Tag Archives: Design Review Committee

Suburban = Urban?

could it get worse?

Ah, the demise of the infamous Ruby Tuesday restaurant in the heart of Five Points South. Infamous because a banal, cookie-cutter shopping-mall out-parcel building was plopped down 16 years ago on one of the most historic and important corners in this city–where 20th Street meets Highland Avenue South. There had been a plan in the early 1990s to redevelop this lot (originally a fine mansion) as a 14 story, mixed-use building called Renaissance Plaza. Instead we got a cheap looking, generic box sitting on a parking lot.

Well, lo and behold, the restaurant has closed after 16 years. And last week’s Design Review Committee approved a new development with nary a comment or dissent. Is it a dense, mixed-use development bringing interesting new retail and restaurant tenants? Is it thoughtful, urban architecture suitable to this distinctive corner surrounded by the Shepherd-Sloss Building, Terrace Court Apartments? Unfortunately it is neither. It is a stand-alone Chick-Fil-A restaurant, complete with drive-through and surface parking. This plan sketched here is very approximate, but gets the idea across.

presenting for Chick-Fil-A

I don’t want to say Chick-Fil-A shouldn’t be in Five Points– but can we talk context?  Gorgeous terra cotta detailing and the first high-rise apartments in the South across the street.  Crumbling, perhaps, but at least special.

unique across the street

These older buildings speak of a particular place and style — “I am in Birmingham”, not at any newish strip mall.  The unique architectural fabric of this city is what make visitors say: what a beautiful town you have. Hard to say that about  most strip malls/outparcels since they all look alike. But I digress; this is not a commentary on the architectural integrity of the American strip mall. That’s another post.

But Five Points! An area that is a food mecca for the metro area…  I am not against fast food in the least — or a good Chick-Fil-A.  But where is the comprehensive plan for revitalizing this area? Let me dust off some shelves somewhere, because this can’t be part of it.  Why? Kudos on the outdoor seating — but that’s about all I can say positive about the current plan. Take a look at Portland.  As we’ve discussed before, urban areas succeed with density.  In Portland you see sidewalks lined with shops and restaurants, including a McDonald’s storefront. No drive-throughs. And 90% of the property is not a vast dead zone of car park and drive-through lanes.

fast-food, urban-style in Portland

One reason why this sort of totally inappropriate development still happens here? We have no Redevelopment Authority. A RA is an independent, public agency that can buy and sell property, solicit proposals from developers, and finance buildings and development. They can take a good plan and actually implement it. This site would be a prime example of the kind of place identified by a RA as important to a city and the urban environment. It deserves to be built out according to a good plan. Not just randomly selected by Chick-Fil-A. And their drive-through mentality.

Drive-throughs, while ubiquitous to the American landscape, are not appropriate in dense urban areas. They require additional curb cuts which make pedestrian sidewalk use hazardous; they are horrible for the environment (all those motors idling); they discourage people from getting out of their car and enjoying a walkable streetscape; and the land use is wasteful (lots of asphalt). Various cities have started banning new, urban drive-throughs for all of these reasons.

I want a thriving Five Points.  I want the opposite of a strip mall — non-chain boutiques, restaurants that use local produce, new loft mid-rises — a snobby, creative-class dream?  OK then. I will also take some chains and fast-food that may be necessary  — but with the caveat that they should fit in with a comprehensive, urban vision for this area. I want more more more. I know, I want too much.  But I can dream, right? (thanks to dystopos for the Ruby Tuesday pic; Birmingham Public Library for the 1972 pic of the Shepherd-Sloss building, and alexabboud for the pic in Portland.)

Ask and ye shall receive…

A healthier skin

As promised, the Design Review Committee met this morning, 7:30 AM sharp. Yours truly was first on the agenda, and good news–we passed with flying colors. But, as earlier hinted, more good news…Pete Pritchard presented his design for renovating the facade of the Webb Building. The section between the storefront and the second story will be replaced with a stucco surface to match the upper floors, and then wrapped with an aluminum horizontal band whose simple, flowing lines recall the art deco style above. The storefront, which has been painted over in parts, will be cleaned and repaired.

And then the first step will be completed. Let’s hope that a new tenant that would really activate that corner will be tempted by the fresh facade. Thanks Pete!

A new beginning for the Webb Building

Skin-deep Beauty (2)

Update on the Webb Building: I opened up the agenda for Wednesday’s Design Review Committee meeting (see previous post)–I’m presenting the design for renovating a small historic structure on 24th Street. Next up on the agenda I noticed my friend Pete Pritchard is presenting a design for renovating—the Webb Building! (see the post Skin-deep Beauty from last week) It sounds like a modest renovation, but we’re delighted to hear it. We’ll see Wednesday what Pete’s come up with, but until then I’ll leave you with a pic of Nooch, another cool restaurant designed by Karim Rashid (this time in Chelsea in NYC)–aglow on a city corner. Tasty food, by the way. Pic courtesy 24gotham.

Illuminating an urban intersection

Going Rogue (1)

Today’s light-hearted (yet purposeful) post is the first of many to address one of my pet peeves across the city: flagrant disrespect of the City’s Design Review process for renovation of facades (in historic or commercial revitalization districts). Downtown, Five Points, Lakeview, and other popular neighborhoods fall under the jurisdiction of the Design Review Committee, which rules on paint colors, storefront configurations, and signage proposed for buildings within the districts. Now, this is an imperfect, sometimes subjective process–but for the most part the committee strives to ensure that the building’s skin (see previous post) is up to a certain standard.

Really??

Here, at the Magic City Grill (which by the way serves a fairly tasty meat-and-three for lunch and a decent Sunday breakfast), you see the transoms covered over with solid painted panels. Not good to start with. But the paint job looks like somebody was either drunk, or paid very little–drips and blank splotches all over the place. But worst of all–the former sign box over the second bay is just painted out–and there is no main sign announcing the business on Richard Arrington (there is a fairly ugly one around the corner on 3rd Avenue). Instead, besides a sign over the fourth bay announcing “Magic City Grill Ice Cream and Sandwich Shop”–confusing since the main restaurant really serves neither–there are two cheap “Pepsi” signs tacked above the storefront. Another very prominent corner, and the place looks like a real afterthought. Good signage and good paint jobs make people want to stop in.  This has neither. And those Pepsi signs–well, they don’t belong on an historic building, period. Maybe if they were expertly painted on the alley side(to the right in the photo you can see an expertly painted sign, old school-style: House of Dixie Uniforms).

I don’t think Design Review would have possibly approved this facade “renovation.” If I’m wrong, someone let me know. And the cook in the kitchen didn’t necessarily have anything to do with the exterior improvements or lack thereof: this little post is NOT a commentary on the worthiness of the cuisine.