data was the BeltLine will be
successful in all the neighborhoods, including Adair Park, within its sphere of influence. The
project’s initial success has been good but there is room for improvement. Improvement was
said to be needed relative to being more impactful by assisting legacy residents with production
of affordable housing and promotion of home ownership. No themes emerged which touched
upon the project not having a successful outcome, so no wholesome recommendations were
offered.
The general theme of the research participants regarding benefits and usage was that
everyone equally derives some type of benefit, not more or less. These benefits can be viewed in

42
many ways such as the right to enjoy public green space, increased community connectivity, or
renewed interest in communities that experienced years of stagnation. A smaller segment of the
participants felt that people who live close to the BeltLine derive the most benefit, specifically
homeowners as they experienced increases in home values and corresponding interest from real
estate investors. I don’t completely agree with this notion because of the nuances of the various
neighborhoods along the BeltLine, particularly the fact that some areas have a larger
concentration of renters than homeowners. Home ownership is a great avenue for economic
empowerment, but the differences between neighborhoods make it too hard to assert they have
the most to gain. Anyone who use the BeltLine benefits.
The primary theme emerging from the third interview question related to effectiveness
was that the BeltLine has been effective but there is room for improvement. The participants also
felt evaluation can take place in many ways and that there is not one method superior to another.
They advocated for an evaluation approach that makes use of several methods analyzed over a
long period of time.
The final primary theme , discovered during this study, was that the BeltLine will be
successful in all the affected/adjacent neighborhoods, including Adair Park, within its sphere of
influence. The project’s initial success has been good, but there is room for improvement. The
need for improvements was said to be relative to being more impactful in assisting legacy
residents with production of affordable housing and preservation of home ownership by legacy
residents. No themes emerged which touched upon the project not having a successful outcome,
so no wholesome recommendations were offered.
Based on the data collected and analyzed from the interviews, revitalization and
gentrification are completely inseparable. Revitalization projects like the BeltLine provide

43
economic stimulus guided by free-market enterprise. There are questions surrounding efforts to
intervene with the market to create more equitable outcomes.
Responses to the survey research instrument were analyzed primarily with Microsoft
Excel to understand select groups of respondent’s feelings to different categories of questions.
The survey research instrument questions fit best within four (4) broad-based topical
categories: revitalization (32%), the BeltLine (32%), gentrification (16%), and general feelings
(20%) while answers to the surveys came from 22 respondents including industry experts (50%
or 11 people), residents (36% or 8 people), and other users (14% or 3 people) who were
primarily green space users and government employees.

Survey Questions
1 - I live in an area impacted by an urban revitalization project, like the Atlanta BeltLine, a
green space and transit initiative.
2 - I am neither a current nor former resident, but I do have a personal interest in urban
revitalization projects, like the Atlanta BeltLine.
3 - Urban Revitalization is shaping the City of Atlanta’s growth and other cities around the
world.
4 - There is a strong connection amongst urban revitalization, green space, and transit.
5 - The beltline project has been successful and meets its operational objectives.
6 - Urban revitalization can be successful and serve the needs of all stakeholders, including
current residents, new residents, politicians, and investors.
7 - The BeltLine project is a great revitalization project and will provide the transformational
force to propel Adair Park into the future.
8 - Changes within urban neighborhoods, namely higher homes prices (or rents) and taxes, that
force long-time residents to move is very concerning (worrisome – demands attention) to
me.
9 - The BeltLine project could be improved with significant policy changes and strategic re-
alignment.
10 - The Beltline project can be improved with minor policy changes and strategic re-alignment.

44
11 - Gentrification is an unintended consequence of urban revitalization and positive outcomes,
more times than not, outweigh negative outcomes stemming from urban renewal initiatives
such as the Atlanta BeltLine.
12 - The BeltLine project provides a “good” blueprint for other communities and cities to
follow if they intend to undertake large-scale revitalization led by green space and transit.
13 - The BeltLine has served Adair Park well and no policy changes are needed to replicate
success within other urban revitalization projects.
14 - The BeltLine has not served Adair Park well and policy changes are needed to improve
chances of success within this and other urban revitalization projects.
15 - Gentrification risks are present within all urban revitalization projects.
16 - Urban revitalization needs to take a more focused, neighborhood-by-neighborhood,
approach.
17 - Gentrification risk, associated with urban revitalization led by transit and green space, can’t
be mitigated.
18 - Urban revitalization and gentrification have an undeniable and unbreakable connection.
19 - The root cause of gentrification goes beyond policies in favor of urban revitalization
20 - Greater emphasis needs to be taken to improve the lives of long-time residents within Adair
Park.

The eleven (11) industry expert (“specialists”) survey responses are fully detailed within Table
2.0.

45
Table 2.0 Industry Expert Survey Responses
Questions Totals
Strongly
Agree (%)
Agree
(%)
Disagree
(%)
Strongly
Disagree (%)
Total
Question 1 11 45.5% 45.5% 9.1% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 2 11 27.3% 18.2% 9.1% 45.5% 100.0%
Question 3 11 72.7% 27.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 4 11 81.8% 18.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 5 11 0.0% 90.9% 9.1% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 6 11 45.5% 45.5% 9.1% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 7 11 27.3% 72.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 8 11 63.6% 27.3% 0.0% 9.1% 100.0%
Question 9 11 27.3% 45.5% 27.3% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 10 11 0.0% 72.7% 27.3% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 11 11 45.5% 45.5% 9.1% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 12 11 27.3% 63.6% 9.1% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 13 11 0.0% 18.2% 72.7% 9.1% 100.0%
Question 14 11 9.1% 27.3% 45.5% 18.2% 100.0%
Question 15 11 45.5% 45.5% 9.1% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 16 11 72.7% 27.3% h 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 17 11 0.0% 18.2% 81.8% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 18 11 9.1% 45.5% 45.5% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 19 11 72.7% 27.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 20 11 36.4% 45.5% 18.2% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 21 11 72.7% 27.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

46
Questions Totals
Strongly
Agree (%)
Agree
(%)
Disagree
(%)
Strongly
Disagree (%)
Total
Question 22 11 18.2% 81.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 23 11 18.2% 18.2% 54.5% 9.1% 100.0%
Question 24 11 36.4% 63.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 25 11 0.0% 36.4% 63.6% 0.0% 100.0%
Experts Participation Rate: 61%

The eleven specialists had positive feelings towards revitalization. They all believed
revitalization is shaping Atlanta’s growth and that of other cities, while the majority of them,
91%, have been impacted by revitalization and a project like the BeltLine. All the specialists
expressed that they feel that more can be done within revitalization initiatives to address
affordable housing concerns and limit property tax increases. The specialists overwhelming felt
(91%) that all community stakeholders can have their needs met through revitalization and that
they live within a community that had been impacted by revitalization. All the specialists agreed
that revitalization needs a more granular, neighborhood-by- neighborhood focus to be effective. I
believe this is driven by the fact they work in the housing industry or related fields. Moreover,
the challenges within revitalization push industry experts to generate find solutions that speak to
needs of the communities they serve that may similarities to other communities but have unique
characteristics that require outside the box unconventional thinking.
The specialists were divided when it came to believing revitalization does more harm
than good, as well as revitalization and gentrification having a strong connection, as depicted in
Tables 2.1 and 2.2.

47

Fifty-four percent of specialists recognize (strongly agree to agree) that a strong connection
exists between revitalization and gentrification, while the remaining specialists do not. I believe
this division simply represents the specialists differing philosophical views on revitalization,
economic empowerment, and overarching political ideology. They are personal views not to be
construed as being for or against revitalization.

Sixty-three percent of the specialists reject the notion that revitalization does more harm
than good, while the remaining 36% think otherwise, which I found to be surprisingly higher
than expected. I saw this because the specialist group consisted of professionals engaged in work
closely related to revitalization. This response leads me to believe that this small subset of people
has had bad experiences with revitalization, either personally or through someone they know.
The specialists also held strong views, mostly favorable, of the BeltLine, agreeing that:
(1) the project has been successful and met its objectives (91%), (2) it’s a great project and it will
Table 2.1 - Revitalization & Gentrification Have A
Strong Connection
Exp, 9.1%
Exp, 45.5%
Exp, 45.5%
Exp, 0.0%
Res, 12.5%
Res, 25.0%
Res, 37.5%
Res, 25.0%
Other, 0.0%
Other, 33.3%
Other, 66.7%
Other, 0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 18
Table 2.2 - Revitalization Does More Harm than
Good
Res, 25.0%
Res, 25.0% Res, 25.0% Res, 25.0%
Other, 0.0% Other, 0.0%
Other, 100.0%
Other, …
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree
(%)
QUESTION - 23

48
push Adair Park forward with growth (100%), (3) it’s a good project to follow and rollout
nationally as a model for revitalization (91%), and (4) the project has helped Adair Park improve
and grow (100%).
In terms of improvements, the specialists believe (73%) that the BeltLine can do even
better via both minor and major policy changes. I was surprised the specialist responses did not
show a clear preference for small or large changes, instead the same preference. Another set of
related questions within the survey addressed whether changes are needed or not. In this case, the
specialists largely disagreed (81%) with the notion the BeltLine has helped Adair Park and no
changes are need as well as disagreeing (63%) that the BeltLine has not helped Adair Park and
changes are needed.
All the industry specialists expressed beliefs that the underlying root causes of
gentrification lie much deeper than existing or absent policies. The specialists almost completely
agreed (approximately 91%) that: (1) there are bad aspects of gentrification but the good
outweighs the bad; (2) gentrification risks exist in all projects, and (3) that policy intervention is
a widely accepted strategy to mitigate risk, rejecting the notion that policy has a benign effect.
The specialists heavily supported general feelings such as (1) there is a connection
amongst, revitalization, green space, and transit (100%), (2) that changes within urban
neighborhoods such pricing and taxation are worrisome (91%), (3) more emphasis needs to be
placed on the residents of Adair Park (82%), and (4) relationships between new and old residents
could be improved (100%).
I did find it interesting that the specialists felt that a small percentage of the new residents
within Adair Park are long-term owners with vested interests in the community; see Table 2.3
below.

49

Sixty-three percent of specialists felt that the new owners within Adair Park will not
become long-term owners who are fully vested in the community. If the residents of Adair Park
are simply short-term investors looking to take advantage of increasing housing values with an
eye towards moving out in less than five years, I think BeltLine initiative will be considered a
failure. Most of the housing within Adair Park is single family residential homes or duplexes, not
apartments. If new residents are only looking to stay short-term basis, then something needs to
happen to retain them. My observation is that the area is still developing but lacks a lot of the
retail options for shopping, and the public schools are not well-regarded. Because one of primary
tenants of the BeltLine is revitalization, something needs to be done to bring in new retailers and
improve school options for families. I also think the neighborhood suffers from a perception
problem with its history as a disadvantaged area riddled with crime.
The eight resident survey respondents largely had favorable responses towards most of
the questions dealing with revitalization, the BeltLine, gentrification, and in general, all of
which are detailed within Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Resident Survey Responses
Questions Totals
Strongly
Agree (%)
Agree (%)
Disagree
(%)
Strongly
Disagree (%)
Total
Question 1 8 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 2 8 12.5% 12.5% 0.0% 75.0% 100.0%
Table 2.3 - New Adair Park Residents Are Not
Speculators
Res , 12.5%
Res , 37.5%
Res , 50.0%
Res , 0.0%
Other , …
Other , …
Other , 66.7%
Other , 0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 25

50
Questions Totals
Strongly
Agree (%)
Agree (%)
Disagree
(%)
Strongly
Disagree (%)
Total
Question 3 8 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 4 8 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 5 8 0.0% 12.5% 75.0% 12.5% 100.0%
Question 6 8 25.0% 62.5% 12.5% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 7 8 12.5% 75.0% 0.0% 12.5% 100.0%
Question 8 8 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Question 9 8 50.0% 12.5% 37.5% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 10 8 0.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Question 11 8 25.0% 12.5% 50.0% 12.5% 100.0%
Question 12 8 12.5% 62.5% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 13 8 0.0% 0.0% 87.5% 12.5% 100.0%
Question 14 8 12.5% 87.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 15 8 62.5% 37.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 16 8 62.5% 37.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 17 8 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Question 18 8 12.5% 25.0% 37.5% 25.0% 100.0%
Question 19 8 12.5% 62.5% 12.5% 12.5% 100.0%
Question 20 8 37.5% 37.5% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 21 8 75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 22 8 12.5% 75.0% 12.5% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 23 8 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Question 24 8 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 25 8 12.5% 37.5% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Residents Participation Rate: 62%
Revitalization was generally believed to have the potential to be successful and serve the
needs of multiple stakeholders. All of the respondents (100%) had been impacted by urban
revitalization projects and felt such projects were shaping Atlanta and other cities; however,
they felt that revitalization needs to take more neighborhood-by-neighborhood approach to be
more effective, starting with the creation of more affordable housing and reduction of property
taxes.

51
Analyzing the resident survey responses, we find some ambiguity surrounding the notion
of revitalization doing more harm than good and whether there is a strong link between
revitalization and gentrification evidenced within figures shown below.

