Should Birmingham heavily invest in "South Birmingham" for major new growth? (Huntsville: bankruptcy, live)

[FT897]

Originally Posted by TampaTown

Correct, exactly right and true. I do believe that "south Birmingham" however should be carefully looked at as an opportunity, but your underlying, highlighted "common thread" will continue to be a driving force, and not necessarily a force in the right direction perhaps. Birmingham is a lesson in, and model of bifurcation on many levels. No one from the "outside" has held Birmingham back, it's been the people themselves. If it weren't for a degree of outside influence Birmingham would have progressed even at a slower pace than that it has tracked over the past 30 years (compared to many other cities).

I am hoping the current mayor can rise above the level that most of his recent predecessors. All of Alabama benefits from the success of Birmingham. We are not dependant upon it but it will help. There are lot's of good things about Birmingham. If nothing more than it's a hub around which many great communities have evolved. I would love to see many of our old cities restore their downtowns. Not into something new but into what they once were. I would love to be able to park my car and walk down the sidewalks and window shop and visit wonderful shops and stores as we once did. I think America lost something when we lost community such as downtown. IMHO

[bhamoutlook]

I agree with what you said except for one thing... The state is heavily dependent upon the Birmingham metro area and thus the city of Birmingham. Without Birmingham, there would be no metro area. And as the city of Birmingham grows, so grow the metro.

I'm sure you meant the same thing with what you said but I just want others who may be mislead to know that the Birmingham metro area contributes more than 30% of the states economic output. That's huge! That's why I so often wonder why our governor's and other state leaders hardly ever seem to give Birmingham the attention it deserves. If Birmingham were properly recognized for the powerhouse that it is to the state, where would it be? It seems to me that Birmingham has done what it has, including the recent renaissance, almost all on its own. That's impressive.

[FT897]

Originally Posted by bhamoutlook

I agree with what you said except for one thing... The state is heavily dependent upon the Birmingham metro area and thus the city of Birmingham. Without Birmingham, there would be no metro area. And as the city of Birmingham grows, so grow the metro.

I'm sure you meant the same thing with what you said but I just want others who may be mislead to know that the Birmingham metro area contributes more than 30% of the states economic output. That's huge! That's why I so often wonder why our governor's and other state leaders hardly ever seem to give Birmingham the attention it deserves. If Birmingham were properly recognized for the powerhouse that it is to the state, where would it be? It seems to me that Birmingham has done what it has, including the recent renaissance, almost all on its own. That's impressive.

I think if you researched it, you would find much of what is now considered the "metro" area existed before Birmingham was founded. While I know there are communities that came to be due to the city of Birmingham, I don't think most of the area now considered to be in the metro area were dependent upon the city of Birmingham for their coming to be or their growth. That would be an interesting research project. I may take a look at that myself sometimes.

Oddly enough, the decline of the city of Birmingham did lead to growth of other communities in the area back in that era as people moved away. Today I think there is growth once again in parts of the city of Birmingham again and that is a good thing.

I read somewhere, and it may have been a post on CD, where someone brought up the idea that for a time the city of Birmingham itself continued to thrive because of the communities around it and perhaps would have become a ghost town had it not been for those communities. I believe Birmingham at one time could take credit for being the lifeblood of may communities around it, and for a time it was those communities that became the lifeblood of the city of Birmingham. On city or town should ever think they are self sufficient and not in need of those around them.

Same goes for the state of Alabama as a whole. No one area is responsibility for the success or failure of the state. The state should focus on things for the entire state and not just some areas. We should think of ourselves as a whole and not just parts. I hope that makes sense.

[raj kapoor]

It doesn't.

[bhamoutlook]

Originally Posted by FT897

I think if you researched it, you would find much of what is now considered the "metro" area existed before Birmingham was founded. While I know there are communities that came to be due to the city of Birmingham, I don't think most of the area now considered to be in the metro area were dependent upon the city of Birmingham for their coming to be or their growth. That would be an interesting research project. I may take a look at that myself sometimes.

Oddly enough, the decline of the city of Birmingham did lead to growth of other communities in the area back in that era as people moved away. Today I think there is growth once again in parts of the city of Birmingham again and that is a good thing.

