Birmingham Discussion Thread

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by bhammer

Maybe the biggest inhibitor to growth in Bham is in the street grid, and no one seems to point it out. I dont have high hopes for any neighborhood if they continually plant the buildings on the side of streets that are bigger than most country highways. We can't hope to have an attractive place to live if it means having a sea of asphalt right outside your window, the most picturesque residential urban settings almost always have small streets and it's disappointing to drive through downtown while you're in the middle of a 5-lane road that also has on-street parking, but you've never seen it filled anywhere near half capacity. What's really disappointing to me is that they're too inept to realize this and they continue to spend the money to upgrade sidewalks and street lights at the same level, when they should use that as an opportunity to narrow the streets when they can. They never thought to build railroad park into that street facing the ballpark even though it's crumbling and never filled. And having full 4- or 5-lane streets in an urban setting is a bad thing anyway.

The way I look at it, the grid isn't the problem, but the wide streets are, as you said. The street grid allows a walkable community, but overtime the city has widened the streets so much that it feels almost like a chore to cross most streets. Of course a divided, and shaded avenue like 20th St N is probably the ideal solution for most of the streets in downtown that are pointlessly wide. It would be hard to convince officials to straight up narrow a street, but convincing them to put a landscaped/tree-lined-median in the middle of the street (which narrows it all the same) is an easier sell, somehow.

[Bamablazer]

Good morning, I would like to shed a little light on the one way street situation. For example; If you are leaving 5 points South or the Double Tree hotel and you turn right from 20th street on to University Blvd going to the Red Mountain Expressway or St. Vincents, as you approach the 21st street (Arrington Blvd) traffic signal and it is green, the traffic light in the right lane has a green arrow pointing straight ahead that means you cannot turn right you must keep going straight, the traffic light in the left lane has a solid green light and you can turn left there from the turning lane if there is one. As you approach the 22nd Street traffic signal the green light arrow will be in the left lane no left turn there and the solid green light will be in the right lane to allow you to turn right. The next intersecton is 23rd street and both lights will have solid green indicating you can turn left or right. I hope this helps and I think this may be the case in all major cities with one way streets.

[*BRAVO*]

Most cities are envious of Birmingham's grid. It is by far the most impressive grid system in the Southeast. Regarding the widths of the streets... Birmingham was essentially designed with wide streets in mind. See below from bhamwiki... which is invaluable if you're wanting to know random facts about Birmingham.

Bhamwiki

Before the first structure was built in Birmingham, the plan of the city was laid out over a total of 1,160 acres (4.7 km²) by the directors of the Elyton Land Co. The streets were numbered from west to east, leaving Twentieth Street to form the central spine of downtown, anchored on the north by Capitol Park and stretching into the slopes of Red Mountain to the south. A "Railroad Reservation" was granted through the center of the city, running east to west and zoned solely for industrial uses. As the city grew, bridges and underpasses separated the streets from the railroad bed. From the start, Birmingham's streets and avenues were unusually wide at 80 to 100 feet, purportedly to help evacuate unhealthy smoke.

With all that said... I don't believe Birmingham's supposed lag in development can be contributed to either. I believe it is a result of negative attitudes.

Let's expand on that thought

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by *BRAVO*

Most cities are envious of Birmingham's grid. It is by far the most impressive grid system in the Southeast. Regarding the widths of the streets... Birmingham was essentially designed with wide streets in mind. See below from bhamwiki... which is invaluable if you're wanting to know random facts about Birmingham.

Bhamwiki




With all that said... I don't believe Birmingham's supposed lag in development can be contributed to either. I believe it is a result of negative attitudes.

Let's expand on that thought

The grid is a great advantage for the city. Cities like Atlanta and Charlotte have very very limited street grids and are thus limited in the means they have to approach transit improvement in a regional manner. Sure, you can weave trains through sprawl, but it doesn't do much to fix the problem. Sure, you're addressing the problem, but the fact that people still have to drive to the station to get on the train doesn't solve it in a complete way. Birmingham is lucky in that its East/West traffic woes could be addressed in a legitimate way by an East/West rail line. Additionally, development along 280 (from downtown to Mountainbrook) has occurred in such a dense way that rail could also be used as a solution here to at least reduce the amount of traffic on the highway. Birmingham's street grid makes constructing a rail line in these ways a little bit easier because the city already, largely, has ROW assembled in a linear route.