Based on the surveys, the residents hold general feelings that make the case to address
concerns and act on opportunities for improvement. They overwhelming feel: (1) there is a
connection amongst revitalization, green space, and transit, (2) gentrification risk is a part of all
projects, (3) housing price escalations and resulting tax increases are worrisome, (4) more
emphasis should be placed on the residents of Adair Park, and (5) there are opportunities to
improve relations between the new and legacy populations within Adair Park. There is not
Table 3.2 - Revitalization and Gentrification Have a Strong Connection
Residents, 12.5%
Residents, 25.0%
Residents, …
Residents, 25.0%
Experts, 9.1%
Experts, 45.5%
Experts, 45.5%
Experts, 0.0%
Other, 0.0%
Other, 33.3%
Other, …
Other, 0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 18
Table 3.3 - Revitalization Does More Harm Than Good
Res, 25.0%
Res, 25.0% Res, 25.0%
Res, 25.0%
Exp, 18.2%
Exp, 18.2%
Exp, 54.5%
Exp, 9.1%
Other, 0.0%
Other, 0.0%
Other, 100.0%
Other, 0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 23

52
consensus amongst the residents when it comes to whether they are long-term or short-term
residents.
Most of the residents (63%) do not believe that the good aspects of gentrification
outweigh the bad aspects. All the residents agree there is a gentrification risk present in all
revitalization projects, like to what was observed from themes that emerged from the interviews.
The residents expressed strong feelings in opposition (75%) to policy intervention being
used as an effective tool to mitigate the risks of gentrification. Gentrification is driven by many
factors that go beyond policies, which the residents favored (75%).
The residents conveyed a high degree of satisfaction with the BeltLine by the fact that
87% of them don’t feel the BeltLine has been successful or met operational objectives which is
interesting because they have a different view on the impact of the BeltLine within Adair Park.
Eighty-seven percent of the resident respondents feel it is a great revitalization project that will
move Adair Park Forward. I wonder why they feel things within Adair were different, especially
since its more of a developing area along the BeltLine that has been historically depressed and it
has fewer amenities to offer residents?
The three other-user survey respondents strongly agreed to agreed, with 80% of the
questions (not highlighted) dealing with revitalization, the BeltLine, gentrification, and general
feelings all of which are detailed within Table 4.0.
Table 4.0 Other Users Survey Responses
Questions Totals
Strongly
Agree (%)
Agree
(%)
Disagree
(%)
Strongly
Disagree (%)
Total
Question 1 3 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 2 3 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%
Question 3 3 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 4 3 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 5 3 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

53
Questions Totals
Strongly
Agree (%)
Agree
(%)
Disagree
(%)
Strongly
Disagree (%)
Total
Question 6 3 66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 7 3 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 8 3 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 9 3 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 10 3 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 11 3 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 12 3 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 13 3 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 14 3 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 15 3 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 16 3 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 17 3 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 18 3 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 19 3 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 20 3 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 21 3 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 22 3 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 23 3 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 24 3 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Question 25 3 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0%
All Targets Participation Rate: 8%
I think a great deal can be distilled by paying close attention to the highlighted responses
(20%) in which respondents disagreed with questions on revitalization, gentrification,
revitalization, general feelings, and the BeltLine.
Nearly two-thirds (67%) of other users disagreed with the belief that the BeltLine has
helped Adair Park and no changes are needed, that gentrification risk can’t be mitigated through

54
policy intervention, and that urban revitalization and gentrification have a strong connection as
illustrated in Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.

The entire group completely disagreed (100%) with the idea that revitalization does more harm
than good as represented in Table 4.4, and disagreed (67%) with the belief that Adair Park’s new
Table 4.1 - BeltLine is Great, No Policy Changes
Needed
Other, 0.0%
Other, 33.3%
Other, 66.7%
Other, 0.0%
Exp, 0.0%
Exp, 18.2%
Exp, 72.7%
Exp, 9.1%
Res, 0.0%
Res, 0.0%
Res, 87.5%
Res, 12.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 13
Table 4.2 - Policy Intervention Can't Mitigate
Gentrification Risk
Other, 0.0%
Other, 33.3%
Other, 66.7%
Other, 0.0%
Exp, 0.0%
Exp, 18.2%
Exp, 81.8%
Exp, 0.0%
Res, 0.0%
Res, 25.0%
Res, 50.0%
Res, 25.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 17
Table 4.3 - Strong Connection Between Gentrification &
Revitalization
Other, 0.0%
Other, 33.3%
Other, 66.7%
Other, 0.0%
Exp, 9.1%
Exp, 45.5%
Exp, 45.5%
Exp, 0.0%
Res, 12.5%
Res, 25.0%
Res, 37.5%
Res, 25.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 18

55
residents are not real estate speculators but instead have a long-term interest in the area’s
economic resurgence, illustrated in Table 4.5. If the new residents are real estate speculators,
they are not vested or willing to commit the community which goes against sustained long-term
revitalization that the BeltLine should be promoting and encouraging to everyone.

The three other user respondents overwhelming agreed (90%) they have been impacted
by revitalization project like the BeltLine, and disagreed (100%) with the idea that revitalization
does more harm than good; they agreed (90%) they were impacted by revitalization, even though
they did not live within Adair Park or another BeltLine community, and agreed (99%) the project
has shaped the City of Atlanta as well as other cities. This group agreed (90%) all stakeholders
Table 4.4 - Revitalization Does More Harm Than Good
Other, 0.0%
Other, 0.0%
Other, 100.0%
Other, 0.0%
Exp, 18.2%
Exp, 18.2%
Exp, 54.5%
Exp, 9.1%
Res, 25.0%
Res, 25.0% Res, 25.0%
Res, 25.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 23
Table 4.5 - New Residents Are Not Real Estate Speculators,
Looking to Own and Sell Quickly
Other, 0.0%
Other, 33.3%
Other, 66.7%
Other, 0.0%
Exp, 0.0%
Exp, 36.4%
Exp, 63.6%
Exp, 0.0%
Res, 12.5%
Res, 37.5%
Res, 50.0%
Res, 0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 25

56
can have their needs meet via revitalization, but a more dialed in neighborhood-by-neighborhood
approach is needed (99%). They also agreed revitalization can do more to address affordable
housing and tax obligations (99%).
This group did not agree as to the strong relationship between revitalization and
gentrification represented within Table 4.4.
The other users strongly agreed to agreed (100%) that the BeltLine has been successful in
meeting its objectives, that it’s a great project that will push Adair Park forward, that it’s a good
project to follow and rollout nationally as a model for revitalization, and that it has helped Adair
Park improve and grow.
This same group also strongly agreed-to-agreed with less certainty that the BeltLine can
do better with major policy changes (72%), minor policy changes (73%), and nearly 75% agree
any policy change would improve the BeltLine but were unsure whether it needs to be a minor or
major change.
Conversely, the others used disagreed (72%) that the BeltLine has helped Adair Park and
no changes are needed and disagreed to strongly disagreed (63%) the BeltLine has not helped
Adair Park and changes are needed.
The other users had strong feels about the gentrification survey questions including: (1)
completely agreed (100%) that gentrification has bad aspects but the good aspects outweigh the
bad ones, (2) strongly agreed to agreed (90%) that gentrification risk is inherent within all
projects, and (3) completely strongly agreed to agreed (100%) that gentrification goes beyond
current policies. The sole outlier response for the other users was the survey question regarding
policy intervention which the respondents disagreed (81%) that it could not be used to mitigate
gentrification risk . This group also strongly agreed-to-agreed (99%) that a connection exists
amongst revitalization, green space, and transit. Other users generally agree (90%) that changes

57
with urban neighborhoods such pricing and taxation are worrisome. Other users strongly agree-
to-agreed (90%) that gentrification risk exists within all projects.
Residents, generally felt more emphasis needs to be placed on the residents of Adair Park
– 81% strongly agree or agreed. The residents expressed, 100% agree, a need for improved
relations between new and old residents. Lastly, the others generally felt, 67%, the new owners
are not long term vested, 23% feel they are – Question might that be, put that in my analysis
This categorization of the questions and user is detailed within Appendix M. From this
categorization, I was able to make some meaningful assumptions about how residents and
industry felt about revitalization, the BeltLine project itself, overarching feelings about
gentrification, and feeling resident how about changes in the community as well as their impact.
The survey questionnaire was distributed to 36 potential research participants, of which
21 or 58.33% of the targeted group completed and returned full responses. Summary information
on the completed surveys can be found within Appendices E – F.
As it relates to survey research, content analysis is a research method that is applied to
the verbatim responses to open-ended questions in order to code those answers into a
meaningful set of categories that lend themselves to further quantitative statistical analysis. In
the words of Bernard Berelson, one of the early scholars explaining this method, "Content
analysis is a research technique for the objective, systematic, and quantitative description of the
manifest content of communication." By coding these verbatim responses into a relatively small
set of meaningful categories, survey researchers can create new variables in their survey data
sets to use in their analyses.
Based on the data collected and analyzed from the surveys, revitalization and
gentrification are completely inseparable. Revitalization projects like the BeltLine provide

58
economic stimulus guided by free-market enterprise. There are questions surrounding efforts to
intervene with the market to create more equitable outcomes

59
Chapter 4: Conclusion and Recommendations
There is no question, based on the data collected, that green space projects such as the
innovative BeltLine revitalization initiative create economic stimulus that is needed in struggling
communities. Uncertainty lies in what is the best form for economic stimulus to occur and what
can be done to improve outcomes of existing policies.
The data from this study suggests a few things: (1) the BeltLine project could benefit
from more effective marketing (messaging) to convey its original mission and how recent
activity addresses achievement of goals related to the original mission, (2) more can be done
improve relationships between new and legacy residents, (3) economic revitalization has serval
pillars
I believe the BeltLine has been tremendously successful and provided needed stimulus
from an economic development prospective, but it suffers from an identity problem.
Throughout the course of the study, from completing a survey of the literature through the
process of conducting research, I struggled to conceptualize what the BeltLine project is
supposed to represent and wondered what it might represent to other people. Is it a transit-
project; a housing revitalization plan; a broad-based revitalization tool; a transit-oriented
development; or a hybrid policy initiative? This classification and identity challenge make it
hard to evaluate and appreciate the BeltLine. Moreover, this situation lends itself to
dissatisfaction as people look at BeltLine through one lens based on their own categorization of
the project.
The greatest opportunity to improve revitalization initiatives like the BeltLine exists in
shaping perception and understanding of projects themselves. When viewed through these
various lenses it is easy to see how if see the project as a more than one type vs. another that
dissatisfaction is inevitable. Through my exploration of the data and recurring themes within the

60
research, I came to realize the BeltLine is a very lofty policy initiative that is trying to
accomplish multiple goals simultaneously.
Revitalization policies will continue to have impacts on cities and communities for many
years to come. Population growth and urbanization, also, will continue to push policies makers
to look at all avenues to meet the people they serve. Green space and transit are leading the way
in urban revitalization right now. Revitalization led by green space and transit does provide
stimulus to areas and associated benefits, but there is huge divide as to whether: (1) benefits
come at the expense of marginalizing one socioeconomic group over another, (2) whether the
value of the benefits are viewed the same way across the socioeconomic spectrum, and (3) if the
benefits from revitalization can be realized by all people impacted by projects timely and
equitably. Given the divide as to the benefits and their distribution, I think existing urban
revitalization policies need to be evaluated further and if necessary revised to increase their
potential to provide stimulus affecting more people. The 1st step in the evaluative process is the
engagement of stakeholders representing different factions as suggested in my proposal. The
feedback from engagement will provide an opportunity to make changes to current policies for
improvement. It my understanding that officials with the BeltLine did some community
engagement early in the design and implements stages, but a mid-term assessment has yet to
happen. Any changes coming from the stakeholders would need to give rise to bifurcated
outcomes, that are measurable and represent gains for all stakeholders. In my mind, policy
suggestions might include creating property tax protections (prohibiting tax re-assessments like
California’s Prop 13A) for residents that are legacy homeowners, restricting sizeable increases
in rents, and permitting variances to zoning regulations to create more density. Increased density
would allow for the construction of new properties which legacy and new residents could
harmoniously live together in mixed-income housing developments. When undertaken in a

61
revised format, the new approach to revitalization would have a greater and longer lasting
impact and end the association of displacement with urban revitalization.
Limitations
This study had limitations that if addressed would have helped make a stronger case for
the conclusions drawn from the data and associated policy recommendations. The limitations
were largely related to the survey and interview design as well as structure.
The study’s survey instrument could have been enhanced with questions that led to more
definitive conclusions on revitalization, the BeltLine, Gentrification, and General Feelings. On
top of that it would have been helpful to have included more survey questions that led
participants towards providing solutions rather than criticisms. Some of these solutions may
have helped formulate the policy recommendation deliverable provided to Atlanta Mayor and
City Council Official at the conclusion of the study.
I also think distributing the surveys in two rounds would have been helpful. The 1st
round would have featured questions posed similarly to the approach I followed but the key
difference would be the 2nd round of questions would have been refined based on analyzing the
responses from the participants to address inconsistencies and help draw more definitive
conclusions. The survey instruments did not provide as much depth as the personalized responses
from the interviews. If I were to conduct any future research studies related to urban
revitalization, more of my time would be spent trying to get participants to complete interviews.
Lastly, I think survey instrument data analysis is more subjective and prone to less insightful
takeaways unless the study is led by a highly skilled researcher with a lot of experience
conducting and analyzing qualitative surveys. The beauty of the survey instruments was they
were easy to administer and less time consuming, but interpretation can be challenging.

62
Overall, I was able to distill more from the interviews than surveys but getting
participants to agree to do them proved to be more difficult. The interviews were more time-
consuming and required a level of trust that some of the targeted participants, simply, did not
have with me or the research so they were not willing to commit. I also had some varying
degrees of depth with the interview responses as some participants provided very detailed
response while others were extremely brief. The interview participant pool was primarily made
up of people classified as industry experts but ideally it would have been good to have more
diversity with the participants, but the time required to recruit, and interview was more involved
than anticipated. I wish I could have collected interview data from legacy residents within Adair
Park as the ones who participated tended to be new residents but those whom I tried to recruit
expressed little interest in participating with the study, random participants preferred survey, and
the industry experts were willing to provide insights probably because their professional work
was related to the research study or they had personal interest in urban revitalization.
The final constraint of the study I would like to highlight is that related to time.
More time would have been helpful to recruit more participants to complete either the
questionnaire survey or participate in an interview. I was able to connect with people within
Adair Park, surrounding communities, and within professional circles but getting them to commit
was a challenge, beyond that hoping that they all fit into my categories of targeted participants
was not as easy as I assumed. The surveys were completed by a diverse group of respondents
but the interviews, which provided the most useful insights in my opinion, were almost
exclusively completed by industry experts. It would have been great to compare the emerging
themes from industry experts, residents, and other users. I also think it would have been great to
have more time to conduct field research in Chicago or New York to see the impact of its 606
Trail and High Line Park on neighborhoods within their sphere of influence and try to

63
understand the issues and challenges of both projects relative to those faced by the BeltLine and
Adair Park. I also think it would have been helpful to conduct portions of the research study on
prevailing feelings early, currently, and at completion of the BeltLine because as it stands now,
the project is not even 50% complete. There could have been more balance between the research
instrumentalities by securing more interviews to match the number surveys. Interviews provided
more concrete tangible recommendations, although it is hard to get people to commit to
participation, versus surveys that required more interpretation. Lastly, research participation
could have been more balanced to include government officials and community activists instead
of the residents & professional weighting (83%). A more optimal mix would have been 33, 33,
33%.
Opportunities for Additional Research
I think more could be explored about the BeltLine as the project progresses towards
completion as well as some insightful time-series analyses looking at neighborhoods before and
after BeltLine completion to really understand how the neighborhoods changed and some of the
underlying issues that evolved during their transformation. I also think more insights could be
gained by completion of research studies that focus on: (1) analysis of the renter-owner dynamic
in other BeltLine neighborhoods, (2) evaluation of the BeltLine as a transit and housing project
separately, (3) analysis of additional research participants from other communities along the
BeltLine to see if they responded similarly to research participants focused on or from the Adair
Park community, and (4) comparative analysis of research participants from the Adair Park to
research participants representing similar communities near the 606 Trail, Lafitte Trail, and
HighLine to compare and contrast data.

