Tag Archives: Operation New Birmingham

Delivering the message (2)

Posted on July 25, 2012 | 12 comments

At long last

At today’s Design Review Committee meeting, unanimous approval was given to a new branding concept for the “micro-neighborhood” of Second Avenue North between 25th Street and Richard Arrington Blvd (logo above, designed by Shannon Harris of Big Communications). After writing in this blog about the lack of good neighborhood branding in this City last year, your author teamed up with a group of local 2nd Avenue merchants, residents, and supporters to put together a plan for branding this burgeoning urban place. After much work, and neighborhood presentations to garner support, we now have a plan. And it’s exciting for several reasons.

Now I know where I am

First, good branding will reinforce this place’s identity for residents, merchants, and visitors. Easy-to-spot banner signage (above) coupled with a website (coming soon!), brochures, and other items will make 2nd Avenue simpler to find, navigate–and market to prospective new users. Awareness is raised, and visibility heightened.

That most urban of street furnishings

Second, it introduces fresh design to the public realm. Certain items in the public right-of-way (like benches in the lovely 2nd Avenue “butternut” hue, above) help cohere the street and extend the brand. Final locations will be determined–there will be enough for consistency, but not so much to overwhelm the eclectic, natural power of the street.

We need ’em

Third, we love bikes. Bike racks (above) identify the street (and by extension the greater neighborhood) as bike-friendly. Currently in front of Urban Standard alone, the one bike rack is often double-loaded, with others tied to whatever other pole may be available. Our bikes deserve more respect.

Most importantly, we hope this small 4-block effort will serve as a catalyst for a comprehensive branding program endorsed by the City. Nothing would be better than for 2nd Avenue to link logically with other branded neighborhoods. It’s high time we all agree that the current legal neighborhood structure–while important politically–is very different from the reality of how urban places emerge and develop (and often cross over legal boundaries). Most every other city has realized this distinction between political geography and the more complex fabric of urban places.

This is currently a total volunteer effort (graciously assisted by Operation New Birmingham). The next step is to raise funds (through donations, grants, and other sources) to determine the total scope of Phase One. More information will be coming soon. Until then, get ready 2nd Avenue: you’ve only seen the beginning.

 

12 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

Urban retail

Posted on June 14, 2012 | 11 comments

More of these, please

The growth of retail establishments downtown has not kept pace with the growth of neighborhood population. Why? In part because populations must reach tipping points before retailers will consider new locations, and for certain businesses our population is just not there yet.

However, another reason is that downtown doesn’t have the right available space in the right locations. Take the growing Second Avenue district and the retailer Charm (above), in the 2300 block of Second Avenue between 23rd and 24th Streets. There are bars, a coffee shop, a corner bodega, and a skate shop on the block–all very complementary to Charm’s vibe. What we now need are a couple more retailers to step up and join the district–and indeed several have been searching for small space at reasonable rents. But it’s proven very hard to find.

Not the best and highest use of this corner

While there is plenty of vacant retail storefront downtown, much of it is too big. If it were subdivided into smaller, reasonably priced spaces it would be easier to fill. Unfortunately many building owners don’t want to go to the expense of speculative renovation for a market that’s still seen as pioneering. Above is the building at the SE corner of 24th and Second Avenue North, right down the street from Charm. Most recently professional offices, it was bought last year and is seemingly vacant: it’s storefront blinds are drawn, and no renovation work evident. It’s a big blank non-contributing element to the district right now.

Better and higher use

Last year we worked on a concept project with the previous owner (above) that would have created smaller retail storefront spaces on the first floor, and updated the building with a clean, graphic aesthetic complementing our 2nd Row project of 2007. If this city had a Redevelopment Authority, perhaps it could’ve identified this property as key to the growth of the Second Avenue district, bought or leased the space, performed the necessary renovations, and then marketed it to retail and restaurants. We have nothing like that here, which inhibits our getting traction or critical mass again and again (although Main Street Birmingham has had some success with similar ventures in the commercial centers of Woodlawn and Avondale).

Getting proactive

Once again, the smaller city of Mobile to our south is ahead of the curve: the Downtown Mobile Alliance (equivalent to our Operation New Birmingham) has acquired a spacious former retail space on Dauphin Street downtown (above) and created the Urban Emporium. Here, start-up retailers can rent small spaces with shared overhead, checkout, etc.–a retail incubator, if you will. It allows retailers interested in downtown to introduce themselves to the neighborhood at minimal expense. The idea is they grow a customer base, and then graduate to their own space elsewhere downtown. Birmingham needs to do something similar. Otherwise, we’ll keep losing opportunities like our aborted project above, while eager but frustrated entrepreneurs keep searching. Their search may lead  to other neighborhoods altogether if we don’t have a plan in place to accommodate them.

Critical mass is typically a combination of the organic and the planned. Here on Second Avenue North the organic has come a good ways. It’s time for some planning to keep it going. More on that next post.

