ThePLAN

using our past to build our future

B I R M I N G H A M

VOLUME 1—THE PLAN

⬚ figure ⬚ figure ⬚ figure ⬚ figure ⬚ figure ⬚ figure ⬚ figure ⬚ figure ⬚ figure ⬚ figure ⬚ figure ⬚ figure ⬚ figure

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OUR CITY | OUR VOICE | OUR PLAN

UNITED FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY MAYOR WILLIAM A. BELL. SR.

GOODY CLANCY ARCHITECTURE PLANNING PRESERVATION

⬚ figure

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

City of Birmingham, Alabama

Mayor William A. Bell, Sr.

Birmingham Planning Commission

Adoption by the Birmingham Planning Commission: October 2, 2013 – Comprehensive Plan without Future Land Use Plan Maps February 5, 2014 – Future Land Use Plan Maps

CONSULTANT TEAM

Goody Clancy | Boston, MA with Kittelson & Associates | Baltimore, MD Mt. Auburn Associates | Somerville, MA KPS Group | Birmingham, AL Enclave | Birmingham, AL NHB Group | Birmingham, AL Bloc Global | Birmingham, AL Khafra | Birmingham, AL

Acknowledgements

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM

Mayor William A. Bell, Sr. Virginia Williams, Director of Capital Projects

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND PERMITS Andre Bittas, Director Tom Magee, Chief Planner Doug Hale, Principal Planner

Planning staff: Michael Ward Jason Hjetland Donald Wilborn Timothy Gambrel Tracey Hayes Phil Turkett

BIRMINGHAM PLANNING COMMISSION David Fleming, Chairman

Elizabeth Barbaree-Tasker Jennifer Clarke Dr. Doug Ragland James Steele Lawrence Walker Linda Nelson Brian Ruggs Keith Ray Patty Pilkerton Patrick Bodden Dr. Brian Johnson

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL Roderick Royal, President Steven Hoyt, President Pro Tempore

Valerie Abbott Johnathan Austin Maxine Herring Parker Kim Rafferty Jay Roberson Lashunda Scales Carole Smitherman

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE Charlie Williams Deborah Blalock Faye Oates Phillip Morris Chris Boehm Terry Smiley Michelle Amaral Darrell Howard Tad Snider Dr. Henry Panion Valerie Wilson Jeremy Erdreich Andre Natta Joseph Baker Curtis Anthony David Germany Duer Sharp William Robertson Sheila Chaffin Bobbie Knight Karen Rolen Teri Chafin Carol Clarke Dr. Brian Sims Adrienne Mitchell Edwin Marty Fraser Rolen Buddy Palmer Bunny Stokes Sara Hamlin Isabel Rubio A. Michelle Clemon Camille Spratling Cheryl Morgan Keith Johnston Selena Rodgers Jim Hansen Tammy Cohen Martha Emmett Joseph M. Hollis Don Erwin

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKING GROUPS Thank you to all local professionals, City staff members, and community advocates who participated in working groups and took time to review draft chapters of the Comprehensive Plan.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PARTNERS Thank you - for meeting spaces and assistance in reaching out to residents and other stakeholders:

Birmingham Public Library Birmingham City Schools Boutwell Municipal Auditorium Birmingham Museum of Art Birmingham Business Alliance REV Birmingham REV/Main Street Birmingham Birmingham Water Works Birmingham CrossPlex Birmingham Parks & Recreation Local Businesses Neighborhood Leaders

THANK YOU to all the citizens, neighborhood and business leaders, community advocates, and stakeholders who participated in creating this Comprehensive Plan by attending public meetings and engaging with one another, by sharing your experience and knowledge of Birmingham through interviews and meetings with the planning team, and by expressing your commitment to Birmingham’s future. Everyone can be part of putting this plan into action!

Page intentionally blank

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

How to Use This Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

VOLUME 1 The Plan

PART I—SETTING THE STAGE

Chapter 1 — Vision and Principles

• 21st-Century Birmingham: A Vision for the City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3
• Principles to Guide the Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5

Chapter 2 — The Community Speaks

• Community—Based Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3

  Committee Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Public Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Citywide Visioning Forum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Community of Place Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10 Community of Interest Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11 Open Houses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.19 Citywide Forum on the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.22 Public Review and Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.25

Chapter 3 — Understanding Birmingham Today

• The City of Birmingham and 21st-Century Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2
• Trends at a Glance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7
• Population and Land Use Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.12
• Green Systems and Sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.24
• Housing and Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.30
• Prosperity and Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.41
• Strengthening City Systems and Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.46
• Fiscal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.56
• 21st-Century Birmingham: Planning for a New Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.56