64
Bibliography
Anonymous. “Getting There Together: Tools to Advocate for Inclusive Development near
Transit.” Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law; Chicago 21,
no. 1 (Fall 2011): 101-128,131-140.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1019052264/abstract/38AF0DA450D54465PQ/1.

“As Rail Park Rises, Chinatown Tries to Stay Chinatown.” Philadelphia Magazine (blog),
November 2, 2016. https://www.phillymag.com/citified/2016/11/02/chinatown-
easterntower/.

Aston, Laura, Graham Curie, and Katerina Pavkova. “Does Transit Mode Influence the Transit-
Orientation of Urban Development? – An Empirical Study.” Journal of Transport
Geography 55 (July 1, 2016): 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.07.006.

Blau, Max. “Neighborhoods: Beyond the Beltline.” Creative Loafing; Atlanta. March 26, 2015.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1672757017/abstract/C6EDBED188E9485DPQ/1.

Bowen, Dawn S. “Building a Trail and Connecting a Community: The Establishment of the
Dahlgren Railroad Heritage Trail.” Southeastern Geographer; Chapel Hill 49, no. 3 (Fall
2009): 291–307.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/218138797/abstract/93FE8D408F384FDAPQ/1.

Cao, Xinyu (Jason), and Qisheng Pan. “Rapid Transit and Land Development in a Diverse
World.” Transport Policy, Transit Investment and Land Development. Edited by Xinyu
(Jason) Cao and Qisheng Pan & Shared Use Mobility Innovations. Edited by Susan
Shaheen, 51 (October 1, 2016): 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.06.001.

Cao, Xinyu (Jason), and Dean Porter-Nelson. “Real Estate Development in Anticipation of the
Green Line Light Rail Transit in St. Paul.” Transport Policy, Transit Investment and
Land Development. Edited by Xinyu (Jason) Cao and Qisheng Pan &Shared Use
Mobility Innovations. Edited by Susan Shaheen, 51 (October 1, 2016): 24–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.007.

Center for Transit Oriented Development.. “Hidden in Plain Sight: Capturing the Demand for
Housing Near Transit,”, http://ctod.org/pdfs/2004HiddenPlainSight.pdf (accessed June 1,
2018).

Cervero, Robert, and Danielle Dai. “BRT TOD: Leveraging Transit Oriented Development with
Bus Rapid Transit Investments.” Transport Policy 36 (2014): 127–138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.08.001.

Cervero, Robert, and Jennifer Day. “Suburbanization and Transit-Oriented Development in
China.” Transport Policy 15, no. 5 (September 1, 2008): 315–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2008.12.011.

65
Cervero, Robert, and Jin Murakami. “Rail + Property Development: A Model of Sustainable
Transit Finance and Urbanism.” IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc; St. Louis,
2008.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1698193553?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo.

Cervero, Robert, and Cathleen Sullivan. “Green TODs: Marrying Transit-Oriented Development
and Green Urbanism.” International Journal of Sustainable Development & World
Ecology 18, no. 3 (June 1, 2011): 210–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2011.570801.

Chava, Jyothi, and Peter Newman. “Stakeholder Deliberation on Developing Affordable
Housing Strategies: Towards Inclusive and Sustainable Transit-Oriented Developments.”
Sustainability 8, no. 10 (2016): 1024.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.3390/su8101024.

Chava, Jyothi, Peter Newman, and Reena Tiwari. “Gentrification in New-Build and Old-Build
Transit-Oriented Developments: The Case of Bengaluru.” Urban Research & Practice 0,
no. 0 (February 16, 2018): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2018.1437214.

Chen, Xueming. “Managing Transportation Financing in an Innovative Way.” Management
Research and Practice; Bucharest 4, no. 3 (September 2012): 5–17.
https://searchproquestcom.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1034724425/abstract/5801FD5EC
6314E24PQ/1.

Clagett, M. Tanner. “If It’s Not Mixed-Income, It Won’t Be Transit-Oriented: Ensuring Our
Future Developments Are Equitable & Promote Transit.” Transportation Law Journal
41, no. 1 (March 22, 2014): 1.

Cole, Helen V. S., Melisa Garcia Lamarca, James J. T. Connolly, and Isabelle Anguelovski. “Are
Green Cities Healthy and Equitable? Unpacking the Relationship between Health, Green
Space and Gentrification.” J Epidemiol Community Health 71, no. 11 (November 1,
2017): 1118–21. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2017-209201.

Credit, Kevin. “Transit-Oriented Economic Development: The Impact of Light Rail on New
Business Starts in the Phoenix, AZ Region, USA.” Urban Studies, September 28, 2017,
0042098017724119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017724119.

Dawkins, Casey, and Rolf Moeckel. “Transit-Induced Gentrification: Who Will Stay, and Who
Will Go?” Housing Policy Debate 26, no. 4–5 (September 2, 2016): 801–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2016.1138986.

DeYonker, Dorothy Seay. “A Comparative Analysis of the Pittsburgh and Adair Park
Neighborhoods in Atlanta Following the Foreclosure Crisis.” M.A., University of West
Georgia, 2016.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1795585155/abstract/15A0D24ACFCE45ABPQ/1.

66
Dorsey, Bryan, and Alice Mulder. “Planning, Place-Making and Building Consensus for Transit-
Oriented Development: Ogden, Utah Case Study.” Journal of Transport Geography 32
(October 1, 2013): 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.08.010.

Duncan, Michael. “The Impact of Transit-Oriented Development on Housing Prices in San
Diego, CA.” Urban Studies 48, no. 1 (January 1, 2011): 101–27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009359958.

Feltynowski, Marcin, Jakub Kronenberg, Tomasz Bergier, Nadja Kabisch, Edyta Łaszkiewicz,
and Michael W. Strohbach. “Challenges of Urban Green Space Management in the Face
of Using Inadequate Data.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 31 (April 1, 2018): 56–
66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.12.003.

Filion, Pierre, and Kathleen McSpurren. “Smart Growth and Development Reality: The Difficult
Co-Ordination of Land Use and Transport Objectives.” Urban Studies 44, no. 3 (March
1, 2007): 501–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980601176055. Geographic Society of
Chicago. 606 MAP accessed 10/7/2018. http://www.geographicsociety.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/606-1030x798.jpg

Guthrie, Andrew, and Yingling Fan. “Developers’ Perspectives on Transit-Oriented
Development.” Transport Policy 51 (2016): 103–114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.04.002.

Ha, Eunji, Yongjin Joo, and Chulmin Jun. “An Empirical Study on Sustainable Walkability
Indices for Transit-Oriented Development by Using the Analytic Network Process
Approach.” International Journal of Urban Sciences 15, no. 2 (August 1, 2011): 137–
146. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2011.615977.

Hakkaart, Aaron, and John Morrissey. “Policy Challenges for Transit-Oriented Development.”
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 167, no. 4 (August 1, 2014): 175–184.
https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.13.00026.

Halbur, Tim. “TOD’s Evil Twin: Transit-Adjacent Development; TAD Breaks All the Rules
That Make TOD Work. (Transit-Oriented Development).” Mass Transit 33, no. 3 (May
1, 2007): S4.

Harris, Brandon, Lincoln Larson, and Scott Ogletree. “Different Views From The 606:
Examining the Impacts of an Urban Greenway on Crime in Chicago.” Environment and
Behavior 50, no. 1 (January 2018): 56–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517690197.

Higgins, Christopher D., and Pavlos S. Kanaroglou. “A Latent Class Method for Classifying and
Evaluating the Performance of Station Area Transit-Oriented Development in the
Toronto Region.” Journal of Transport Geography 52 (2016): 61–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.02.012.

Immergluck, Dan. “Large Redevelopment Initiatives, Housing Values and Gentrification: The
Case of the Atlanta Beltline.” Urban Studies 46, no. 8 (2009): 1723–1745.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009105500.

67

Kamruzzaman, Md., Douglas Baker, Simon Washington, and Gavin Turrell. “Advance Transit
Oriented Development Typology: Case Study in Brisbane, Australia.” Journal of
Transport Geography 34 (January 1, 2014): 54–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.11.002.

Kay, Andrew I., Robert B. Noland, and Stephanie DiPetrillo. “Residential Property Valuations
near Transit Stations with Transit-Oriented Development.” Journal of Transport
Geography 39 (July 1, 2014): 131–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.06.017.

Keenan, Sean. “After Beltline Transit Win, More MARTA Project List Is Officially Approved,”
Curbed, https://atlanta.curbed.com/2018/10/5/17940638/beltline-transit-advocates-more-
marta-boardrevised-approved (accessed April 17, 2019).

Keith, Samuel J., Lincoln R. Larson, C. Scott Shafer, Jeffrey C. Hallo, and Mariela Fernandez.
“Greenway Use and Preferences in Diverse Urban Communities: Implications for Trail
Design and Management.” Landscape and Urban Planning 172 (April 1, 2018): 47–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.12.007.

Kim, Joochul. “Urban Redevelopment of Green Belt Villages: A Case Study of Seoul.” Cities 7,
no. 4 (November 1, 1990): 323–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-2751(90)90030-B.

Kimball, Mindy, Mikhail Chester, Christopher Gino, and Janet Reyna. “Assessing the Potential
for Reducing Life-Cycle Environmental Impacts through Transit-Oriented Development
Infill along Existing Light Rail in Phoenix.” Journal of Planning Education and
Research 33, no. 4 (December 1, 2013): 395–410.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X13507485.

Kobza, Kim P. “The Atlanta BeltLine and Neighborhood America.” Public Manager;
Alexandria 35, no. 4 (Winter /2007 2006): 47–49. https://search-
proquestcom.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/236183088/abstract/DA7D25C859D9491BPQ/1

Koschinsky, Julia, and Emily Talen. “Location Efficiency and Affordability: A National
Analysis of Walkable Access and HUD-Assisted Housing.” Housing Policy Debate 26,
no. 4–5 (September 2, 2016): 835–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2015.1137965.

Lang, Steven and Julia Rothenberg, “Neoliberal Urbanism, Public Space, and the Greening of
the Growth Machine: New York City’s High Line Park,” Environment and Planning A
2017, Vol.49(8) 1743 – 1761

Lewis, Paul G., and Mark Baldassare. “The Complexity of Public Attitudes Toward Compact
Development.” Journal of the American Planning Association 76, no. 2 (March 22,
2010): 219–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003646471.

Lierop, Dea van, Kees Maat, and Ahmed El-Geneidy. “Talking TOD: Learning about Transit-
Oriented Development in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands.” Journal of
Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 10, no. 1
(January 2, 2017): 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2016.1192558.

68

Loo, Becky P. Y., and Frederic du Verle. “Transit-Oriented Development in Future Cities:
Towards a Two-Level Sustainable Mobility Strategy.” International Journal of Urban
Sciences 21, no. sup1 (August 1, 2017): 54–67.
https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2016.1235488.

Lund, Hollie. “Reasons for Living in a Transit-Oriented Development, and Associated Transit
Use.” Journal of the American Planning Association 72, no. 3 (September 30, 2006):
357–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976757.

Lyu, Guowei, Luca Bertolini, and Karin Pfeffer. “Developing a TOD Typology for Beijing
Metro Station Areas.” Journal of Transport Geography 55 (July 1, 2016): 40–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.07.002.

“Measuring TOD around Transit Nodes - Towards TOD Policy - ScienceDirect.” Accessed
August 6, 2018. https://www-
sciencedirectcom.libproxy2.usc.edu/science/article/pii/S0967070X16302505.

Menotti, Val Joseph. “The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development.”
American Planning Association. Journal of the American Planning Association; Chicago
71, no. 1 (Winter 2005): 111.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/229735466/abstract/10D5CA57191F4992PQ/1.

Milbourne, Paul. “The Geographies of Poverty and Welfare.” Geography Compass 4, no. 2
(February 1, 2010): 158–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00296.x.

Mu, Rui, and Martin de Jong. “Establishing the Conditions for Effective Transit-Oriented
Development in China: The Case of Dalian.” Journal of Transport Geography, Special
Section on Theoretical Perspectives on Climate Change Mitigation in Transport, 24
(September 1, 2012): 234–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.02.010.

Mulley, Corinne, and Chi-Hong (Patrick) Tsai. “When and How Much Does New Transport
Infrastructure Add to Property Values? Evidence from the Bus Rapid Transit System in
Sydney, Australia.” Transport Policy, Transit Investment and Land Development. Edited
by Xinyu (Jason) Cao and Qisheng Pan & Shared Use Mobility Innovations. Edited by
Susan Shaheen, 51 (October 1, 2016): 15–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.011.

Nasri, Arefeh, Carlos Carrion, Lei Zhang, and Babak Baghaei. “Using Propensity Score
Matching Technique to Address Self-Selection in Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
Areas.” Transportation, May 16, 2018, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-018-9887-
2.

Nasri, Arefeh, and Lei Zhang. “The Analysis of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) in
Washington, D.C. and Baltimore Metropolitan Areas.” Transport Policy 32 (March 1,
2014): 172–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.12.009.