[thanks to Downtown Mobile Alliance for the Urban Emporium pic]

11 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

DIY

Posted on May 21, 2012 | 8 comments

Unsanctioned but tolerated

There’s a lot of talk these days about DIY (do it yourself) approaches to urbanism, with everyone from taggers to neighborhood residents taking control of their built environment and bypassing the authorities to do so. This interesting article in The Atlantic Cities talks about crowd sourcing techniques in the urban setting, and how some cities are starting to rewrite their rules to take advantage of this grassroots civic energy (above is one of many tree wells scattered through public right-of-ways in Birmingham which, in the absence of trees or sustained municipal care, have been unofficially adopted/planted/maintained by adjacent merchants or residents).

Channeling the energy and sanctioning it

Graffiti is an ancient method of transforming public space without official sanction; above is the announcement of the next phase of an art project at 20th Street North and First Avenue at the vacant Brown-Marx building  coordinated by Space One Eleven and Operation New Birmingham (see our earlier post). Blank sheets of plywood that would have been prime targets for random graffiti are instead sanctioned for graffiti.

They paved paradise…and then they changed their minds

In San Francisco, that bastion of “people power” with its history of bucking societal norms, it is perhaps no surprise that the city has taken DIY to a new level of seriousness and sanction. Back in 2005 an art project consisted of feeding a city meter, then rolling out some grass into the parking spot to reclaim that little piece of asphalt as green space. Today the city’s “parklet” program allows neighborhoods to petition to officially–and semi-permanently– close down parking spaces and design and install (at their own expense) tiny park spaces (above). Permits are renewed yearly, so if the neighborhood decides it really needs that parking space back, they can do it.  It’s been a fascinating example of how grassroots DIY ideas have broken through the “system” and changed the rules. And in this case, an illustration of the triumph of human needs over those of the automobile–a few spaces at a time.

[Parklet photo courtesy of Wells Campbell via Atlantic Cities)

8 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

Art and its absence

Posted on February 15, 2012 | 10 comments

Validating our humanity on various levels

As we’ve discussed before, Birmingham has a poor record of supporting public art. While other cities large and small use public art as a routine component of urban revitalization, we have no comparable strategic program here (pictured above is “Chat” in downtown Brisbane, Australia by the sculptor Sebastian di Mauro; the whimsical knit bombing is by others). The absence of a good public art program is ironic given the local artistic talent that the City has, as well as  the ability of institutions like UAB and the Birmingham Museum of Art to attract all sorts of international talent to their stages and walls on a regular basis.

Long overdue

One of our readers alerted us last week to the public art project (above) at the base of the Brown Marx Building. For several years ugly, protective scaffolding has been erected around this large, historic vacant building at the corner of First Avenue North and 20th Street (several plans for mixed-use conversion over recent years have fallen through). Art students with local visual arts non-profit Space One Eleven were sponsored by the City and Operation New Birmingham to create art across the long expanses of plywood. It’s low on budget but high on creative energy.

Now that's attention to detail

Particularly satisfying was the portrait of Mayor Bell (detail, above), whose fingernail reflects an image of the downtown skyline. We love that.

Feast for the soul

For a major building to present such a forlorn aspect to such an important public intersection is disheartening. The art project goes some way to brightening this condition (and will soon by joined by a pilot project, also sponsored by the City and ONB, to install more art in vacant storefronts along 20th Street). Demonstrating the power of temporary public art is a good start towards implementing a permanent public art program in targeted areas of the City.

Looking better

That last image of the burger-for-the-soul brings us to a nice tangent–John’s City Diner (above), one of downtown’s oldest extant restaurants, and around the corner from the Brown Marx. The facade experienced an unfortunate renovation–guessing the early 1970’s–with tile and metal siding. Over the last weeks the owners have been partially renovating the frontage, revealing the beautiful art deco detailing still remaining at part of the top floor. Fingers crossed that the canopy and storefront can also be renovated. And that the iconic neon sign can remain lit for many more decades to come.

[thanks to trowzers for the Brisbane shot]

 

 

 

10 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

Playing Chicken

Posted on June 16, 2010 | 21 comments

Come unto me, all ye miscreants

Today was the first of 3 public hearings of the special Appeals Board hearing Chick-Fil-A‘s appeal of the Design Review Committee‘s unanimous decision to deny the construction of a stand-alone restaurant and drive-through at the corner of Highland Avenue and 20th Street South in the heart of Five Points South. 3 1/2 hours later, here’s the (longish) report:

1. Attorney Charlie Beavers, representing Chick-Fil-A, reduces the case to a fundamental question: did the DRC have the right to deny this project based on its proposed use? Answer: no, it did not. The use is allowed by current zoning and the DRC overstepped its bounds. He then proceeds to argue that, beyond this simple fact, Chick-Fil-A bent over backwards to modify its design numerous times, resulting in a very urban and appropriate design. At least according to Mr. Beavers.

2. Erwin Reed, Vice-President of Chick-Fil-A in charge of real estate, then states his corporation “doesn’t like to come to neighborhoods where we are not wanted.” He assures the chamber (about 50 people in all) that once it was built, the neighbors would love the place.