In places like Atlanta or Charlotte, even Nashville, you'd have to simply be lucky and have a freight line that already exists and that is capable of being upgraded to also carry light rail. In some cases, the city is SOL and PLOP!, there goes two additional lanes on US Highway Monstrosity.

[bhammer]

Let me clear something up. I didn't mean to criticize the square layout of Birmingham's grid (though I do have some issues with grids like that, overall I don't think it's the end of the world and there are some advantages to it). I was just criticizing the extreme width of the streets and the one-ways. If it stayed square I'd be fine with that as long as the other issues were fixed. I don't see a square grid as a really big issue.

The one-ways promote excessive speeds, making it hostile to pedestrians and all other forms of traffic. Plus, it's confusing to outsiders (including suburbanites) who don't necessarily visit the inner city that often. They also just sort of send a message saying that the city center is just a passthrough, not a destination. To promote a vibrant urban setting, you want people staying around, not just cruising through. Just like you need to integrate uses (residential, retail, office, industrial, etc.), you need to integrate all forms of traffic into the street. The two rely on and promote each other. I've already talked about why the wide streets are harmful. These are both simple to correct, though.

And Bravo, I agree that unnecessarily negative attitudes have been harmful to the city. There have been plenty of cities like New Orleans which faced the same or worse problems than Birmingham faces now, but still made great comebacks. Those comebacks were the result of better urban design, though. I don't mean to be negative, I just wanted to shed light on the subject. People often think that cities decline because of larger social issues, and that definitely has effects, but probably the biggest factor is just poor design/planning/development. We can pour all the energy and optimism we want into Birmingham, but it will just be another bubble if we don't correct the underlying problems that caused its decline in the first place.

And I'd still like to see some cutting up of the street grid, just because it's so wide. We can narrow it by, say, building in front of a parking deck or something that doesn't really need to have a public frontage. I don't think that it would be incredibly hard to present to the city council, like you say, tredici; the city's been very forward-thinking in their new master plan. There's a lot of positive energy being poured into Birmingham, and I love it, but we still need to look for creative solutions. For example, I love the design of 29/7, but it's still a little disappointing to see them set it that far back from the street instead of possibly building one lane into it because that street in front of it is still like 4 or 5 lanes wide and also badly in need of repair. Same thing for that street between the ballpark and Railroad Park. Fortunately there's still hope for that because it wouldn't be hard to simply expand the park a bit.

[*BRAVO*]

I wasn't trying to attack you - I just wanted everyone to realize there is a reason for the wide streets. And I don't disagree with you. I would like to see the 4-5 lanes narrowed to 2-3 lanes with bike lanes, medians and possible angled parking rather than parallel. I think it needs a bit of "cozieing" up. However, they are not going to start building in the streets - not gonna happen.

[*BRAVO*]

Originally Posted by bhammer

There have been plenty of cities like New Orleans which faced the same or worse problems than Birmingham faces now, but still made great comebacks.

That's funny.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

A number of cities, Birmingham included, like Montgomery have begun to switch a lot of streets to two way nowadays because they recognize the value in safety, sightseeing, and commerce. It's a growing trend, and Birmingham as recently as a few years ago (I believe) had a wave of conversions. Back in the day, the idea was indeed to speed people through downtown, viewing traffic as the most important thing. After freeways were built, there really was no longer a need for one-ways, but they still remained cause no one saw the point in going downtown anymore. These days, cities want to slow traffic down, make it more straightforward, and encourage people to see views they might otherwise be driving in the opposite direction of.

[bhammer]

Originally Posted by *BRAVO*

I think it needs a bit of "cozieing" up. However, they are not going to start building in the streets - not gonna happen.

Well those are some really convincing reasons.
Building into the streets, although rare, isn't some completely new idea. It's been discussed by designers, planners, architects, and developers before, and many times developers that have bought a sizeable amount of land have carved up the street grid within it and built something new (like Glenwood Park, for example). It's hypocritical to blame "negative attitudes," then shoot down fairly simple ideas for no reason other than "not gonna happen." Cities implement much more complex and difficult revolutionary new ideas almost every day.
Here, the only challenges to overcome are bureaucratic. Selling public space to developers would raise money for the municipality, while lightening the load of infrastructure that the city has to maintain. Of course it makes a nicer built environment that's also more pedestrian-friendly. It helps break up the monotony of a perfectly square grid, too, so the new place is more unique and identifiable. All these combine to make a more attractive place which comes back to life and increases demand for the property there.
The only drawback is that you would have to alter the traffic lanes a bit to accommodate a non-geometrical street, but that's not something that hasn't been done thousands of times before.
Keep in mind that I'm not proposing this for absolutely every single wide street, either. Obviously you have to keep in mind historic frontages and recently-replaced infrastructure. If you have a street with those old, wooden, powerlines and cracked, narrow sidewalks, though, it would be a huge benefit to let a developer just improve that and profit off of it while providing an unintended bonus to the surrounding properties. It's definitely a lot cheaper than spending money on new bike lanes, widening sidewalks, planting trees, etc. There are plenty of cases where it'd be less complicated, too.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