69
Niesse, Mark. “Census: Metro Atlanta’s Population Approaches 5.8 Million,” Atlanta Journal
Constitution (April 10, 2017)

Noland, Robert B., Marc D. Weiner, Stephanie DiPetrillo, and Andrew I. Kay. “Attitudes
Towards Transit-Oriented Development: Resident Experiences and Professional
Perspectives.” Journal of Transport Geography 60 (April 1, 2017): 130–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.02.015.

Noonan, Douglas, Shan Zhou, and Robert Kirkman. “Making Smart and Sustainable
Infrastructure Projects Viable: Private Choices, Public Support, and Systems
Constraints.” Urban Planning; Lisbon 2, no. 3 (2017): 18–32.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.17645/up.v2i3.999.

Patton, M.Q. “Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods.” (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Pearsall, Hamil, Susan Lucas, and Julia Lenhardt. “The Contested Nature of Vacant Land in
Philadelphia and Approaches for Resolving Competing Objectives for Redevelopment.”
Cities, Vacant land: The new urban green?, 40 (October 1, 2014): 163–74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.04.008.

Pendered, David. “Beltline Broken? How a Key Piece of One of the Most Promising
Development Deals in Recent Atlanta History Fell Apart. Can This Relationship Be
Saved? And What If It Can’t? [Main Edition].” The Atlanta Journal Constitution;
Atlanta, Ga. September 23, 2006, sec. News. https://search-
proquestcom.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/337290434/abstract/33A8AF476132474CPQ/1.

Peng, Ya-Ting, Zhi-Chun Li, and Keechoo Choi. “Transit-Oriented Development in an Urban
Rail Transportation Corridor.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 103
(September 2017): 269–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2017.03.011.

Paynich, Vitisia . “Tracking the Atlanta BeltLine: How Social Equity is Breaking Down Barriers
and Connecting Communities.” National Parks & Recreation Magazine, December 7,
2017

Pojani, Dorina, and Dominic Stead. “Ideas, Interests, and Institutions: Explaining Dutch Transit-
Oriented Development Challenges.” Environment and Planning A 46, no. 10 (2014):
2401–2418. https://doi.org/10.1068/a130169p.

Rayle, Lisa. “Investigating the Connection Between Transit-Oriented Development and
Displacement: Four Hypotheses.” Housing Policy Debate 25, no. 3 (July 1, 2015): 531–
48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2014.951674.

Read “Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Handbook, Third Edition: Chapter
17, Transit-Oriented Development” at NAP.Edu. Accessed August 13, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.17226/14077.

70
Renne, John L. “From Transit-Adjacent to Transit-Oriented Development.” Local Environment
14, no. 1 (January 2009): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830802522376.

Renne, John L., Tara Tolford, Shima Hamidi, and Reid Ewing. “The Cost and Affordability
Paradox of Transit-Oriented Development: A Comparison of Housing and Transportation
Costs Across Transit-Oriented Development, Hybrid and Transit-Adjacent Development
Station Typologies.” Housing Policy Debate 26, no. 4–5 (September 2, 2016): 819–34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2016.1193038.

Rhone, Nedra. “ONLY IN THE AJC ATLANTA BELTLINE: Can Beltline Solve Its Image
Problem?: Eastside Trail Is Lesson on Risks of Gentrification on Other Trail Segments.”
The Atlanta Journal Constitution; Atlanta, Ga. May 1, 2018, sec. NEWS.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/2032676530/citation/465D18549BC94890PQ/1.

Rigolon, Alessandro, and Jeremy Németh. “‘We’re Not in the Business of Housing:’
Environmental Gentrification and the Nonprofitization of Green Infrastructure Projects.”
Cities, March 29, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.03.016.

Roy, Parama. “Collaborative Planning – A Neoliberal Strategy? A Study of the Atlanta
BeltLine.” Cities 43 (March 1, 2015): 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.11.010.

Sahu, Akshay. “A Methodology to Modify Land Uses in a Transit Oriented Development
Scenario.” Journal of Environmental Management, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.004.

Seymour, Barry, and Karin Morris. “Transit-Oriented Development In The Greater Philadelphia
Region.” Economic Development Journal; Washington 12, no. 2 (Spring 2013): 65–69.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1504591157/abstract/AC10A9F97E8A45E7PQ/1.

Sims, Shannon. “The ‘Crown Jewel’ of New Orleans’s Bike Scene.” CityLab. Accessed June 10,
2018. https://www.citylab.com/life/2017/08/lafitte-greenway-new-orleans/534735/.

Singh, Yamini Jain, Pedram Fard, Mark Zuidgeest, Mark Brussel, and Martin van Maarseveen.
“Measuring Transit Oriented Development: A Spatial Multi Criteria Assessment
Approach for the City Region Arnhem and Nijmegen.” Journal of Transport Geography
35 (February 1, 2014): 130–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.01.014.

Singh, Yamini Jain, Azhari Lukman, Johannes Flacke, Mark Zuidgeest, and M. F. A. M. Van
Maarseveen. “Measuring TOD around Transit Nodes - Towards TOD Policy.” Transport
Policy 56 (May 1, 2017): 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.03.013.

Smith, Neil. “Toward a Theory of Gentrification: A Back to the City Movement by Capital, Not
People.” Journal of the American Planning Association 45, no. 4 (October 1, 1979): 538–
48. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367908977002.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques (1st ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

71
Tan, Wendy G. Z., Leonie B. Janssen-Jansen, and Luca Bertolini. “The Role of Incentives in
Implementing Successful Transit-Oriented Development Strategies.” Urban Policy and
Research 32, no. 1 (January 2, 2014): 33–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2013.832668.

Tighe, J. Rosie, and Joanna P. Ganning. “Do Shrinking Cities Allow Redevelopment Without
Displacement? An Analysis of Affordability Based on Housing and Transportation Costs
for Redeveloping, Declining, and Stable Neighborhoods.” Housing Policy Debate 26, no.
4–5 (September 2, 2016): 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2015.1085426.

Verbich, David, Badami, Madhav G., and El-Geneidy, Ahmed M. “Bang for the Buck: Toward a
Rapid Assessment of Urban Public Transit from Multiple Perspectives in North
America.” Transport Policy 55 (April 2017): 51–61.

Weber, Sarah, B. Bynum Boley, Nathan Palardy, and Cassandra Johnson Gaither. “The Impact
of Urban Greenways on Residential Concerns: Findings from the Atlanta BeltLine Trail.”
Landscape and Urban Planning 167 (November 2017): 147–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.06.009.

Wey, Wann-Ming, Heng Zhang, and Yu-Jie Chang. “Alternative Transit-Oriented Development
Evaluation in Sustainable Built Environment Planning.” Habitat International 55 (2016):
109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.03.003.

Williams, Dave. “Metro Atlanta Population Expected to Hit 8 Million by 2040,” Atlanta
Business Chronicle, (September 18, 2015, 18A)

Wolch, Jennifer R., and Byrne, Jason, and Newell, Joshua P. “Urban green space, public health,
and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough,”
Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014) 234-244

Yang, Jiawen, Junxian Chen, Xiaohui Le, and Qin Zhang. “Density-Oriented versus
Development-Oriented Transit Investment: Decoding Metro Station Location Selection
in Shenzhen.” Transport Policy, Transit Investment and Land Development. Edited by
Xinyu (Jason) Cao and Qisheng Pan &Shared Use Mobility Innovations. Edited by Susan
Shaheen, 51 (October 1, 2016): 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.04.004.

Yang, Jiawen, Jige Quan, Bin Yan, and Canfei He. “Urban Rail Investment and Transit-Oriented
Development in Beijing: Can It Reach a Higher Potential?” Transportation Research Part
A: Policy and Practice 89 (July 1, 2016): 140–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.05.008.

72
Appendices
Appendix A – IRB Authorization

From: istar-DoNotReply@usc.edu
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 6:04 PM
To: dollar@usc.edu; tbanerje@usc.edu
Subject: Study Approval Notice Sent

University of Southern California Institutional Review Board
1640 Marengo Street, Suite 700
Los Angeles, California 90033-9269
Telephone: (323) 442-0114
Fax: (323) 224-8389
Email: irb@usc.edu
Date:
Sep 16, 2019, 03:04pm
Action Taken: Approve
Principal
Investigator:
Brian Dollar,
SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
Faculty
Advisor:
Tridib Banerjee
SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
Co-
Investigator(s):

Project Title: Green Space, Transit, and Revitalization within Atlanta's Adair Park
Study ID: UP-19-00564
Funding:

The University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) designee
reviewed your iStar application and attachments on 09/16/2019.

Based on the information submitted for review, this study is determined to be exempt
from 45 CFR 46 according to §46.104(d) as category (2).

As research which is considered exempt according to §46.104(d), this project is not
subject to requirements for continuing review. You are authorized to conduct this
research as approved.

If there are significant changes that increase the risk to subjects or if the funding
has changed, you must submit an amendment to the IRB for review and
approval. For other revisions to the application, use the “Send Message to IRB”
link.
The materials submitted and considered for review of this project included:
1. iStar application dated 08/25/2019

73
2. Dissertation Interview Question Pool, uploaded 07/21/2019
3. Interview Questions, uploaded 08/25/2019
4. Survey, uploaded 08/25/2019

INFORMATION SHEET

Consent and recruitment documents are not required to be uploaded for exempt
studies; however, researchers are reminded that USC follows the principles of the
Belmont Report, which requires all potential participants to be informed of the research
study, their rights as a participant, confidentiality of their data, etc. Therefore, please
utilize the Information Sheet Template available on the IRB website
(http://oprs.usc.edu) and revise the language to be specific to your study. This
document will not be reviewed by the IRB. It is the responsibility of the researcher to
make sure the document is consistent with the study procedures listed in the
application.

Funding source(s): N/A – no funding source listed
Attachments:
Guidance for Recruitment Materials -07-17-2019.doc
Information-Sheet-for-Exempt-Studies-07-27-2019.doc

Social-behavioral health-related interventions or health-outcome studies must register
with clinicaltrials.gov or other International Community of Medical Journal Editors
(ICMJE) approved registries in order to be published in an ICJME journal. The ICMJE
will not accept studies for publication unless the studies are registered prior to
enrollment, despite the fact that these studies are not applicable “clinical trials” as
defined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). For support with registration, go
to www.clinicaltrials.gov or contact Jean Chan ( jeanbcha@usc.edu, 323-442-2825).
Approved Documents: view
Important
The principal investigator for this study is responsible for obtaining all necessary approvals before
commencing research. Please be sure that you have satisfied applicable requirements, for example
conflicts of interest, bio safety, radiation safety, biorepositories, credentialing, data security, sponsor
approval, clinicaltrials.gov or school approval. IRB approval does not convey approval to
commence research in the event that other requirements have not been satisfied.

This is an auto-generated email. Please do not respond directly to this message using
the "reply" address. A response sent in this manner cannot be answered. If you have
further questions, please contact iStar Support at (323) 276-2238 or istar@usc.edu.
The contents of this email are confidential and intended for the specified recipients only. If you have
received this email in error, please notify istar@usc.edu and delete this message.

74
Appendix B – IRB Application

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86
Appendix C – Interview Protocol: Survey Questionnaire: Urban Revitalization, Green
Space, & Transit
This research survey has been distributed as part of the doctoral research efforts of Brian Dollar, a
graduate student at the University of Southern California’s Sol Price School of Public Policy, who
is researching the relationship amongst urban revitalization, green space, and transit. Your
participation is highly valued.
Please take a moment to complete the enclosed, 25-item questionnaire (survey) which has an
estimated completion time of 25-30 minutes, using the email message link sent to you from
Qualtrics Software, my university email address, or by returning the prepaid envelope via US
Postal Service. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to Brian Dollar at
213-804-6268 or dollar@usc.edu.
______________________________________________________________________________
1. I live in an area impacted by an urban revitalization project, like the Atlanta BeltLine,
a green space and transit initiative.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

2. I am neither a current nor former resident, but I do have a personal interest in urban
revitalization projects, like the Atlanta BeltLine.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

3. Urban Revitalization is shaping the City of Atlanta’s growth and other cities around the
world.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

4. There is a strong connection amongst urban revitalization, green space, and transit.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

87
5. The beltline project has been successful and meets its operational objectives.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

6. Urban revitalization can be successful and serve the needs of all stakeholders, including
current residents, new residents, politicians, and investors.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

7. The BeltLine project is a great revitalization project and will provide the
transformational force to propel Adair Park into the future.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

8. Changes within urban neighborhoods, namely higher homes prices (or rents) and taxes,
that force long-time residents to move is very concerning (worrisome – demands
attention) to me.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

9. The BeltLine project could be improved with significant policy changes and strategic
re-alignment.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

10. The Beltline project can be improved with minor policy changes and strategic re-
alignment.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

88
11. Gentrification is an unintended consequence of urban revitalization and positive
outcomes, more times than not, outweigh negative outcomes stemming from urban
renewal initiatives such as the Atlanta BeltLine.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

12. The BeltLine project provides a “good” blueprint for other communities and cities to
follow if they intend to undertake large-scale revitalization led by green space and
transit.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

13. The BeltLine has served Adair Park well and no policy changes are needed to replicate
success within other urban revitalization projects.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

14. The BeltLine has not served Adair Park well and policy changes are needed to improve
chances of success within this and other urban revitalization projects.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

15. Gentrification risks are present within all urban revitalization projects.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

16. Urban revitalization needs to take a more focused, neighborhood-by-neighborhood,
approach.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

89
17. Gentrification risk, associated with urban revitalization led by transit and green space,
can’t be mitigated.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

18. Urban revitalization and gentrification have an undeniable and unbreakable
connection.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

19. The root cause of gentrification goes beyond policies in favor of urban revitalization.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

20. Greater emphasis needs to be taken to improve the lives of long-time residents within
Adair Park.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

21. Revitalization policies should include more features such as inclusionary zoning (to
create more affordable housing), freezing property tax increases on low income and
legacy property owners, and creating more opportunities for home ownership.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

22. Adair Park’s prospects for growth and improvement have been enhanced due to the
revitalization efforts of the BeltLine.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

90
23. My number one concern with urban revitalization projects like the BeltLine is they
cause more harm than good to long-standing residents.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

24. Relations between new and old residents within Adair Park need to be improved.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

25. The new residents of Adair Park will be long-term residents not real estate speculators
looking to get in and out of their investments.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strong Disagree

91
Appendix D – Interview Protocol: Participant Interview Questions

The Interplay between Green Space and Transit: Case Study of Revitalization
within Atlanta’s Adair Park and its Potential to Improve
Future Policy Outcomes

Purpose of the Interview
Thanks for taking the time to offer your personal feelings and insights on urban revitalization led
by Green Space and Transit within Adair Park or similar communities.
Brian Anthony Dollar, a doctoral student (the “study doctor”) at the University of Southern
California, Sol Price School of Public Policy, is conducting a research project to evaluate urban
revitalization led by transit and green space to drive formulation and potential implementation of
new policies or improvements to existing policies for use by those in elected roles, positions of
influence, or simply to expand understanding within the realm of academic research.
The interviews conducted as part of this research project will focus on two groups of people: (1)
residents or those with strong community connections, and (2) community activists/public
officials/real estate professionals who are highly experienced and possess specific knowledge
and technical expertise related to urban revitalization.
The interview is voluntary and confidential. The information gathered will be stored in a separate
and password protected place. You will not be quoted by name without your advance written
permission. If you have any questions about the project, please feel free to contact Brian
Anthony Dollar (dollar@usc.edu) or 213-804-6268
Questions for resident or stakeholders without or limited professional experience (technical
expertise) related to revitalization in urban areas tied to green space and transit.
1. Do you feel the BeltLine has remained true to its original mission? Do you think the
BeltLine initiative will be successful, sustainable, and worthy of replication in other
communities?