I read somewhere, and it may have been a post on CD, where someone brought up the idea that for a time the city of Birmingham itself continued to thrive because of the communities around it and perhaps would have become a ghost town had it not been for those communities. I believe Birmingham at one time could take credit for being the lifeblood of may communities around it, and for a time it was those communities that became the lifeblood of the city of Birmingham. On city or town should ever think they are self sufficient and not in need of those around them.

Same goes for the state of Alabama as a whole. No one area is responsibility for the success or failure of the state. The state should focus on things for the entire state and not just some areas. We should think of ourselves as a whole and not just parts. I hope that makes sense.

I see what you are trying to say and I would never ask our leaders to neglect any area in the state. But when the Birmingham GDP is larger than the three other biggest metros combined, then extra attention must be paid to that one powerhouse than any other. That only makes sense that you get your biggest bang from doing that. I would expect Governor Bentley to be focusing on Birmingham 3 or 4 more times than he is in Montgomery, Huntsville, or Mobile combined. He should be BEST FRIENDS with Mayor Bell. I'm an entrepreneur and if an overwhelming majority of my business came from one place, then you better believe that product or service would be my baby.

[raj kapoor]

This does make sense.

[Tourian]

Originally Posted by bhamoutlook

I see what you are trying to say and I would never ask our leaders to neglect any area in the state. But when the Birmingham GDP is larger than the three other biggest metros combined, then extra attention must be paid to that one powerhouse than any other. That only makes sense that you get your biggest bang from doing that. I would expect Governor Bentley to be focusing on Birmingham 3 or 4 more times than he is in Montgomery, Huntsville, or Mobile combined. He should be BEST FRIENDS with Mayor Bell. I'm an entrepreneur and if an overwhelming majority of my business came from one place, then you better believe that product or service would be my baby.

That makes sense to me too. So far during his term I believe we have seen him in Huntsville three times. Remington, Verizon call center and now Polaris.

He showed up in Birmingham once for Oxford, a company which we had to compete against Huntsville to get.

I don't think he has been at a groundbreaking big announcement for Mobile or Montgomery, but I'm sure someone here knows.

To my knowledge, no other spot in Alabama was even considered for Polaris or Remington - so from the start these seemed to be pet projects meant and ONLY meant specifically for the HSV area. And again, it bears repeating that Birmingham and Jefferson Co. had to outbid Huntsville and Madison Co. to get Oxford Pharmaceuticals.

The idea that Birmingham's suburbs are autonomous economic bases that existed before and despite Birmingham is ludicrous at best - bordering on insanity.

[FT897]

Originally Posted by bhamoutlook

I see what you are trying to say and I would never ask our leaders to neglect any area in the state. But when the Birmingham GDP is larger than the three other biggest metros combined, then extra attention must be paid to that one powerhouse than any other. That only makes sense that you get your biggest bang from doing that. I would expect Governor Bentley to be focusing on Birmingham 3 or 4 more times than he is in Montgomery, Huntsville, or Mobile combined. He should be BEST FRIENDS with Mayor Bell. I'm an entrepreneur and if an overwhelming majority of my business came from one place, then you better believe that product or service would be my baby.

I don't think one city should receive more help than another. If there are 3 or 4 times the cities in what is called the metro area of Birmingham then that area as a whole should get more attention. But to focus on one city is wrong. Birmingham should receive the same as any other city in Alabama from the state. That's just fair for everyone.

[Tourian]

Originally Posted by FT897

I don't think one city should receive more help than another. If there are 3 or 4 times the cities in what is called the metro area of Birmingham then that area as a whole should get more attention. But to focus on one city is wrong. Birmingham should receive the same as any other city in Alabama from the state. That's just fair for everyone.

It isn't about just one city. It is about a metro area of several counties that is the main contributor to the state's GDP. If you think every city should be weighted the same from the smallest to the largest you just dont get how the world works.

[FT897]

Originally Posted by Tourian

It isn't about just one city. It is about a metro area of several counties that is the main contributor to the state's GDP. If you think every city should be weighted the same from the smallest to the largest you just dont get how the world works.

Like I said, If the metro area contains more cities then it would get more as compared to metro areas with less cities. The state should not pick parts of a metro over other parts of a metro, or other parts of the state. The state is there for the entire state and not just metro areas or some areas or some cities. Favoritism needs to be removed from the process.