Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since 2000, the population downtown — defined by REV Birmingham as the area from 12th Avenue North to 12th Avenue South and Interstate 65 to U.S. 31 — has increased by 32.4 percent.
As of 2017, there were nearly 11,000 residents in that area, according to statistics from ESRI Business Analyst supplied by the Birmingham Business Alliance.
And the area is also beginning to bring back additional retail and other essential services, drawn in part by this increase in residents.
In short, downtown is finally becoming what planners call a mixed-use neighborhood: one that blends business, retail, entertainment, culture and residential uses in close proximity, with most people walking or using transit instead of driving cars.
The aforementioned articles expresses how quickly in the past 7 years the neighborhoods that make up the City Center (Central City, Fountain Heights, Southside, and Five Points South) has rapidly evolved and exploded in residential growth. The evolution to include the new subareas like Uptown, Midtown, and Parkside along with the existing area of Lakeview. Per REV Birmingham, the article also covers how with at least 1,000 new dwelling units coming online in the next 18 months and several more being announced, the area will double in population by 2020.
It's pretty impressive assessment overall for the urban core. I feel that more needs to be done on the economic development and jobs front within the City and areawide to get amplify the population growth regionally towards a rapid pace.
So about 3000 residents were added to the areas booming the most in 17 years. That's not exactly extraordinary and if anything lends me to believe there is some truth to the numbers which show Birmingham's overall population being flat or even declining.
Location: Atlanta, Birmingham, Charlotte, and Raleigh
2,580 posts, read 2,483,890 times
Reputation: 1614
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveklein
So about 3000 residents were added to the areas booming the most in 17 years. That's not exactly extraordinary and if anything lends me to believe there is some truth to the numbers which show Birmingham's overall population being flat or even declining.
It actually 7 years, and the figures matches up with the City of Birmingham population has basically stopped declining. It is likely the overall city population will be somewhere between 1,000 to 2,000 new residents. That would be a signal of growth, abeit slow, but growth. Also you have to remember that this is only a snapshot of one area of the City. I will wait to see what the other areas such as Oxmoor Valley and East Birmingham looks like prior to assuming anything.
Also stevenklein, I would like to hear what you would suggest the City should do to speed up growth (population and economic)?
To me, Birmingham is simply moving its growth around. But, it's better to be moving it back into desirable areas of the city, than building more cookie cutter apartments in the suburbs. Birmingham is an urban area, which means there will always be a good job market, at least compared with rural areas.
Just like anything else, real growth comes from sustainable economic development. One major job creator does more than developers simply choosing to develop downtown rather than in the suburbs. I mean, no one wants to simply waste land. It's good for the papers, but ultimately a zero-sum game for the metro area.
Birmingham, at present, is winning as compared to the outer suburbs. But the Birmingham Metro Area is still growing at its typical slow rate. The good news is, we're doing what we CAN. However, the rivalry between Birmingham and the suburbs has to END, or we're spinning our wheels.
How to take the next step and have growth like Atlanta? That's the million dollar question, but even it does come, are we going to see growth in the urban core, or are we just going to see more sprawl? Nashville and Atlanta are sprawling all over.
You have to incentivize people to invest in the core, if you want to see that long term change. So far, we aren't doing that. We're building the beltline. When that finishes, you're going to see even more people move out that way. Memphis is also finishing up an outer perimeter highway in Mississippi.
Then, in the downtown areas, you have the gentrification game. The cheapest areas of the city somehow become the most expensive areas. I mean, those apartments in downtown Birmingham are astronomically expensive, I don't know how the kids afford it. If you want to live cheaply in the city, you have to live in the borderline suspect areas. People usually get tired of having their stuff stolen and then move to a nicer area, then the cycle repeats itself.
I think crime is the biggest driver of this stuff at the very end of the day.
Location: Atlanta, Birmingham, Charlotte, and Raleigh
2,580 posts, read 2,483,890 times
Reputation: 1614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mississippi Alabama Line
To me, Birmingham is simply moving its growth around. But, it's better to be moving it back into desirable areas of the city, than building more cookie cutter apartments in the suburbs. Birmingham is an urban area, which means there will always be a good job market, at least compared with rural areas.
Just like anything else, real growth comes from sustainable economic development. One major job creator does more than developers simply choosing to develop downtown rather than in the suburbs. I mean, no one wants to simply waste land. It's good for the papers, but ultimately a zero-sum game for the metro area.
Birmingham, at present, is winning as compared to the outer suburbs. But the Birmingham Metro Area is still growing at its typical slow rate. The good news is, we're doing what we CAN. However, the rivalry between Birmingham and the suburbs has to END, or we're spinning our wheels.
How to take the next step and have growth like Atlanta? That's the million dollar question, but even it does come, are we going to see growth in the urban core, or are we just going to see more sprawl? Nashville and Atlanta are sprawling all over.
You have to incentivize people to invest in the core, if you want to see that long term change. So far, we aren't doing that. We're building the beltline. When that finishes, you're going to see even more people move out that way. Memphis is also finishing up an outer perimeter highway in Mississippi.
Then, in the downtown areas, you have the gentrification game. The cheapest areas of the city somehow become the most expensive areas. I mean, those apartments in downtown Birmingham are astronomically expensive, I don't know how the kids afford it. If you want to live cheaply in the city, you have to live in the borderline suspect areas. People usually get tired of having their stuff stolen and then move to a nicer area, then the cycle repeats itself.
I think crime is the biggest driver of this stuff at the very end of the day.