2. Does everyone impacted by the BeltLine benefit equally? If not, what do think needs to
change to help people benefit equally?

3. What are your feelings about urban revitalization led by transit and green space, relative
to its effectiveness? How would you measure its effectiveness? What is the most
important consideration or factors you’d suggest for evaluating effectiveness?

4. Is gentrification an inescapable outcome of urban revitalization?

5. Do you think the BeltLine will be successful in Adair Park and the other neighborhoods
in its sphere of influence? If you don’t think success is a probable outcome, what do you
think should change to ensure success?

92 92
Appendix E – Research Participant Summary

Research Participant Targets - Classifications
Anonymous Identifier Name Gender Classification Survey-Completed Interview-Completed Completion Date Notes
ID001 1 Jerome Keith Brown Male Industry Expert 10/17/2019 Public Official - City Manager
ID002 2 Fred White Male Industry Expert Yes Yes 9/21/2019 Public Official - Public Housing
ID003 3 Donald Matheson Male Industry Expert Yes 9/8/2019 Real Estate Developer
ID004 4 Patrick Nelson Male Industry Expert Yes Yes 9/8/2019 Affordable Housing Advocate / Property Owner
ID005 5 Chevene King Male Industry Expert Yes Yes 9/11/2019 Affordable Housing Advocate / Resident
ID006 6 Bryan Oos Male Industry Expert Yes 9/11/2019 Real Estate Developer
ID007 7 Kenneth Dollar Male Government Yes Public Official - City Manager
ID008 8 Peter Waldrep Male Government Yes 12/13/2019 Public Official - City Manager
ID009 9 Ryan Gravel Male Community Activist Housing Advocate / Community Activist
ID010 10 Aleksandra Kazmierczak Female Green Space User Yes 10/6/2019 Random User - Westend BeltLine
ID011 11 Councilwomen Andre Dickens Male Government Public Offical - City Manager
ID012 12 Carrie Bush Female Green Space User Yes Planning & Policy - Researcher
ID013 13 Magdelena Young Female Industry Expert Yes 10/11/2019 Real Estate Agent / Broker
ID014 14 Donny James Male Industry Expert Yes 8/21/2019 Local County - RE Manager
ID015 15 Mr. Craig Ellis Male Industry Expert Yes Yes 8/22/2019 Affordable Housing Advocate / Resident
ID016 16 Mrs. Craig Ellis Female Residents Yes 8/23/2019 Affordable Housing Advocate / Resident
ID017 17 Dwayne Marshall Male Industry Expert Resident
ID018 18 Major Galloway Male Industry Expert Yes 8/25/2019 Public Housing Official
ID019 19 Searles Foundation Male Industry Expert Real Estate Developer
ID020 20 Joe Robertson Male Industry Expert Banking / Community Development
ID021 21 Keith Dollar Male Industry Expert Yes 8/28/2019 National Development Council
ID022 22 Keisha Freeman Male Industry Expert Yes 8/29/2019 Institutional Real Estate Investor
ID023 23 Roy Pachecano Male Industry Expert Yes 8/30/2019 Adjunct Real Estate P{rofessor
ID024 24 BeltLine Resident Male Residents Resident - 716 Catherine Avenue
ID025 25 BeltLine Resident Female Residents Resident - 716 Catherine Avenue
ID026 26 BeltLine Resident Male Residents Yes 8/31/2019 Resident - Marcus Johnson (10 YEAR Resident - Looking to sell home)
ID027 27 BeltLine Resident Female Residents Resident - Madeline Richardson (with chicken farm & kids)
ID028 28 BeltLine Resident Female Residents Resident - Mrs. Courtney Adams
ID029 29 BeltLine Resident Male Residents 9/8/2019 Resident - Nicolaus Sherrill

93 93

Anonymous Identifier Name Gender Classification Survey-Completed Interview-Completed Completion Date Notes
ID030 30 BeltLine Resident Male Residents Yes 9/8/2019 Resident - Random Person from Adair Park's Playground
ID031 31 BeltLine Resident Female Residents Yes 9/8/2019 Resident - Ms. Smith (746 Catherine Street) - Renter
ID032 32 BeltLine Resident Male Residents Yes Yes 9/15/2019 Resident - Angel Proventud
ID033 33 BeltLine Resident Female Residents Yes 9/9/2019 Resident - Beth Malone (beth@dashboard.us)
ID034 34 BeltLine Resident Female Residents Yes 9/9/2019 Resident - Gavin Bernard (Beth Malone's Roommate)
ID035 35 BeltLine Resident Female Residents Yes 9/9/2019 Resident - (Craig Cameron) Beth Malone's roommate
ID036 36 BeltLine Resident Female Residents Yes 9/9/2019 Resident - (no name - lvcrymes@yahoo.com)

94 94
Appendix F – Research Participants Contact Information

Mr. Keisha Freeman, Managing Director - Asset Management Dr. Catherine Ross Col. (RET) Kenneth L. Dollar, Chairman of the Board
Colony Realty Partners Georgia Institute of Technology - Ctr. Quality Growth & Regional Development Marietta Housing Authority
5 Park Plaza, Ste. 300 760 Spring Street, Suite 213 95 Cole Street
Irvine, California 92614 Atlanta, Georgia 30308-0790 Marietta, Georgia 30064-5505
kvfreeman25@hotmail.com catherine.ross@design.gatech.edu ret06@comcast.net
310-282-8820 404-385-5130 678-362-1196
Mr. Richard Slayton, CCIM, Senior Vice President Mr. Frederick P. White - Senior Advisor Mr. Roy Pachecano. President
Bank of America Merrill Lynch - Community Development Banking City of Los Angeles - Housing Crisis Response Team Portico R.E.I. LLC
600 Peachtree Street NE Los Angeles, California 315 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2219 fpwhitemba@gmail.com New York, NY 10017
rslaton@slatonproperties.com 917-821-3204 rp@porticorei.com
770-377-6008 (212) 281-7444
Mr. Donny James, Chief Real Estate Officer The Honorable - Councilwoman Joyce Shepered Philip Searles, President
Prince Georges Revenue Authority Atlanta City Council Searles Foundation
3540 Crain Highway, Suite 140 55 Trinity Avenue, Suite 2900 3555 Sweetwater Road
Bowie, Maryland 20716 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3584 Duluth, Georgia 30096
drjames95@gmail.com jmshepered@atlantaga.gov psearles@bjsearlesfoundation.org
720-234-8120 404-330-6053
Mr. Peter Waldrep, Executive Director Ryan Gravel - Founder & President Aleksandra Kazmierczak
Marietta Housing Authority Six Pitch Consultancy / BeltLine Project Green Space User
95 Cole Street Atlanta, Georgia Atlanta, Georgia
Marietta, Georgia 30064 ryan@sixpitch.com olakfitness@gmail.com
pwaldrep@marriettahousing.org 404-786-9761
770-419-3200
Mr. Dwayne Marshall - VP of Community Investment Carrie Bush Adair Park Resident - Anonymous #1 (Male)
Community Foundation of Greater Atlanta Green Space User Atlanta, Georgia 30309
1400 Williams Street Marietta, Georgia 30064 lvcrymes@yahoo.com
Chattanooga, Tennessee
dmarshall@cfgc.org
423-265-0586
Mr. Joseph Robertson, Senior Program Officer The Honorable Andre Dickens - Atlanta City Councilman, Post 3 Adair Park Resident - Anonymous Person #2 (Male)
Low Income Fund Atlanta City Hall - 55 Trinity Avenue, Suite 2900 716 Catherine Avenue
1230 Peachtreet St. NE Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3584 Atlanta, Georgia 30310
Atlanta, Georgia 30308 adickens@atlantaga.gov jdmatlock4551@gmail.com
joerob601@gmail.com 404-330-6041
Keith L. Dollar - Urban Planner Patrick Nelson - Asset Manager Adair Park Resident - Anonymous Person #3 (Female)
Gwinnett County Dept. Planning & Development Atlanta Housing Authority - Real Estate & Property Management 716 Catherine Avenue
447 West Crogan Street 230 John Wesley Dobbs moxielfixon@gmail.com
Lawrenceville, Georgia 30065 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
keith_dollar@hotmail.com patrick.nelson@atlantahousing.org
678-518-6000 404-892-4700
Bryan Oos - Vice President of RE Development Chevene King - Asset Manager Adair Park Resident - Marcus Johnson
Toll Brothers City Living Atlanta Housing Authority - Real Estate & Property Management Atlanta, Georgia 30310
250 Gibraltar Road 230 John Wesley Dobbs mkj06@yahoo.com
Horsham, Pennsylvania 19044 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
oosbe@hotmail.com chevene.king@atlantahousing.org
212-315-9768 404-892-4700
Major Galloway - Vice President Craig Ellis & (Wife Leanne) - Director of Compliance Monitoring Adair Park Resident - Medeline Richardson
Atlanta Housing - Compliance, Government & Federal Affairs Atlanta Housing Authority Atlanta, Georgia 30310
230 John Wesley Dobbs Drive 230 John Wesley Dobbs madelinecrichardson@gmail.com
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
major.galloway@atlantahousing.org craig.ellis@atlantahousing.org
404-892-4700 404-892-4700
J.Keith Brown - VP Business Development Donald Matheson - Managing Partner Adair Park Resident - Mrs. Courtney Adams
McCormack Baron Salazar ALMAT Group Atlanta, Georgia 30310
2200 Century Parkway NE 68 Jay Street, Suite 424 courtney.adams@yahoo.com
Atlanta, Georgia 30345 Brooklyn, New York 11201
jkb_1867@yahoo.com dmatheson@almatgroup.com
404-880-4100 718-596-0600
Adair Park Resident - Nicolaus Sherrill Adair Park Resident - Gavin Bernard Adair Park Resident - Angel Proventud
Atlanta, Georgia 30310 Atlanta, Georgia 30310 Atlanta, Georgia 30309
nicolaussherrill@gmail.com gavin.bernard@gmail.com anotherloudmouthperson@yahoo.com
Adair Park Resident - Ms. Smith Adair Park Resident - Craig Cameron Adair Park Resident - Anonymous Person #4
746 Catherine Street Atlanta, Georgia 30310 Atlanta, Georgia 30310
Atlanta, Georgia 30310 craig.w.cameron@gmail.com

95
Appendix G – Interview Transcript Summaries

Participant/Interviewee: Magdalena Young (Research ID - 013)
Interviewer: Brian A. Dollar, Principal Investigator
Date and Time: 10/11/2019 (8:15 – 8:35AM)
Location: Cellular Phone
Question - 1
The BeltLine has made an impact economically and brought interest to neglected areas of the city
which is great as an additional 2 million people are expected to relocate to Atlanta by 2040. People
are coming from other large cities that are more expensive and realize the value of living close to
where they work instead of having long (protracted) daily commutes. They also enjoy having more
social /eating options as opposed to those in the suburbs. The BeltLine has fallen short on some of
its promises, particularly to legacy residents in communities like Adair Park.
The BeltLine is worthy of replication in other cities, but it is far from perfect which means more
governmental intervention is needed to support those need a boost from an affordability
perspective. She feels that mixed-income development is worth exploring as it has been wildly
successful in her native country of Poland, not just particular cities but through the whole
country.
Question - 2
Everyone benefits from the BeltLine equally in theory but those in proximity benefit the most.
Displaced resident hurt the most and not much has been done in the way of preservation to keep
them in their respective environments – she feels freezing tax increases, reducing tax burdens, or
similar schemes will bring more parity.
Question - 3
It’s effective evidenced by the amount interest, trail usage, and increase in home values. On a
scale of 1-10, would rate the Beltline a 6 or 7, much room for improvement.
Question - 4
Yes, it’s hard to beat because it’s driven by capitalism and consumer demand; the right people
are needed to plan and execute to lessen the impact and govern the pace of change (postpone). If
not, it’s completely inescapable.
Question - 5
Yes, the BeltLine will be successful, but there is room for improvement as previously stated but a
neighborhood-by-neighborhood strategy would probably need to improve its effectiveness and
account for some of the neighborhood specific needs that be addressed in the current policies.