PART II—GREEN SYSTEMS

Chapter 4 — Natural Resources and Environmental Constraints

• Goals and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2
• Findings and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3
• What the Community Said . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4
• Topography, Geology, and Landscape Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4

  Hydrology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 Habitats and Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 Urban Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11 Conservation and Environmental Quality Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.13 Green Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.14

• Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.16 GOAL 1—COMPREHENSIVE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.16 GOAL 2—REINVESTMENT IN EXISTING COMMUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.22 GOAL 3—MEETING CLEAN AIR STANDARDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.24 GOAL 4—MEETING CLEAN WATER STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.26
• Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.29

Chapter 5 — Open Space, Parks and Recreation

• Goals and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2
• Findings and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3
• What the Community Said . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4
• Parks and Open Space System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4

  The Olmsted Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Coal Mines to Zip Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 City of Birmingham Parks System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Parks Organizations and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.10

• Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.13 GOAL 1—ENSURING PARK ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL RESIDENTS . . . . . . . . . 5.13 GOAL 2—SAFE AND WELL—MAINTAINED CITY PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.16 GOAL 3—ACCESS TO CITY’S MAJOR NATURAL AMENITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.20
• Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.22

Chapter 6 — Sustainability and Green Practices

• Goals and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2
• Findings and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3
• What the Community Said . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4
• What is Sustainability? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4

  Sustainability Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Community Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Benefits of Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 Local Initiatives and Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9

• Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.10 GOAL 1—CITY OPERATIONS AS A MODEL OF EFFICIENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.10 GOAL 2—REINVESTMENT IN EXISTING COMMUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.14 GOAL 3—SUSTAINABLE PLANNING AND DESIGN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.18 GOAL 4—EFFORTS TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.22
• Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.24

PART III—NEIGHBORHOODS, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL

Chapter 7 — Neighborhoods, Historic Preservation and Housing

• Goals and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2
• Findings and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3
• What the Community Said . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5
• Understanding Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5
• Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 GOAL 1—INVESTMENTS TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 GOAL 2—DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN VILLAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.12 GOAL 3—NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE A GOOD PUBLIC IMAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.18 GOAL 4—CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.18 GOAL 5—MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE HISTORIC DISTRICTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.20 GOAL 6—HISTORIC PRESERVATION SUPPORTS COMMUNITY RENEWAL . 7.22 GOAL 7—COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING POLICY TO SUPPORT QUALITY NEIGHBORHOODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.26 GOAL 8—HOUSING THAT IS CODE COMPLIANT AND IN GOOD CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.30 GOAL 9—QUALITY HOUSING FOR ALL AGES AND ALL INCOMES . . . . . 7.31
• Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.33

Chapter 8—Community Renewal

• Goals and Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2
• Findings and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2
• What the Community Said . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3
• Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3
• Special Strategies and Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 GOAL 1—BLIGHT IS SUBSTANTIALLY ELIMINATED IN BIRMINGHAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.9 GOAL 2—CREATION OF LAND BANK AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.12 GOAL 3—STRATEGIC AND COMPREHENSIVE REDEVELOPMENT . . . . . 8.14
• Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.21

PART IV—PROSPERITY AND OPPORTUNITY

Chapter 9 — Growing Economic Base Industries

• Goals and Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2
• Findings and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3
• What the Community Said . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4
• Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 GOAL 1—A DIVERSIFIED, KNOWLEDGE—DRIVEN ECONOMY . . . . . . . . 9.5
• The Health Care Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5
• Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7
• Tourism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9
• Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.12
• The Financial Services Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.13
• Life Sciences Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.15
• Life Sciences Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.17
• Medical—related Industry Niches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.19 GOAL 2—CITY FOCUS ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.20
• Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.20

Chapter 10 — Reinforcing the Building Blocks of the Economy

• Goals and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2
• Findings and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4
• What the Community Said . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5
• Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 GOAL 1—ALL STUDENTS GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 GOAL 2—A WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.9 GOAL 3—SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ARE IN PLACE TO ASSIST WORKERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.13 GOAL 4—A STRONG ENTREPRENEURIAL ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . .10.14 GOAL 5—OPPORTUNITIES TO DEVELOP BUSINESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.17 GOAL 6—BIRMINGHAM IS A COMMUNITY OF CHOICE FOR WORKERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.20 GOAL 7—LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES ARE FAIR AND EFFICIENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.21 GOAL 8—REUSE OF VACANT INDUSTRIAL SITES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.24 GOAL 9—MODERN INFRASTRUCTURE MEETS BUSINESS NEEDS . . . . 10.25
• Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.27

