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.
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.
There's instances where Birmingham "slightly" started to model itself after Atlanta, or rather look up to Atlanta in this regard. Let's say if Birmingham decided to "do things right" at the time Atlanta was becoming the top city of the South, I still believe that Birmingham would've had a WAY different mindset in terms of growth, compared to the mindset of Birmingham in 2017. I still think that they would've brought in to what Atlanta was doing at that time, and contributed that influence into what the city was going to do visually. If you look at if this way, Birmingham wasn't actually a city that really engulfed the idea of sprawl per-se; historically speaking Birmingham itself became "Birmingham" because of how it merged/annexed nearby towns that were already established as a community. And then you have the areas that "Suburbanized" during a time where it was the it thing to do in the US, especially in the South. But compared to other Southern cities, especially Atlanta, and etc. Not only is travel time shorter and easier, but proximity to daily needs/amenities is much easier to come by.
I have no beef with Atlanta, love Atlanta, I'm literally an Episode of the Walking Dead away from Atlanta. But I hate that Atlanta is somewhat the poster child of the Southeast and Growth within the Southeast. I mean, in actuality, Birmingham doesn't even remotely compare to Atlanta outside of it being a Piedmont city and having a large African American population...and Maybe the Civil Rights Movement. But Birmingham is Less Sprawled, has Hillier Terrain, has More Outdoor Activities, has a Different Grid, has Older Urban Nodes, Grittier, etc. the characteristics are different as of 2017.
But Birmingham is Less Sprawled, has Hillier Terrain, has More Outdoor Activities, has a Different Grid, has Older Urban Nodes, Grittier, etc. the characteristics are different as of 2017.
It is just as sprawled as Atlanta for its size, perhaps moreso. Have you seen all of the new housing in Calera & Alabaster? That's the epitome of sprawl, and a long way from the city. And there are no urban nodes anywhere in Birmingham older than Atlanta's, that just isn't possible. Atlanta is much older than Birmingham.
There's instances where Birmingham "slightly" started to model itself after Atlanta, or rather look up to Atlanta in this regard. Let's say if Birmingham decided to "do things right" at the time Atlanta was becoming the top city of the South, I still believe that Birmingham would've had a WAY different mindset in terms of growth, compared to the mindset of Birmingham in 2017. I still think that they would've brought in to what Atlanta was doing at that time, and contributed that influence into what the city was going to do visually. If you look at if this way, Birmingham wasn't actually a city that really engulfed the idea of sprawl per-se; historically speaking Birmingham itself became "Birmingham" because of how it merged/annexed nearby towns that were already established as a community. And then you have the areas that "Suburbanized" during a time where it was the it thing to do in the US, especially in the South. But compared to other Southern cities, especially Atlanta, and etc. Not only is travel time shorter and easier, but proximity to daily needs/amenities is much easier to come by.
I have no beef with Atlanta, love Atlanta, I'm literally an Episode of the Walking Dead away from Atlanta. But I hate that Atlanta is somewhat the poster child of the Southeast and Growth within the Southeast. I mean, in actuality, Birmingham doesn't even remotely compare to Atlanta outside of it being a Piedmont city and having a large African American population...and Maybe the Civil Rights Movement. But Birmingham is Less Sprawled, has Hillier Terrain, has More Outdoor Activities, has a Different Grid, has Older Urban Nodes, Grittier, etc. the characteristics are different as of 2017.
Accounting for size, Birmingham is just as sprawling as Atlanta and has a lower density overall. Same goes for Nashville (about the same density-wise), Charlotte, Raleigh, Greenville, etc. They all bought into the model of sprawl which was fueled by national policies in the post-war era in the areas of transportation (interstates and other highways, public transportation), housing (discriminatory lending, white flight, urban renewal), education (desegregation, busing), etc. Resisting those trends would have meant forfeiting TONS of federal dollars and losing residents (regionally) and no city could afford to do that. If that's what you meant by "Birmingham would've had a WAY different mindset in terms of growth," then that would've been an absolute death knell for the region.