96
Participant/Interviewee: Craig & Leanne Ellis (Research ID – 015/016)
Interviewer: Brian A. Dollar, Principal Investigator
Date and Time: 10/13/2019 (7:15 – 8:00PM)
Location: 5 Carlisle Way, Atlanta, Georgia 30308

Question - 1
BeltLine has remained true to its original mission, wonderful improvements and way to
repurpose land and generate economic activity but could be better in some ways;
Revitalization tied to green space is worthy of replication in other communities – however, cities
should do more research to understand the how projects worked in other cities and
neighborhoods before moving forward --- seems like this is say there is room for improvement
which makes sense as there are several examples for cities to follow, small and large scale.
Question - 2
Everyone, for the most part, benefits equally as there is no restricted access of fee requirement –
those in proximity get to enjoy the BeltLine the most. Respondent feels the biggest opportunity
for letting more folks enjoy it is the interconnectivity points between multiple modes of
transportation, not there yet particularly in other developing portion of the trail;
Question - 3
Urban revitalization, led by transit and green space, is very effective…because of capitalism.
Race is the not the issue, it’s all about money and opportunity. Those with the means to buy are
investing in communities that are evolving, close to work, and cheaper relative to other options
in the marketplace.
Hard to key-in on one primary metric as there are so many but they feel the best way to evaluate
the success of the beltline is usage - seeing the trails used by people from all walks of life shows
it having a good impact. As other portions of the trail develop, and the surrounding communities
do at the same time usage rights will also increase. These residents feel the east side trail has the
benefits of being clustered close to several nodes of retail and higher end residential whereas the
southwest trail does not, but the breweries are generating more interest and buzz evidenced by
more retailers setting up to service demand.
Question - 4
Urban revitalization is driven by economics (capitalism) link is hard to overcome. Government
intervention might help some but capitalism trumps everything. Race is not the issue;
Feels gentrification is not as much of an issue in smaller communities with less diversity
ethnically and economically. Used comparison to communities in Florida’s Emerald Coast.
Question – 5
Feels things will be successful in Adair Park as they have been in other area (neighborhoods)
along the BeltLine – but some changes in approach might been different in areas that are were
more history industrial vs. single-family or apts. There also needs to be adjustments made as
some neighborhoods have a larger percentage of renters vs. homeowners, etc.

97
Participant/Interviewee: Angel Proventud ((Research ID – 032)
Interviewer: Brian A. Dollar, Principal Investigator
Date and Time: 9/15/2019 (12:00 – 1:30PM)
Location: 1000 White Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30310

Question - 1
Yes absolutely, the BeltLine has remained true to its original mission – transforming unused green
space to useable transit by repurposing abandoned train tracks. Feels the project is unfairly blamed
for the components of its master plan not coming to fruition as originally conceptualized, namely
creation and preservation of affordable housing. The affordable housing component of the
BeltLine’s master plan was supposed to be funded by revenues from a tax allocation district
(“TAD”) as well as the ½-cent sale taxes from MARTA. Market economics altered original
projects for revenues associated with the TAD as in 2008 the real estate industry crashed, and
values decreased significantly as well as the fact that MARTA (Metro Area Rapid Transit
Authority) changed its mind about funding future BeltLine improvements;
Worthy of replication but feels more governmental intervention is required to govern the pace of
growth and uptick in real estate pricing. The minute plans for developing areas of the BeltLine
were revealed, investor/owner interest increased – better strategy would be focusing on the
improving the people and neighborhoods in advance of determining the path of the BeltLine.
The BeltLine has had what others (which agencies) views as successful and adopted in standard
practice for revitalization;
Note BeltLine tasked with addressing 6% of the affordability – remaining portion 94% city of
Atlanta.
Feels politicians are not true to residents in favor of projects which generate more taxes/fees for
the city.
Question - 2
No – the only beneficiaries are homeowners as renters have been priced and forced to move out
because the City of Atlanta does not have rental rate protection policies in place.
No – everyone does not benefit from the BeltLine equally. Distinction needs to be made between
legacy and new homeowners as well as renters/owners. Seems like an important distinction from
a wealth building prospective – Homeowners have benefited from the uptick in home values
whereas renters have been pushed out. Legacy owners benefit from low tax assessments whereas
new owners must pay exponentially more. Example given housing generally worth $300,000 -
$400,000 but older resident pays $200/yearly in taxes whiles new residents pay close to
$10,000/annually – huge issue requiring attention.
Feels the BeltLine has been unfairly used as the scapegoat for all that has gone wrong in the
communities surrounding it;
The Beltline’s original promises for affordable housing production were driven off market rate
projections that did not account for the market rate downtown in 2008, as a result many
projections are off.

98
BeltLine is funded by a Tax Allocation District – that was projected to generate $70 million
dollars with 15% of the revenue dedicated to affordable housing.
BeltLine was also expected to be funded by a ½ cent sales tax associated with the MARTA.
Question - 3
Highly effective based on trail usage and general interest in the all portions of the Atlanta
BeltLine trail and the neighborhoods surrounding them. Usage is a good barometer for
evaluating effectiveness but more importantly is its broader impact on the community. In
addition to usage consideration, participant suggested reduced traffic, lower carbon-footprint,
higher utilization of public transit in area near the beltline, increased sales tax revenues, and
preservation of affordable housing
Question - 4
Hard to escape because of market dynamics (capitalism) can postpone if policies are put in place
to govern the pace of growth programmatically. There needs to be governmental intervention
(local/state/federal) for neighborhood parity
Question - 5
Yes, will be successful as the project continues to roll-out and interconnectivity is increased, as
that was one of the cornerstones of the original development plan. Interviewee recognizes
nuisances within each neighborhood but feels any BeltLine type of redevelopment initiative
should focus on the development and preservation of affordable housing for legacy and lower-
income residents before announcing detailed plans for redevelopment so there is enough time to
build critical mass to meet demand ahead of capitalistic interests.

99
Participant/Interviewee: Chevene King (Research ID – 005)
Interviewer: Brian A. Dollar, Principal Investigator
Date and Time: 9/25/2019 (12:45 – 1:30PM)
Location: 209 Edgewood Avenue SE, Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Question - 1
BeltLine had a lofty mission but has fallen short in production of affordable housing transit
connectivity;
BeltLine has been more of an economic boom; Worthy of replication in other markets feels the
trend has been on-going in other markets – pointed to New York City’s High Line project and
another project called the Rail Trail in Charlotte, NC which is a 3.5-mile trail that connects its
inner-city neighborhoods and intertwines with its light rail system. Similar to Atlanta’s BeltLine,
the trail has spurred economic development along its path with bars, restaurants, housing, office
and retail.
Question - 2
Feels it’s difficult to truly assess effectiveness because of many viewpoints – reduction in carbon
footprint, increased in transit rider usage, reduced vehicle usage, less traffic congestion, better
health, etc.
Question - 3
Those close to the BeltLine benefit the most - 0.25 to 0.50 mile, so everyone can not benefit
equally
Feels the key for urban revitalization are schools, mass transit, and green space (in order of
impact)
Question – 4
Gentrification link – feels it’s not escapable as the underlying catalyst in capitalism
Success in Adair Park – need to revisit; agrees with PI feeling that a neighborhood-by-
neighborhood approach would yield best results;
Question – 5
Believes Adair Park stands to benefit significantly from the Beltline because of its proximity.
Frankly, Adair Park was showing signs of promise long before the thoughts of an inner-city trail
because of its historic homes and canopied streets and proximity to the City, but similar to
Opportunity Zones, it’s like adding icing on an already well-baked cake.

100
Participant/Interviewee: Patrick C. Nelson (Research ID – 004)
Interviewer: Brian A. Dollar, Principal Investigator
Date and Time: 9/27/2019 (4:30 – 5:30PM)
Location: 376 Auburn Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia 30312

Question – 1
Feels BeltLine has been true to its original mission – and will be successful in other
communities.
Question – 2
Everyone will not benefit from the BeltLine equally, reason being some resident are owners and
others are rents. Owners are seeing economic gains from advanced in housing pricing while rents
are getting pushed out because of rising pricing and lack of affordability;
In order for everyone to benefit equally governmental intervention is needed to stop the strong
tide of capitalism. He feels everything that is unfolding in Adair Park and other BeltLine
neighborhoods is because of capitalism and has nothing to do race and everything to do with
economics;
Note – most of the respondent to date have emphasized homeownership the primary benefit of
the BeltLine’s impact
Question – 3
The key is transportation, can’t happen without it;
Hard to measure effectiveness with one sole metric or evaluative lens – advocated for an
approach that makes use of a combination of measures;
My feelings are that transit, and green space should be "front of mind" when planning urban
revitalization. Transit as a necessity for any bustling workforce and green space is a quality of
life initiative. I live in an urban core in Atlanta, GA but do not use public transport as it is not
convenient to use in Atlanta even in my central location. I would, no doubt, use public transit if it
were more accessible and useful. My family and I do use the public green spaces within walking
distance of our home, and it does contribute to better quality of life in my opinion.
Getting out of the house or office an into fresh air is good for everyone. If there were transit
accessible at those green spaces, it would be a home run for us.
When evaluating public transit, the proof is in the number of riders relative to total population.
Another indicator would be the draw of business directly correlated to good public transit. For
example, when a Fortune 500 company moves to a city and cites good public transit as a factor
for the move. That is a good indicator that it is working. On the flipside the decrease of cars on
the road relative to population is also "tell-tale" to effectiveness. Finally, regular surveying of the
public at large also gives insight to usefulness and effectiveness. Just ask the question. Does it
work for you? Yes or no?
Question – 4
Hard to break the gentrification revitalization link because of capitalism.

101

Question – 5
Feels it will be successful without question but more needs to be done to address educational needs
as the academic performance of those school within Adair Park’s footprint is not adequate for the
needs many of the new families in the area with higher incomes. This is important for the
neighborhood’s long-term success as diversity increases.

Participant/Interviewee: Jerome Keith Brown (Research ID – 001)
Interviewer: Brian A. Dollar, Principal Investigator
Date and Time: 10/17/2019 (5:30 – 7:00PM)
Location: 245 North Highland Avenue #140, Atlanta, Georgia 30307

Question – 1
Yes, project has remained true to its original mission as a transit-project, but it could have
produced a better comprehensive impact with collaboration amongst stakeholders from the
community, MARTA, and the BeltLine. The issue is that it transformed from transit to hybrid
transit housing project. The original CEO (Paul Morris) of the BeltLine was a seasoned transit
executive but changes within the executive suite (to non-transit CEOs) led to transition to include
more housing as the BeltLine outlined plans to develop routes/trails in close proximity to
MARTA rail and train stations (current and proposed) – probably politically influenced. Sales
tax from MARTA ridership was supposed to be used to help fund right-of-way acquisition
needed to move the BeltLine forward.
The project has been successful and is worthy of replication, but more planning was needed to
have a larger impact on a broader range of people. Participant feels it’s hard to get two public-
entities like the BeltLine and MARTA to work well together when then have different missions
and strategic operating plans.
Feels production of new affordable housing was a great idea but hard to articulate a meaningful
production goal. 5,500 units were targeted for completion with the BeltLine but only 750 have
been built to-date, lofty goal but unsure of how the 5,500-unit target was developed and how it
came into being. City did not do its due diligence. Hard to build at the clip with the nuances of
layered financing – all the developers can’t get the tax credits they need annually in order to
build the housing that was projected with the affordable housing metrics for the beltline.
BeltLine is a unique project in that it combined affordable housing and transit production, but
there are no projects to serve as a meaningful basis of comparison (feasible, attainable, or
realistic). There no federal, state, or local programs that combine transit and affordable housing
from a gap funding perspective.
Transit is not seen as an economic development in communities, particularly as it relates to the
City of Atlanta. If so, the transit authorities would have dialed in more planning to make projects
work. Participant sees BeltLine as economic development strategy not a TOD or pure transit
project.
Does not feel people will leave communities because of connectivity that permits people to
experience more neighborhoods. Feels change will keep people tied to their neighborhoods and

102
schools will improve over time. Feels schools are not the anchor to keep people in communities,
the key is improved connectivity.
Question – 3
All factors are equally important but the best way to evaluate BeltLine is based on several
evaluative measures including changes in crime, expansion of tax base, addition retail formations
(businesses), increased land costs, and new public art installations. Does not feel housing should
be part of the evaluation criteria as the building housing is not among the highest and best uses
for real estate along the BeltLine, retail would be more impactful and more transformative in his
opinion. Affordable housing is needed but it does not have to be located within a ½ from the
BeltLine to be effective.
Question – 4
Gentrification is hard to overcome within urban revitalization because of capitalism, which
supports its if it makes sense from a profitability prospective. Gentrification is almost
unavoidable, but its pace could be moderated through policy intervention such as not increasing
or freezing taxes. Feels gentrification is forcing policy makers top think differently about elder
community members who are property owners.
Question - 5
Not super familiar with recent developments in Adair Park, but participant has followed changes
in other neighborhoods. Given positive impact on other BeltLine communities, there he has no
reason to believe similar success will not happen in Adair Park.
Participant agrees with neighborhood-by-neighborhood strategy to addressed individual and
community needs to be more effective and improve outcomes.

103
Participant/Interviewee: Marion “Pete” Waldrep (Research ID – 008)
Interviewer: Brian A. Dollar, Principal Investigator
Date and Time: 12/13/2019 (10:15 – 11:30PM)
Location: Marietta Housing Authority, 95 Cole Street NE, Marietta, Georgia 30060

Question – 1
Understands the beltline is basically an economic development tool, but unsure of its original
mission – issue expressed by many industry peers according to him. Feels the project is worthy
of replication in other communities evidenced by its continued proliferation as a re-development
strategy

Question – 2
Yes everyone, for the most part benefits equally but more needs to be done.

Question – 3
Thinks the beltline is off to a great start and has been effective but the real evaluation should take
place over time, driven by several metrics (economics, social, and project duration and project
impact).

Question – 4
Gentrification and urban revitalization go together, so yes, it’s an unfortunate consequence but
it’s largely driven by economics (capitalism).

Question – 5
Missing element is the marketing/PR initiatives to the community – can’t underscore its
importance enough;
More emphasis needs to be placed on development of vibrant sustaining communities not one-off
projects
Feels neighborhoods along the BeltLine need to focus on developing all asset types, not just
residential and retail. Communities where you can live, work, and play are what economically
depressed areas need to grow and fully develop under a revitalization initiative.
Everyone is not going to be satisfied with revitalization, some will not be winners or completely
satisfied. More needs to be done to educate the average person to recognize opportunities coming
out of revitalization.
Has general knowledge of the BeltLine’s neighborhoods, not in depth, but feels the issues/and
lessons are applicable to urban revitalization everywhere. His work has been exclusive to areas
outside the City of Atlanta, more suburban.