As far as taking an entire segment out of the street grid, the city has made it known that it isn't as fond of doing that as it used to be. I'm sure you've noticed how confusing it can be to get around UAB at times. Of course, in the grand scheme of things, maybe the city would eventually employ this method to make downtown even more walkable by intentionally making it more difficult to drive around.

As far as allowing developers to build in the streets, I think what Bravo is saying is that the city's poor attitude towards new and innovative thinking (while it has tremendously improved in recent years) is keeping it from trying anything new, such as allowing development to encroach further on needlessly wide streets. Sorry bout the runon.

[*BRAVO*]

Originally Posted by bhammer

It's hypocritical to blame "negative attitudes," then shoot down fairly simple ideas for no reason other than "not gonna happen."

Easy tiger...

[*BRAVO*]

Originally Posted by bhammer

It's been discussed by designers, planners, architects, and developers before, and many times developers that have bought a sizeable amount of land have carved up the street grid within it and built something new (like Glenwood Park, for example).

I checked out Glenwood Park on mapquest and it appears to be one of those nice urban/surburban developments that you would see in Smyrna or Alpharetta. I'm not sure that's the type of development we want to see downtown or in Southside. It would be nice to see it happen in Ensley, Avondale or Eastlake?

[*BRAVO*]

In general, I am fundamentally opposed to breaking up the downtown/southside grid and am quite certain our city planners and the Design Review Committee would shoot down any such proposal.

That is why I say - not gonna happen.

I actually have confidence in our city's desire to maintain the grid and not encroach on the right-of-way.

[*BRAVO*]

Originally Posted by tredici

As far as allowing developers to build in the streets, I think what Bravo is saying is that the city's poor attitude towards new and innovative thinking (while it has tremendously improved in recent years) is keeping it from trying anything new, such as allowing development to encroach further on needlessly wide streets. Sorry bout the runon.

No... what I'm saying is our citizens need to rally behind the central city and and recognize we are sitting on a jewel. That includes residents of downtown, Avondale, Ensley, OTM, Roebuck, Bessemer, Trussville, Gardendale etc.. There's a too much negativity about Birmingham. Personally, I choose to live in Birmingham and am proud of our history and our future. Yes, we have our problems but so does everywhere else.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by *BRAVO*

I checked out Glenwood Park on mapquest and it appears to be one of those nice urban/surburban developments that you would see in Smyrna or Alpharetta. I'm not sure that's the type of development we want to see downtown or in Southside. It would be nice to see it happen in Ensley, Avondale or Eastlake?

Don't know how it looks on mapquest, but in person it is hardly suburban in any way, shape or form. Check out their website for a much better feeling for the place.

http://glenwoodpark.com/

BTW, it replaced a cement factory - there was no street grid. It HAS connected the surrounding, pre-existing neighborhoods very well imo.

[*BRAVO*]

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

Don't know how it looks on mapquest, but in person it is hardly suburban in any way, shape or form. Check out their website for a much better feeling for the place.

http://glenwoodpark.com/

BTW, it replaced a cement factory - there was no street grid. It HAS connected the surrounding, pre-existing neighborhoods very well imo.

That's nice.
I would be thrilled to see a similar development replace a cement factory.
Not in the grid though...

[*BRAVO*]

I love this article and I love Birmingham

Link

Just a little letter of love
Published: Friday, June 08, 2012, 6:00 AM
Updated: Friday, June 08, 2012, 11:33 AM
John Archibald
The Birmingham News

My Dear,

How do I find the words? How do I express myself in a way that allows you to feel as I feel, to believe what I believe in my soul?

I must say it aloud. You are my life and love, my heartbeat and home....