3. The opposition now has a chance to state its views. Attorney Alton Parker stands to contend the plan as drawn is suburban both in style and traffic accommodation, and therefore is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. “Why does Chick-Fil-A insist on doing something so opposed by the neighborhood?  Why insist on the drive-through?” [Note: both the Commercial Revitalization District and National Register designation papers, which were adopted as city ordinance, call for development in the neighborhood to be complementary and consistent with the historic, pedestrian character of the place; it is on these ordinances which the DRC based their ruling.]

Mike Calvert, president of Operation New Birmingham, states that he has 40 years of experience as an urban planner and expert witness on the topic, and this plan neither conforms to the City Center Master Plan nor to the Five Points South Revitalization Plan, and the DRC ruling should be upheld.

Bob Moody, adjacent property owner for 30 years, asks the board to uphold the ruling.

Frank Stitt, Alabama’s and one of the South’s most famed restaurateurs, states he loves Chick-Fil-A, but a drive-through is not appropriate on this site.

James Little, president of the Five Points South Merchant group, reminds the board that both his group and the Neighborhood Association approved (non-binding) resolutions opposing the current plan. He also states that Chick-Fil-A itself has admitted it needs a more “urban” prototype for pedestrian neighborhoods, and is implementing a pilot program in Chicago. He mentions the long lines at local suburban Chick-Fil-A outlets, and how this tight urban site can’t accommodate such traffic.

Joseph Baker, organizer of I Believe in Birmingham, speaks passionately  about the urban nature of the neighborhood, how we can’t put inappropriate uses into these special areas, and that corporations are not citizens. And if they go against the will of citizens, a boycott will be announced.

Betty Bock speaks about traffic nightmares if the plan were allowed.

Libby Rich says Chick-Fil-A is “a wonderful corporation. But this is our neighborhood. You [Chick-Fil-A] have overstepped your bounds.”

Ron Council points out the plan drawing only shows the property with almost no context, i.e. it leaves out all the historic structures around the intersection. More traffic woes for elderly people who walk or use wheelchairs on the sidewalks and must cross curb cuts.

Alison Glascock, Highland Park Neighborhood president, states she is not anti-corporation, but wants corporations to listen to the neighborhoods in which they locate. She regrets this situation has become “us vs. them.”

A long slog of a hearing

4. Charlie Beavers now stands up for Chick-Fil-A to rebut. He mentions the company’s traffic engineers have studied the site and are satisfied it will be fine. He insists this is indeed an urban design. He again asks the Board to overturn the DRC.

5. Greg Despinakas stands on behalf of the owner (who would lease the land to Chick-Fil-A). This is perhaps the most colorful moment: in a fiery, preacher-like sermon, he declares this project would be a “God-given enhancement to the neighborhood.” Which he then describes as deteriorating, filled with “…miscreants.  And head shops. And tattoo parlors. Broken glass. Piercing shops. Graffiti.” Even…saloons! He then dramatically turns to the audience and says. “Clean it up! Before you tell Chick-Fil-A what to do, clean up your own neighborhood!”

6. It’s now question time from the Board. How many customers will be served?  250-300,000 annually, about 50% of which is drive-through. Why this site? Because it maximizes our investment. Can you survive without a drive-through? We could, but this would not meet our financial expectations. How can you assure us that stacked cars waiting for the drive-through won’t be a nightmare at peak times? Trust us. We are the fastest drive-through in the US and we’ll hire traffic directors at peak times if required.

7. Executive Session. For maybe 30 minutes. Break time. Milling around, some wary hellos between camps, but mainly each sticks to his own.

8. Board returns. They ask the hours of store operation (6AM-10PM M-T; 6AM-11PM F,Sat; closed Sun). They announce the next public hearing is 8:30 AM Friday June 18, Room 215 City Hall. But no more public comments on that date; it’s just deliberation with public observation. One more important item: the board asks City staff to provide updated traffic counts for that intersection by Friday morning. With current budget woes at the City, there are not exactly extra bodies sitting around to count traffic. Here’s wishing staff good luck with this request!

So that’s it for now–stay tuned.

The takeaway? We need a form-based code for this neighborhood (and others)! Pronto. No one wants to sit through this again, trust me.

[thanks to southernpixel for the shot of Frank Fleming’s sculpture at Five Points fountain]

21 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Railroad Park Development

Posted on February 1, 2010 | 3 comments

As most of us concerned with Birmingham’s urban fabric know, the long-awaited Railroad Park should be open to the public in later this year. It is one of the few major elements of the downtown Master Plan that has come to fruition. Which is why we need a Redevelopment Authority–but that’s a subject for another post.

We, and several other architects, provided Operation New Birmingham with some concept sketches of a hypothetical development bordering the new park. The Birmingham News published the various drawings in an article today and has an online poll asking people to vote for their favorite.

Our sketch was very open-ended and more abstract than the others (and perhaps less accessible to the general public?). I wanted to take the artificial “nature” of the park and contrast it with the artificial “structure” of the architecture, a large concrete frame where solid and transparent surfaces move in and out of the frame.

If nothing else, it’s so rare in this city to have varied design proposals for anything, that I’m pleased to be part of this effort. It will be interesting to see what actually gets developed at the park. Baseball stadium, anyone?

3 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,