104
Appendix H – All Survey Responses Summary
Table 5.0 Questionnaire Survey All Responses Summary

Respondent Question-1 Question-2 Question-3 Question-4 Question-5 Question-6 Question-7 Question-8 Question-9 Question-10 Question-11 Question-12 Question-13
ID001
ID002 Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree
ID003 Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree
ID004 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree
ID005 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree
ID006 Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree
ID007 Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree
ID008
ID009
ID010 Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree
ID011
ID012
ID013 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree
ID014 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
ID015
ID016 Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree strongly agree Agree Disagree agree agree disagree
ID017 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree
ID018 Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree
ID019
ID020
ID021 Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Disagree
ID022 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree
ID023
ID024
ID025
ID026 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree
ID027
ID028
ID029
ID030 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree
ID031 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree
ID032 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly agree Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree
ID033 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree
ID034 Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree
ID035 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree
ID036 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree
Count N 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
Not Answered 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Total 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Strongly Agree 14 4 14 15 0 9 4 15 8 0 7 5 0
Agree 7 5 8 6 13 11 17 4 8 13 9 14 3
Disagree 1 2 0 1 8 2 1 0 6 7 5 3 17
Strongly Disagree 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 2
Total 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

Strongly Agree (%) 63.64% 18.18% 63.64% 68.18% 0.00% 40.91% 18.18% 68.18% 36.36% 0.00% 31.82% 22.73% 0.00%
Agree (%) 31.82% 22.73% 36.36% 27.27% 59.09% 50.00% 77.27% 18.18% 36.36% 59.09% 40.91% 63.64% 13.64%
Disagree (%) 4.55% 9.09% 0.00% 4.55% 36.36% 9.09% 4.55% 0.00% 27.27% 31.82% 22.73% 13.64% 77.27%
Strongly Disagree (%) 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 13.64% 0.00% 9.09% 4.55% 0.00% 9.09%
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

105

Respondent Question-14 Question-15 Question-16 Question-17 Question-18 Question-19 Question-20 Question-21 Question-22 Question-23 Question-24 Question-25
ID001
ID002 Agree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree
ID003 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree
ID004 Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree
ID005 Agree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree
ID006 Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree
ID007 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree
ID008
ID009
ID010 Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
ID011
ID012
ID013 Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree
ID014 Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree
ID015
ID016 Agree disagree Strongly agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree disagree Agree Agree
ID017 Strongly Agree disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
ID018 Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree
ID019
ID020
ID021 Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree
ID022 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree
ID023
ID024
ID025
ID026 Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree
ID027
ID028
ID029
ID030 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree
ID031 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
ID032 Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree
ID033 Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
ID034 Agree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree
ID035 Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
ID036 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree
Count N 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
Not Answered 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Total 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
Strongly Agree 2 10 14 0 2 9 8 16 4 4 8 1
Agree 12 10 8 5 8 10 10 4 17 4 12 9
Disagree 6 2 0 15 10 2 4 2 1 11 2 12
Strongly Disagree 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0
Total 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
Strongly Agree (%) 9.09% 45.45% 63.64% 0.00% 9.09% 40.91% 36.36% 72.73% 18.18% 18.18% 36.36% 4.55%
Agree (%) 54.55% 45.45% 36.36% 22.73% 36.36% 45.45% 45.45% 18.18% 77.27% 18.18% 54.55% 40.91%
Disagree (%) 27.27% 9.09% 0.00% 68.18% 45.45% 9.09% 18.18% 9.09% 4.55% 50.00% 9.09% 54.55%
Strongly Disagree (%) 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 9.09% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 13.64% 0.00% 0.00%
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

106
Questions Totals Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%) Total
Question 1 22 63.64% 31.82% 4.55% 0.00% 100.00%
Question 2 22 18.18% 22.73% 9.09% 50.00% 100.00%
Question 3 22 63.64% 36.36% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
Question 4 22 68.18% 27.27% 4.55% 0.00% 100.00%
Question 5 22 0.00% 59.09% 36.36% 4.55% 100.00%
Question 6 22 40.91% 50.00% 9.09% 0.00% 100.00%
Question 7 22 18.18% 77.27% 4.55% 0.00% 100.00%
Question 8 22 68.18% 18.18% 0.00% 13.64% 100.00%
Question 9 22 36.36% 36.36% 27.27% 0.00% 100.00%
Question 10 22 0.00% 59.09% 31.82% 9.09% 100.00%
Question 11 22 31.82% 40.91% 22.73% 4.55% 100.00%
Question 12 22 22.73% 63.64% 13.64% 0.00% 100.00%
Question 13 22 0.00% 13.64% 77.27% 9.09% 100.00%
Question 14 22 9.09% 54.55% 27.27% 9.09% 100.00%
Question 15 22 45.45% 45.45% 9.09% 0.00% 100.00%
Question 16 22 63.64% 36.36% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
Question 17 22 0.00% 22.73% 68.18% 9.09% 100.00%
Question 18 22 9.09% 36.36% 45.45% 9.09% 100.00%
Question 19 22 40.91% 45.45% 9.09% 4.55% 100.00%
Question 20 22 36.36% 45.45% 18.18% 0.00% 100.00%
Question 21 22 72.73% 18.18% 9.09% 0.00% 100.00%
Question 22 22 18.18% 77.27% 4.55% 0.00% 100.00%
Question 23 22 18.18% 18.18% 50.00% 13.64% 100.00%
Question 24 22 36.36% 54.55% 9.09% 0.00% 100.00%
Question 25 22 4.55% 40.91% 54.55% 0.00% 100.00%
All Targets Participation Rate 61%

107
Appendix I – Categorization of Survey Questions

Revitalization BeltLine Gentrification General Feelings
1 Impacted by a Revit project like the BeltLine 1
2 Don’t Live within but interested in Urban Revit 1
3 Urban Revit is shaping ATL and other Cities around the world 1
4 Connection - urban revit, green space, and transit 1
5 Betline has been a success - meeting its objectives 1
6 Urban Revit can be successful and serve all stakeholders interests 1
7 Betlline is a great project and will push Adair Park Forward 1
8 changes within urban neighborhoods (housing prices and taxation) that impact long-term residents worries me. 1
9 BeltLine can be better with major policy changes 1
10 BeltLine can be better with minor policy changes 1
11 Gentrification has bad aspects but good aspects outweigh them 1
12 BeltLine is a good project that provides a blueprint to follow nationally 1
13 Beltline has helped Adair Park and no changes are needed 1
14 Beltline has not helped Adair Park and chagne are needed 1
15 Gentrification risk in all projects 1
16 Urban revit needs a more granular neighborhood level focus 1
17 Gentrificaiton risk can not be mitigated - policy intervention not helpful 1
18 Urban revit and gentrification have strong connection 1
19 Gentrification goes beyond policies 1
20 More Emphasis needs to be placed on the legacy residents of Adair Park 1
21 Revit Policies need to more by address affordable housing and freezing taxes 1
22 BeltLine has helped Adair Park improve and grow 1
23 Primary Concern - Revit does more harm than good 1
24 Need improved relations new and old residents within Adair Park 1
25 New Adair Park Resident are not speculators, long-term view 1
Total by Category 8 8 4 5
32.00% 32.00% 16.00% 20.00%

108
Appendix J – Graphs of Responses to Survey Questions

Revitalization Questions – All Participants

Table 5.1 - I Have Been Impacted By A
Revitalization Project Like The BetlLine
63.64%
31.82%
4.55%
0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree
(%)
QUESTION - 1
Table 5.2 - I Am Not A Current Or Former
Resident Of Adair Park, But Like Revitalization
18.18%
22.73%
9.09%
50.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 2
Table 5.3 - Revitalization Is Shaping Atlanta And
Other Cities Globally
63.64%
36.36%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree
(%)
QUESTION - 3
Table 5.4. - Urban Revitalization Can Be
Successful And Serve The Interests Of All
Stakeholders
40.91%
50.00%
9.09%
0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree
(%)
QUESTION - 6

109

Table 5.5 - Urban Revitalization Needs A Granular
Neighborhood-By-Neighborhood Focus
63.64%
36.36%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 16
Table 5.6 - Urban Revitalization &
Gentrification Have A Strong Connection
9.09%
36.36%
45.45%
9.09%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree
(%)
QUESTION - 18
Table 5.7 - Urban Revitalization Needs To Focus More
On Affordable Housing & Taxes
72.73%
18.18%
9.09%
0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 21
Table 5.8 - Revitalization Does More Harm Than
Good
18.18% 18.18%
50.00%
13.64%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 23

110
BeltLine Questions – All Participants

Table 5.9 - The BeltLine Has Been Successful &
Meet Its Objectives
0.00%
59.09%
36.36%
4.55%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 5
Table 5.9.1 - The BeltLine Is A Great Project That will Push
Adair Park Forward
18.18%
77.27%
4.55%
0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 7
Table 5.9.2 - BeltLine Can Do Better With Major
Policy Changes
36.36% 36.36%
27.27%
0.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Strongly Agree
(%)
Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly
Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 9
Table 5.9.3 - BeltLine Can Do Better With Minor Policy
Changes
0.00%
59.09%
31.82%
9.09%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 10

111

Table 5.9.4 - BeltLine Is A Good Project To Be The Blueprint
For Revitalization Nationally
22.73%
63.64%
13.64%
0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 12
Table 5.9.5 - BeltLine Has Helped Adair Park &
No Changes Are Needed
0.00%
13.64%
77.27%
9.09%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree
(%)
QUESTION - 13
Table 5.9.6 - The BeltLine Has Not Helped
Adair Park & Changes Are Needed
9.09%
54.55%
27.27%
9.09%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Strongly Agree
(%)
Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree
(%)
QUESTION - 14
Table 5.9.7 - BeltLine Has Helped Adair Park
Improve & Grow
18.18%
77.27%
4.55%
0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree
(%)
QUESTION - 22

112
Gentrification Questions – All Participants

General Feelings Questions – All Participants
Table 5.9.8 - Gentrification's Bad Aspects Are
Outweighed By Good Aspects
31.82%
40.91%
22.73%
4.55%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree
(%)
QUESTION - 11
Table 5.9.9 - There is Gentrification Risk Within All
Revitalization Projects
45.45% 45.45%
9.09%
0.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 15
Table 5.10 - Policy Intervention Can Not
Mitigate Gentrifcation Risk
0.00%
22.73%
68.18%
9.09%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree
(%)
QUESTION - 17
Table 5.11 - Gentrification Goes Beyond Policies
40.91%
45.45%
9.09%
4.55%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 19

113

Table 5.12 - Revitalization, Green Space, and Transit
are Connected
68.18%
27.27%
4.55%
0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 4
Table 5.13 - The Impact of Housing Prices Increases
and Taxation Worries Me
68.18%
18.18%
0.00%
13.64%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 8
Table 5.14 - More Emphasis Should Be Placed
on Legacy Residents of Adair Park
36.36%
45.45%
18.18%
0.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree
(%)
QUESTION - 20
Table 5.15 - Relationships Between New & Old
Residents Within Adair Park Can Be Improved
36.36%
54.55%
9.09%
0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 24

114

Table 5.16 - New Residents of Adair Park Are Long
Term Owners Not Real Estate Speculators
4.55%
40.91%
54.55%
0.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%)
QUESTION - 25

115
Table 6.0 Primary Themes From Interviews

ID - 001 ID - 004 ID - 005 ID - 008 ID - 013 ID - 015/016 ID – 032
1. Project has
remained true;

Could be more
impactful with
improved
collaboration.

2. Did not offer
insights whether
everyone benefits,
equally from
BeltLine.

3. Multi-factor tool
best for evaluation of
this and similar
projects.

4. Gentrification is
hard to stop because
of capitalism;

Feels policy
intervention can
moderate the pace of
gentrification.

5. Not intimately
familiar with Adair
Park but feels the
neighborhood will be
success based on the
BeltLine’s impact in
other neighborhoods.
1.True to original
mission and will be
successfully in other
communities.

2. Everyone will not
benefit given owner
renter divide;

3. Multi-factor
approach needed for
evaluation.

4. Capitalism
gentrification link
strong and hard to
break.

5. Will be successful
but
Need to focus on
education options
and school
performance to
anchor of long-term
vibrancy.
1. True to mission;

Has fallen shorten on
housing and transit
connectivity but has
been impactful
economically.

2. Benefit tied to
resident proximity to
BeltLine.

3. Hard to say best
evaluation method or
lens because of the
many ways to view the
project.

4. Gentrification is
inescapable due to its
underlying catalyst
capitalism.

5. Adair Park will
benefit from its
proximity to the
BeltLine, but yes
project will be
successful.

1. Not sure of the
original mission but
understands it has
provided stimulus.

2. Everyone benefits;
More can be done.

3. Evaluation should
take place over a
longer period of time
with several metrics.

4. Gentrification and
revitalization go hand-
in-hand, an
unfortunate
consequence of
capitalism.

5. Feels BeltLine will
be successful
Needs more than
residential to become
work, live, and play
community.
1.Has been impactful
but fallen shorten on
short on promises;

Worthy of
replication but more
needs to be done to
address housing
affordability.

2. Everyone benefits
but those closer been
most.

3. Evaluation – been
successful based on
use and increased
home values.

4. Hard to beat the
revitalization and
gentrification
connect due to
capitalism, driven by
consumer demand;

5. Yes project will be
successful;

There is room for
improvement.

1. True to original
mission could be
better.

2. Everyone has equal
access rights and
benefits are the same;
Huge opportunity with
more interconnectivity.

3. Very effective
economic development
tool fueled by
capitalism.

The best way to
evaluate is trail usage.

4. Link hard to
overcome, government
intervention might help
but capitalism trumps
everything.

5. Will be successful in
Adair Park and other
areas.

Consideration needs to
be made for areas with
more rents vs.
homeowners.