I love you from the top of Red Mountain to the depths of Lake Purdy. I love you when you make me proud (and you do that more than you know, because what is expected is not what is news), and I love you as much when you make me seethe. I love you, perhaps most of all, when you seem as batty as some crazy old woman on meth.

[TimCity2000]

i'm embarrassed to say that i've lived in crestwood for 5 years and birmingham for 10... yet i just made it to ruffner mountain for the first time last week:

[*BRAVO*]

One of my favorite views of the skyline.

[bhammer]

http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingha...-nba-team.html

Jon Solomon of the Birmingham News was a major nay-sayer on this topic but here an author with a business perspective, when looking at the numbers, seems to feel very differently.

There's recently been some chatter in Birmingham about the possibility of landing an NBA team.
According to a column by Jon Solomon in the Birmingham News, Mayor William Bell even said the city explored bringing together an ownership group in an attempt to acquire the New Orleans Hornets .
It's not the first time city leaders have brought up the idea, but is it a realistic one?
A 2009 study by one of our sister publications concluded that Birmingham has the disposable income necessary to support an NBA team – or an NFL or NHL team.
But, according to that same study, Birmingham ranked 10th for available disposable income among metros without a professional team.
That suggests there may be more attractive markets ahead of Birmingham in the pecking order.
Still, it's not out of the question that a city of Birmingham's stature could economically support a team.
Salt Lake City, Buffalo, N.Y., Raleigh, N.C., and New Orleans are all comparable in size to Birmingham. All have at least one "Big Four" sports team. Buffalo and New Orleans have two.

Keep this in mind:

BBVA, parent of Birmingham-based BBVA Compass, is the official bank partner of the NBA.

The implications of this are reasonably large.

Our corporate community has stepped up to the plate in recent years with other sporting events, such as the Indy Grand Prix of Alabama.

One thing that I think it's important to note is that Birmingham has consistently shown an amazingly good corporate community through the decades, sponsoring a whole lot of events and creating things like the Alys Stephens Center. Our cultural centers are all very good, better than most others in the Southeast, and they're mostly made possible through our corporate community.

And, when it comes to naming rights, it's not a given that a company has to be headquartered in a city to sponsor a local arena, as American Airlines has shown by sponsoring NBA arenas in both Dallas and Miami.

So it's not even necessary that it has to be our corporate community in particular.


To quote the original article with the study to which this one refers:

Using those factors, the Birmingham area – with a total and available income of $45.13 billion – has the ability to host teams in the National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, National Football League and Major League Soccer; all require minimum income bases less than the $45 billion Birmingham could offer. On paper, only a Major League Baseball team, with a thirst for at least $86.7 billion, would be out of the area’s reach.

Regular-season NBA games on ESPN this season drew a 2.4 rating in Birmingham, meaning 2.4 percent of households were watching. Stunningly, that's second in the country only to Memphis (2.7); the national average was 1.4.
Check out the top 10 TV markets for Game 1 of the NBA Finals. Notice the one that's not an NBA market?
Oklahoma City, 44.4.
Miami-Fort Lauderdale, 30.5.
Tulsa, 27.7.
West Palm Beach, 17.9.
Cleveland, 17.8.
Memphis, 15.8.
San Antonio, 15.6.
Birmingham, 14.6.
New Orleans, 14.4.
Chicago, 14.2.

So, looking at the numbers, I think it's definitely possible that we could support an NBA team and turn a profit. Actually I think it's a bit odd to believe that we couldn't, given that we're one of the top 10 TV markets for NBA. Also, we are just barely behind Louisville in terms of metros without an NBA team.
I don't know that naysayers in the professional world are factoring in the economic "aftershocks" of injecting a major-league team into a city. An investment that large tends to act as sort of a "bazooka" and spur development and economic activity following it. Also, the cultural implications are considerable: this would be Alabama's first and only major league team, and considering how sports-crazy we already are, tons of people would really rally behind it and show their support. Not all, but definitely enough to keep one in business. The sense of community and identity is something VERY vital to urban centers.
Last but not least, it's important to note that previous pro franchises in Birmingham have actually fared well. The only reason that they went under was because of the league as a whole, which is a damn shame. There is some new football league starting up and Birmingham is actually high on their list of prospective franchises.

I think that the two dealbreakers here are:
1. Corporate sponsorship is on the fence. A lot of companies already have money invested in football suites at Alabama/Auburn
2. The need to build a new stadium.
What do you make of this?