And of course travel times and commutes will be shorter in a metro that's 1/5 the size of Atlanta.
And what are these older urban nodes in Birmingham? Decatur and Marietta are certainly older than Birmingham as are neighborhoods in Atlanta like Inman Park and Castleberry Hill, and others like Little Five Points, Inman Park, and East Atlanta Village were flourishing just a few years after Birmingham was founded.
It is just as sprawled as Atlanta for its size, perhaps moreso. Have you seen all of the new housing in Calera & Alabaster? That's the epitome of sprawl, and a long way from the city. And there are no urban nodes anywhere in Birmingham older than Atlanta's, that just isn't possible. Atlanta is much older than Birmingham.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
Accounting for size, Birmingham is just as sprawling as Atlanta and has a lower density overall. Same goes for Nashville (about the same density-wise), Charlotte, Raleigh, Greenville, etc. They all bought into the model of sprawl which was fueled by national policies in the post-war era in the areas of transportation (interstates and other highways, public transportation), housing (discriminatory lending, white flight, urban renewal), education (desegregation, busing), etc. Resisting those trends would have meant forfeiting TONS of federal dollars and losing residents (regionally) and no city could afford to do that. If that's what you meant by "Birmingham would've had a WAY different mindset in terms of growth," then that would've been an absolute death knell for the region.
What's our definition of Sprawl here? because you're bringing up Calera and Alabaster, lol none of those are in the Birmingham city limits, I don't even think they're in Jefferson County. *google search* no, they're in Shelby County, only a SMALL portion of Birmingham is in Shelby County. It's so tucked away that you have to drive though two Suburbs just to actually noticed when you're back in Birmingham City Limits.
I agree that Birmingham and the rest of those cities bought into that type of sprawl, during that time period. BUT, in comparison, I still say Birmingham is at the bottom of that group in terms of overall sprawling.
And what are these older urban nodes in Birmingham? Decatur and Marietta are certainly older than Birmingham as are neighborhoods in Atlanta like Inman Park and Castleberry Hill, and others like Little Five Points, Inman Park, and East Atlanta Village were flourishing just a few years after Birmingham was founded.
Ah, I don't know if it's me, but most of those areas did not look that old to me. The architecture in Five Points Birmingham looks way older than the architecture in Inman Park, and Little Five Points. I should've said, Birmingham has the firmer Urban Environments.
What's our definition of Sprawl here? because you're bringing up Calera and Alabaster, lol none of those are in the Birmingham city limits, I don't even think they're in Jefferson County. *google search* no, they're in Shelby County, only a SMALL portion of Birmingham is in Shelby County. It's so tucked away that you have to drive though two Suburbs just to actually noticed when you're back in Birmingham City Limits.
I agree that Birmingham and the rest of those cities bought into that type of sprawl, during that time period. BUT, in comparison, I still say Birmingham is at the bottom of that group in terms of overall sprawling.
Birmingham is most definitely NOT at the bottom when it comes to overall sprawl. Even more historic Southern cities, like Charleston and Savannah, have a lot of sprawl outside their historic downtowns.
Ah, I don't know if it's me, but most of those areas did not look that old to me. The architecture in Five Points Birmingham looks way older than the architecture in Inman Park, and Little Five Points. I should've said, Birmingham has the firmer Urban Environments.
Well Atlanta has a lot more new construction and rehabbed historic buildings overall in those urban enclaves, and Castleberry Hill and downtown Marietta definitely have a more historic aesthetic to them. L5P and EAV have a couple of buildings with artwork which somewhat disguises their historic quality. I have no clue what you mean by a "firmer" urban environment.
Birmingham is most definitely NOT at the bottom when it comes to overall sprawl. Even more historic Southern cities, like Charleston and Savannah, have a lot of sprawl outside their historic downtowns.