1. Project true to
mission;

Unfairly blamed for
lack of affordable
housing production;

Worthy of replication
Beltline concept should
be rolled out but with
more government
intervention.

2. Everyone does not
benefit equally, only
homeowners.

3. Very effective driven
by capitalism; Best way
to evaluate is usage
patterns and general
interest.

4. Hard to overcome
market dynamics
(capitalism) which give
rise to gentrification –
best bet is govt.
intervention to
moderate pace of
change.

5. Yes project will be
successful as it rolls-
out and
interconnectivity, a
cornerstone of the
original development
plan, is increased.

116
Table 6.1 Primary Themes and Sub-Themes (Participant Interviews)
Primary Themes Subthemes

1. Government intervention is needed past the
implementation stage of revitalization of policies and
projects.

2. True to original mission but could be better.

3. Multifactor evaluation approach supported.

4. Project fallen short on promises.

6. Not sure of the original mission but project has
provided stimulus.

7. The BeltLine has provided public benefit.

8. The gentrification and capitalism connection is hard
to overcome, as they are strongly linked

Government intervention is need for revitalization projects to
work effectively and equitably;

The BeltLine has done a lot of good things, but more can and
needs to be done;
Connectivity has been a challenge and has not been realized
at part of the master plan.

There many ways to approach evaluation; however, there is
no one approach that is superior to the other approaches.

The fact that the BeltLine has met some of its original goals
does not mean the project should be considered a success.

The BeltLine project transformed from its original focus to a
strategy that focuses on many things simultaneously.

There is no question that benefits come from the BeltLine
Project but there are lots questions as to by whom and how
they may be realized.

Gentrification can’t escape capitalism but does that mean
capitalism can support small and struggling communities.

117
Table 6.2 Primary and Sub-Themes (Supporting Quotes from Interviews)

Theme #1 - Government intervention is needed past the implementation stage of revitalization of policies and projects
(5 of 7 Stakeholders)

• Subtheme - Government intervention is need for revitalization projects to work effectively and equitably.
o “Policy intervention can moderate the pace of gentrification” – ID 001
o “Government intervention might help” – ID 015/016
o “Project worthy of replication with more government intervention” – ID 032
o “Best bet is government intervention for to moderate pace of change ” – ID 032

Theme #2 - True to original mission, but could be better (5 of 7 Stakeholders)

• Subtheme - The BeltLine has done a lot of good things, but more can and needs to be done.
o “BeltLine has been true to its original mission and will be successful in other communities”– ID 005
o “Could be more impactful with improved collaboration”– ID 001
o “More needs to be done to address housing affordability”– ID 013
o “Huge opportunity with more connectivity”– ID 015/016
o ” More can be done”–ID 008
o “Needs more than residential to be a true live, play, work community”– ID 008

118

• Subtheme - Connectivity has been a challenge and has not been realized at part of the master plan.
o “Project has fallen short on housing and transit connectivity”– ID 005
o “Huge opportunity with more interconnectivity”– ID 015/016

Theme #3 - Multifactor evaluation approach supported (2 of 7 Stakeholders)

• Subtheme - There many ways to approach evaluation; however, there is no one approach that is superior to
the other approaches.

o “Best approach for this and similar projects”–ID 001
o “Evaluation should take place over a long time period” –ID 008
o “Evaluation should use several metrics” –ID 008
o “Evaluation based on usage and general interest”–ID 032
o “Evaluation based should be based on trail usage”–ID 015/016
o “Evaluation based on increased home values”–ID 013
o “Best evaluation method hard to choose” –ID 005

119
Theme #4 - Project has fallen short on promises (2 of 7 Stakeholders)

• Subtheme - The fact that the BeltLine has met some of its original goals does not mean the project should be
considered a success.

o “Project fallen short on housing and transit connectivity, but has been impactful economically” – ID 005
o “Been impactful but has fallen short on promises” – ID 013

Theme #5 - Not sure of the original mission but project has provided stimulus (1 of 7 Stakeholders)

• Subtheme - The BeltLine project transformed from its original focus to a strategy that focuses on many things simultaneously.
o “Project is unfairly blamed for components of its masterplan not to coming to fruition as originally conceptualized” – ID 032
o “BeltLine is a unique project combining affordable housing and transit” – ID 001
o “Transformed from transit to hybrid transit housing project” – ID 001

120
Theme #6 – The BeltLine has provided public benefit (6 of 7 Stakeholders)

• Subtheme - There is no question that benefits come from the BeltLine Project but there are lots questions as to by whom and
how they may be realized.

o “Everyone benefits the same because of equal access rights – ID 004
o “Benefits not the same for homeowner vs. renters” – ID 004
o “Benefits are tied to proximity to BeltLine” – ID 004
o “Everyone benefits the same given equal access rights” – ID 004

Theme #7 – The gentrification and capitalism connection is hard to overcome, as they are strongly linked
(7 of 7 Stakeholders).

• Subtheme - Gentrification can’t escape capitalism, but does that mean capitalism can support small and struggling
communities.

o “Gentrification is hard to stop because of capitalism” – ID 001
o “Intervention might help but capitalism trumps everything” – ID 015/016
o “Link (connection) is strong and hard to break” – ID 004
o “Unfortunate consequence of capitalism” – ID 008

121
Appendix K – Policy Recommendation to Atlanta Mayor & City Councilwoman

Brian A. Dollar
1097 Grantham Way Southwest
Marietta, Georgia 30064
213-804-6268
dollar@usc.edu

SENT VIA REGULAR AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
May 15, 2020
The Honorable Mayor – Mrs. Keisha Lance Bottoms
68 Mitchell Street S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

The Honorable Councilwoman – Ms. Joyce Shepard
Atlanta City Hall
55 Trinity Avenue S.W.
Suite 2900
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3584

RE: Providing BeltLine Policy Recommendations - Dissertation Case Study on Adair Park
Dear Mayor Lance-Bottoms & Councilwoman Shepard,
I am writing to commend you both on the success of the Atlanta BeltLine, to-date, and share results
from qualitative field research I conducted as part of my dissertation studies at the University of
Southern California’s Price School of Public Policy, where I am scheduled to graduate May 15,
2020. My dissertation focused on urban revitalization led by green space initiatives, within rapidly
changing neighborhoods. I focused on Atlanta’s Adair Park given my familiarity with the area, as
a graduate of Morehouse College, and work within commercial real estate and affordable housing.

I utilized two research instruments, a survey and questionnaire, to generate data that helped me
arrive at the policy recommendations discussed in the ensuing paragraphs. I targeted 36 people
from diverse backgrounds to complete my research instruments. This was a very insightful and
challenging research project to complete, which highlighted some of the issues and challenges
surrounding projects such as the BeltLine. Although my study has concluded, I would be remiss
to really think the study is fully complete given the long-term nature of the BeltLine initiative as
an intricate multi-phase redevelopment strategy. Much can be gleamed from what has happened
with the project to-date and more will come as the project continues to unfold.

I moved back to Atlanta two years ago after 17-year hiatus and have been completely blown away
by the growth and progress of the city. There is no question that the Atlanta BeltLine has been a

122
contributor to the City of Atlanta’s growth and success. Moreover, it is no surprise that projects
like the Atlanta BeltLine haven been undertaken around the nation as models for revitalization.

Enclosed please find two (2) copies of my dissertation and supporting materials. I completed this
study for academic purposes-only and have nothing to gain, monetarily, from this dissertation only
research experience, insights into policy making, new professional connections, and fulfilling the
requirements for my graduation.

Please consider the recommendations, based on results of my dissertation research, detailed within
the ensuing pages. These recommendations represent the five (5) most common and pressing
concerns identified within this research study. Recommendations not generated from the guiding
research study described herein, are labelled as “Considerations”. Both the recommendations and
considerations may provide insights to improve policy effectiveness, community connectedness,
and further advance revitalization practices

In sharing results from my study, please be mindful the participants in the study must remain
anonymous. As such, all names from the study have been redacted to include only research
participant IDs, but they all have been placed in three broad categories: (1) industry experts, (2)
residents, and (3) other users to help facilitate insightful review.

Please feel free to reach out to me with any specific questions and use the study and its results to
help with your strategic-decision and policy making. I appreciate the work you two have completed
in your respective roles and hope to have the opportunity to meet you both one-of-these days.

Thanks, so much for the opportunity to share and should you have any questions, please feel to
contact me.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Dollar
University of Southern California Sol Price School of Public Policy
Doctoral Candidate – May 2020

123
Policy Recommendations / Considerations
• Recommendation #1 – suggest revisiting revitalization initiatives within BeltLine
communities and revise policies to ensure they address the unique needs of the targeted 45
BeltLine communities that are unique in terms of character and needs. There is pervasive
feeling that a blanketed, one-size-fits-all, revitalization approach has been utilized by the
City of Atlanta;

• Recommendation #2 – suggest focusing on creating inclusive live, work, play
environments in every community because it brings people closer to develop stronger roots
and they can have their needs met without having to travel or depend on other adjacent
communities. Economic challenged communities need to have their resident’s spending
power stay within their geographical boundaries;

• Recommendation #3 – suggest creating high-performing educational opportunities
(magnet or charter schools) for new residents in less developed and historically challenged
neighborhoods to serve as an anchor for stabilization. The BeltLine is supposed to be
promoting long-term economic stability but many of the new residents, particularly those
with school-aged children, have increasingly been forced to move outside the perimeter or
to more affluent areas within Atlanta when faced with the prospect of educational pursuits
for their children in low-performing schools. Communities need to address the personal
needs for residents, new and old, if they want to continue down their paths of revitalization
and transformation. This is a tremendous opportunity for the City of Atlanta within
uncomplete or recently completed portions of the BeltLine, such as the WestEnd and Adair
Park Communities;

• Recommendation #4 – suggest doing more to build connections between new and old
residents. Based on resident feedback, in year’s past there has been a stronger
community connection in that resident knew each other well and interacted regularly this
no longer seems to be the case;

• Recommendation #5 – suggest creating more strategic initiatives that address the
BeltLine’s future within improved interconnectivity. Any such, initiatives in transit
connectivity need to be accompanied by well-thought out and aggressive public relations
programs to ensure the community understands projects, their intent, constraints, and
other pressing issues that oppose their core mission;

• Consideration #1 – adoption of rent protection policies like those in like NYC and SF to
ensure long-term affordability and maintain affordable housing for residents with incomes
that don’t grow in sync with inflation.

• Consideration #2 – adoption of property tax assessment policies that determine taxable
home values based on consideration of incomes and conditions within communities;

• Consideration #3 – incorporation of zoning enhancements (bonuses) that favor mixed-
income communities that promote de-concentration of poverty. Such enhancement might
provide more favor toward approval of use variances or increases in floor-to-area
(“FAR”) ratios which equates to more buildable space.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Urban revitalization, green space, and transit connectivity projects are rapidly developing and helping mold the way cities and communities meet their growth needs. Revitalization schemes comingling green space and transit are key components of economic development strategies in several cities including Chicago, New Orleans, and Atlanta. The continued proliferation of such schemes has been met with equal amounts of praise and criticism for generating both good and bad outcomes. Is it possible to be deeply engrained in an urban revitalization strategy led by green space and transit in a perfect configuration where interests of all stakeholders are addressed without creating clear “Losers” and “Winners?” ❧ The research herein explores the relationship amongst urban revitalization, green space, and transit while providing an understanding of the prevailing attitudes and concerns inside and outside of urban communities such as Atlanta’s Adair Park Neighborhood. Hopefully these insights and recommendations will provide a good context for community activists and elected officials to develop new or revised policies that help make urban communities sustain, prosper, and maintain while embracing change that comes with urbanization inside of economically depressed communities.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The twilight of the local redevelopment era: the past, present, and future of urban revitalization and urban economic development in Nevada and California

PDF

Does organizational culture play a role in aviation safety? A qualitative case study analysis

PDF

Property and labor formalization in the age of the sharing economy: Airbnb, housing affordability, and entrepreneurship in Havana

PDF

Productive frictions and urbanism in transition: planning lessons from traffic flows and urban street life in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

PDF

Spatial and temporal expenditure-pricing equity of rail transit fare policies

PDF

Urban universities' campus expansion projects in the 21st century: a case study of the University of Southern Calfornia's "Village at USC" project and its potential economic and social impacts on...

PDF

Governing public goods: how representation and political power in local and regional institutions shape inequalities

PDF

The development implications of China’s Belt and Road Initiative for Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus

PDF

Crowded with potential: housing and social mobility strategies among China's educated migrants

PDF

Environmental justice in real estate, public services, and policy

PDF

The inconsistency of teachers reporting and intervening in bullying situations: an evaluation study

PDF

Risks, returns, and regulations in real estate markets

PDF

A better method for measuring housing affordability and the role that affordability played in the mobility outcomes of Latino-immigrants following the Great Recession

PDF

A framework for good local governance: achieving prosperity in an increasingly complex environment

PDF

IEP stakeholder communication and collaboration and its effects on student placement

PDF

Resilient and equitable urbanism by design: insights from the collaborative process to reimagine the SF Bay Area

PDF

Jobs, not jail: Homeboy Industries, a radical approach to redirecting adolescents away from the criminal justice system

PDF

The accuracy of intraoral scans of interproximal spaces with and without saliva: a prospective clinical study

PDF

The functions of the middleman: how intermediary nonprofit organizations support the sector and society

PDF

Exploring participatory sensing and the Internet of things to evaluate temperature setpoint policy and potential of overheating/overcooling of spaces on the USC campus

Asset Metadata

Creator Dollar, Brian Anthony (author)

Core Title The interplay between green space and transit: a case study of revitalization within Atlanta’s Adair Park and its potential to improve future policy outcomes

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 04/30/2020

Defense Date 03/12/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Atlanta,BeltLine,gentrification, affordable housing,green space,OAI-PMH Harvest,revitalization,transportation

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Moore, James Elliott, II (committee chair)

Creator Email badollar@yahoo.com,dollar@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-291413

Unique identifier UC11665259

Identifier etd-DollarBria-8384.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-291413 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DollarBria-8384.pdf

Dmrecord 291413

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Dollar, Brian Anthony

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA