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.
Likely, but I'm not 100% sure of that. One reason being that the interstate system here took MUCH LONGER to build and opened to traffic than it did in Atlanta.
For example most of the interstate system that exist in the ATL today was finished and opened in 1968-69. At that point in time Birmingham only had a four mile stretch of 20/59 from Ensley to near downtown opened to traffic and that happened in Dec 1967.
Birmingham's interstate system (expect for l-22) was fully completed in 1985. Maybe having the Delta hub here would of sped up highway construction hard to say.
Likely, but I'm not 100% sure of that. One reason being that the interstate system here took MUCH LONGER to build and opened to traffic than it did in Atlanta.
For example most of the interstate system that exist in the ATL today was finished and opened in 1968-69. At that point in time Birmingham only had a four mile stretch of 20/59 from Ensley to near downtown opened to traffic and that happened in Dec 1967.
Birmingham's interstate system (expect for l-22) was fully completed in 1985. Maybe having the Delta hub here would of sped up highway construction hard to say.
A metro close to the size of Atlanta having a less extensive interstate system????
A metro close to the size of Atlanta having a less extensive interstate system????
I don't even wanna imagine that.
It was true in Birmingham's case. I was born in late 1980, at the time I-65 ended at US 31 in Vestavia/Hoover, from there south into Shelby Country was opened until 1981.
65 North ended at US 31 just north of downtown. From there north to the county line opened in 1984
I-20 ended near Century Plaza/Eastwood Mall area, from there east to Leeds was opened in sometime in 1982-83
I-59 was completed ans opened in 1977.
20/59 from the westside was fully completed and opened months before I was born in 1980.
So basically the construction of Birmingham's interstate system was painfully slow.
It was true in Birmingham's case. I was born in late 1980, at the time I-65 ended at US 31 in Vestavia/Hoover, from there south into Shelby Country was opened until 1981.
65 North ended at US 31 just north of downtown. From there north to the county line opened in 1984
I-20 ended near Century Plaza/Eastwood Mall area, from there east to Leeds was opened in sometime in 1982-83
I-59 was completed ans opened in 1977.
20/59 from the westside was fully completed and opened months before I was born in 1980.
So basically the construction of Birmingham's interstate system was painfully slow.
I'm saying I can't imagine a 5M+ metro today with an interstate system less extensive than Atlanta's. That would just be mind-boggling.
I'm saying I can't imagine a 5M+ metro today with an interstate system less extensive than Atlanta's. That would just be mind-boggling.
Ohhh very true. My bad about my last pointless post..lol
I think Birmingham's system imo would be able to hold up if 5 million people lived in the metro. Lane additions to current routes, northern half of the bypass would have to be built, along with converting 280 into something like GA 400 would have to happened though obviously.
Is it really though? Birmingham isn't really considered "cool", it's not fast growing, doesn't have many jobs...doesn't get many visitors and even more dangerous than Atlanta is.
Is it really though? Birmingham isn't really considered "cool", it's not fast growing, doesn't have many jobs...doesn't get many visitors and even more dangerous than Atlanta is.
lol, all I know is, Birmingham dodged a bullet trying to model itself after Atlanta. A Legacy city such as Birmingham shouldn't model itself after a city that was previously fixated on Sprawly/Suburban type growth patterns, it is what it is.
I think it's a good thing for Birmingham to separate itself from the shadow of Atlanta and follow it's own path with influences coming from OUTSIDE of the region, rather than those next door. I mean Birmingham has the ingredients for it to become an interesting city to millennials; the Scenery/Hills, the Outdoor Activities, the Density, and not to mention the Midwestern type Urban nodes. Things like Job diversity, and etc. will come as the city continues to grow.
lol, all I know is, Birmingham dodged a bullet trying to model itself after Atlanta. A Legacy city such as Birmingham shouldn't model itself after a city that was previously fixated on Sprawly/Suburban type growth patterns, it is what it is.
I think it's a good thing for Birmingham to separate itself from the shadow of Atlanta and follow it's own path with influences coming from OUTSIDE of the region, rather than those next door. I mean Birmingham has the ingredients for it to become an interesting city to millennials; the Scenery/Hills, the Outdoor Activities, the Density, and not to mention the Midwestern type Urban nodes. Things like Job diversity, and etc. will come as the city continues to grow.
Birmingham wouldn't have "modeled itself after Atlanta" had the city been socially and economically progressive in times past; it would have been a model itself, being essentially a peer of Atlanta and a major metropolitan area in its own right. And even with a relatively nicely preserved pre-war core, the region still managed to be low-density and sprawly with an urbanized area density even lower than Atlanta's.
I have to chuckle when people say things that imply that somehow Atlanta invented sprawl. Sprawl is the result of an intentional set of federal policies that were embraced by cities nationally (some more than others), including smaller, sprawling cities like Birmingham and other Piedmont cities. They aren't as big as Atlanta but accounting for size, they do sprawl just as much as Atlanta, some even more. Birmingham bought into the sprawl model just as much as Atlanta did--even more so, going by the statistics.
Birmingham wouldn't have "modeled itself after Atlanta" had the city been socially and economically progressive in times past; it would have been a model itself, being essentially a peer of Atlanta and a major metropolitan area in its own right. And even with a relatively nicely preserved pre-war core, the region still managed to be low-density and sprawly with an urbanized area density even lower than Atlanta's.
I have to chuckle when people say things that imply that somehow Atlanta invented sprawl. Sprawl is the result of an intentional set of federal policies that were embraced by cities nationally (some more than others), including smaller, sprawling cities like Birmingham and other Piedmont cities. They aren't as big as Atlanta but accounting for size, they do sprawl just as much as Atlanta, some even more. Birmingham bought into the sprawl model just as much as Atlanta did--even more so, going by the statistics.
Exactly.
Shelby County, anyone?
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.