Well Atlanta has a lot more new construction and rehabbed historic buildings overall in those urban enclaves, and Castleberry Hill and downtown Marietta definitely have a more historic aesthetic to them. L5P and EAV have a couple of buildings with artwork which somewhat disguises their historic quality. I have no clue what you mean by a "firmer" urban environment.
Firmer as in having a more complete Urban environment; pretty much a dense neighborhood with Restaurants, Nightlife, Retail, Houses, Apartments, etc. Atlanta has Midtown and East Atlanta Village.
Another thing, why is Downtown Marietta associated with Atlanta neighborhoods here? I get Decatur, but Downtown Marietta is like 20+ minutes from Downtown Atlanta, that's around the same from Downtown Bessemer to Downtown Birmingham.
Ranking 192 out of 220 total metro areas is pretty bad. I never said it was the worst in the South but it's the same basic Sunbelt sprawl model in place once you get beyond the core. And Birmingham's urbanized area density is actually the least dense among the principal urban areas of all 1M+ metros in the South and quite possibly nationwide.
Quote:
Firmer as in having a more complete Urban environment; pretty much a dense neighborhood with Restaurants, Nightlife, Retail, Houses, Apartments, etc. Atlanta has Midtown and East Atlanta Village.
Oh you've GOTTA be kidding me on this one. Atlanta has plenty more than that, and you know it--many with all that plus a MARTA station nearby or smack dab in the middle of the neighborhood. This is ridiculous.
Quote:
Another thing, why is Downtown Marietta associated with Atlanta neighborhoods here? I get Decatur, but Downtown Marietta is like 20+ minutes from Downtown Atlanta, that's around the same from Downtown Bessemer to Downtown Birmingham.
Fair enough. DT Decatur essentially acts as an intown neighborhood but DT Marietta is too far out to act in the same manner. That still leaves a good bit more urban enclaves in Atlanta and that wasn't even an exhaustive list.
Ranking 192 out of 220 total metro areas is pretty bad. I never said it was the worst in the South but it's the same basic Sunbelt sprawl model in place once you get beyond the core. And Birmingham's urbanized area density is actually the least dense among the principal urban areas of all 1M+ metros in the South and quite possibly nationwide.
Didn't say it was among the most dense in the country, but in comparison to Atlanta, sprawl isn't one of the glaring issues about Birmingham's growth. I've also notice that we're talking about the metro area, I was specifically referring to the areas within the city limits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
Oh you've GOTTA be kidding me on this one. Atlanta has plenty more than that, and you know it--many with all that plus a MARTA station nearby or smack dab in the middle of the neighborhood. This is ridiculous.
Let me explain myself then; what I mean by a more complete dense/walkable environment, I meant those is multiple phases. The proximity to Restaurants, Fast Food, Nightlife, Retail, and etc., the Housing Diversity, and the Dense Street Layouts. Is there anything like that in Atlanta?
Didn't say it was among the most dense in the country, but in comparison to Atlanta, sprawl isn't one of the glaring issues about Birmingham's growth.
That's because Birmingham's growth is pretty anemic but like most other Southern cities without huge city limits, the growth that has occurred there in recent decades has almost exclusively been suburban.
Quote:
I've also notice that we're talking about the metro area, I was specifically referring to the areas within the city limits.
We're talking about the region as a whole primarily when we talk about sprawl; sprawl mostly occurs in the suburbs and exurbs. Of course there can be some within city limits but Atlanta and Birmingham have pretty modest municipal square mileage compared to other Sunbelt cities. But here I'm speaking more specifically about the urbanized area, the built-up area that crosses jurisdictional boundaries.
Quote:
Let me explain myself then; what I mean by a more complete dense/walkable environment, I meant those is multiple phases. The proximity to Restaurants, Fast Food, Nightlife, Retail, and etc., the Housing Diversity, and the Dense Street Layouts. Is there anything like that in Atlanta?
OK, give me an example of these advanced urban nodes you say are present in Birmingham but are lacking in Atlanta. I mean from the way you talk, you'd think the urban neighborhoods in Birmingham were akin to those in DC or Philly.
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.