I get what you are staying, but what are the realistic/practical solutions that can be done to achieve this faster growth rate? Crime is a symptom of lack of economic opportunities, but regardless it is going to exist within an urbanized area. However, what are the solutions that Birmingham should be pushing to accelerate its overall regional growth?
I get what you are staying, but what are the realistic/practical solutions that can be done to achieve this faster growth rate? Crime is a symptom of lack of economic opportunities, but regardless it is going to exist within an urbanized area. However, what are the solutions that Birmingham should be pushing to accelerate its overall regional growth?
I think you have to hit on some economic sector BEFORE the public realizes how important it is. Atlanta is the only real comparison because it is a city, in the South, just like Birmingham, with the same challenges, that ended up with rapid growth. What did they do? Seems to me like it was the airport ie logistics. Everything sprung up from that. Maybe it was luck, maybe it wasn't, but it happened. ATL became the logistical center of the South. They did what it took BEFORE it was popular. And maybe, you have to have money so you can create your own luck, and that Coca Cola guy was a big factor in Hartsfield back in the early days. Then Delta exploded. This was all back in the 30s and 40s. Maybe Nashville is a good comparison? I guess country music got them started.
You have to keep it going though. Birmingham benefited from the railroad crossing.
The little stuff...the urban planning...regional cooperation...all of that. That comes after the fact IMO. Got to get the big stuff right first. It's like a sports program - get the coaching hire right, the rest falls into place. Too many cities, that are Birmingham's size, spend so much time squabbling over the little we have, because there isn't much. If there was a lot of 'stuff' to go around, I bet regional cooperation would become much easier.
Looking at some other examples. I guess cities like Austin and Seattle and San Francisco were first on the tech train. They exploded, now everyone else is trying to catch up.
So, to me, the question is, what's the economy of the future? Like I said in another thread, Birmingham is already the financial, logistical and healthcare center of the state. That's great, but if you want major growth, there needs to be another catalyst.
Tourism, recreation, service, drones, manufacturing technology, energy, military, maybe something we've never even thought of. Maybe agriculture will come back? Seems unlikely due to technology. Huntsville is seeing major growth, maybe they know the secret sauce, people from all over up there. I know their growth centers around Redstone, space/aerospace and biotech, but is it that simple? And even still, they are still on a smaller scale.
I look at things like the auto industry that seems to be growing and Alabama, and ask myself, is that sustainable? Perhaps the green or driverless cars, I don't know. How many cars are needed? The Amazon thing was big, but is that really doing that much for MAJOR growth? Most of the money made by Amazon gets put in the pockets of people in Seattle. That's ok for the short term I suppose.
We see 5 days a week how crowded the roads are during a work week. It's job here. Should it be a lot more, of course. That's why every major highway in this metro is getting some type of attention or in the future that will that are leading into the city. It's not about work opportunities. The city has to start some type of incentive program to entices people to move into city limits. People are not coming based on the reputation the city has. That's what it all boils down too. I can work and play in the city, but wouldn't dare live in it. The city didn't get in front of the negativity and now is so deep in it that it's hard to change people minds now. Not having any progressive leaders years ago has did this to the city. Build new schools in some of the city prospers neighborhoods, tax breaks when purchasing a home, build subdivisons off 459/20 interchange, grants mill road, lakeshore highway toward 150, etc. The entertainment is here (restuarants, bars, sports, concerts, breweries, festivals, parks, etc.) and people still drive 30 mins to the city to frequent these establishments. That's why the city should have a marketing and promotion department to go to others states and cities to get the "good" word out about the city because getting anybody close around the metro is an uphill battle. Having more fortune 500 companies wouldn't hurt either.
We see 5 days a week how crowded the roads are during a work week. It's job here. Should it be a lot more, of course. That's why every major highway in this metro is getting some type of attention or in the future that will that are leading into the city. It's not about work opportunities. The city has to start some type of incentive program to entices people to move into city limits. People are not coming based on the reputation the city has. That's what it all boils down too. I can work and play in the city, but wouldn't dare live in it. The city didn't get in front of the negativity and now is so deep in it that it's hard to change people minds now. Not having any progressive leaders years ago has did this to the city. Build new schools in some of the city prospers neighborhoods, tax breaks when purchasing a home, build subdivisons off 459/20 interchange, grants mill road, lakeshore highway toward 150, etc. The entertainment is here (restuarants, bars, sports, concerts, breweries, festivals, parks, etc.) and people still drive 30 mins to the city to frequent these establishments. That's why the city should have a marketing and promotion department to go to others states and cities to get the "good" word out about the city because getting anybody close around the metro is an uphill battle. Having more fortune 500 companies wouldn't hurt either.
Until the school system is addressed in a major way, those with the means to live elsewhere are going to live elsewhere once they have school-aged children.
Location: Atlanta, Birmingham, Charlotte, and Raleigh
2,580 posts, read 2,483,890 times
Reputation: 1614
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveklein
Until the school system is addressed in a major way, those with the means to live elsewhere are going to live elsewhere once they have school-aged children.
Charter schools can supplement that issue and once there are some within the City then it will entice more young families.
I still looking for your take on widespread solutions instead of criticisms. Any man that can critique can provide some constructive feedback as well.
Until the school system is addressed in a major way, those with the means to live elsewhere are going to live elsewhere once they have school-aged children.
I don't think it's possible to address this. It's a lost cause. The government pours money into low income area public schools and the result stays the same. The government can't do the job of the parents.
I think a better investment would be the church, and other things that encourage community, and things that strengthen the family unit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jero23
Charter schools can supplement that issue and once there are some within the City then it will entice more young families.
And homeschooling cover schools. But, someone has to actually do this, I don't think the government can/will/should.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