Chapter 11 — Sustaining Downtown

• Goals and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2
• Findings and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3
• What the Community Said . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
• Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
• Downtown Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
• Real Estate Market Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5
• The Twelve Step Program for Downtown Revitalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5
• Downtown Sub—districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8 GOAL 1—DOWNTOWN IS A THRIVING MIX—USE CENTER . . . . . . . . . . 11.11 GOAL 2—DOWNTOWN IS A SAFE, FUN, AND EXCITING PLACE TO LIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.16 GOAL 3—DOWNTOWN IS A DIVERSE MIX OF CULTURAL/ ENTERTAINMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.18 GOAL 4—DOWNTOWN IS MADE UP OF CONNECTED DISTRICTS . . . . 11.20 GOAL 5—DOWNTOWN HAS A STRONG LEADERSHIP ORGANIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.26
• Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.27

PART V—STRENGTHENING CITY SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS

Chapter 12 — Getting from Here to There: Transportation and Mobility • Goals and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 • Findings and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3 • What the Community Said . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 • Transportation Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 • Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.24 GOAL 1—TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS HELP CREATE URBAN LIVABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.24 GOAL 2—COMPLETE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS . . . . . . 12.34 GOAL 3—TRANSIT SYSTEM IS FAST, EFFICIENT AND DEPENDABLE . . 12.38 GOAL 4—STREETS AND SIDEWALKS ARE ACCESSIBLE AND MAINTAINED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.42 GOAL 5—STATE-OF-THE-ART INTERCITY PASSENGER TRAVEL AND FREIGHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.43 • Traffic Calming & Active Transportation Safety Toolbox . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.45 • Street Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.57

Chapter 13 — Supporting Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure • Goals and Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 • Findings and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 • What the Community Said . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6 • Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6 GOAL 1—CITY HAS STATE-OF-THE-ART INFORMATION SOURCES . . . 13.6 GOAL 2—PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS MEET BEST-PRACTICES STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.7 GOAL 3—WATER AND SEWER THAT MEETS LONG-TERM NEEDS . . . 13.9 GOAL 4—STORMWATER-MANAGEMENT BEST PRACTICES . . . . . . . . 13.10 GOAL 5—MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.16 GOAL 6—CITY FACILITIES ARE MODELS OF RESOURCE EFFICIENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.16 GOAL 7—MINIMIZED CITY FUNDING FOR CULTURAL FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.22 GOAL 8—TWENTY PERCENT REDUCTION IN SOLID WASTE LEVELS BY 2030. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.22 GOAL 9—AN EFFECTIVE AND WELL-REGARDED SCHOOL SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.23 • Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.25

PART VI—FROM PLAN TO ACTION

Chapter 14 — Future Land Use, Regulations and Urban Design

• Goals and Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2
• Findings and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3
• What the Community Said . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4
• Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4
• Land Use Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4
• Existing Land Use Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.5
• Land Use Policy and Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.7
• Land Use Issues and Future Land Use Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.8
• Zoning and Development Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.12 GOAL 1—DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF DOWNTOWN, URBAN VILLAGES, AND GREEN NETWORK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.16

  Strategic Policy Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.17 Future Land Use Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.19 GOAL 2—ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES REFLECT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.22 Best Practices Characteristics of Modern Zoning Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.22 Concept Plans:

  • Woodlawn Urban Village and Strategic Opportunity Area . . . . . . . . . . . 14.30
  • Five Points West Urban Village and Strategic Opportunity Area . . . . . 14.32
  • Parkway East Vision and Strategic Opportunity Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.34 GOAL 3—EXCELLENT URBAN DESIGN QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.37
• Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.39

Chapter 15 — Stewardship and Implementation of the Plan

• Goals and Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2
• Findings and Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2
• What the Community Said . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3
• Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3
• Purpose of Plan to Organize for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3
• Stewardship of the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3
• Planning Commission and the Department of PE&P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.4 GOAL 1—REGULAR REVIEW OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS .15.5 GOAL 2—INCORPORATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN DECISION-MAKING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.6 GOAL 3—INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.8 GOAL 4—RESOURCES TO PROVIDE SERVICES AND PROGRAMS FOR REVITALIZATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.9
• Implementation and Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.12
• Implementation Tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.12
• Implementation Matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.14

VOLUME 2—Appendix

I — Future Land Use Plan by Community

• Figure A.1: Future Land Use
• Figure A.2: Airport Hills Future Land Use
• Figure A.3: Brownville Future Land Use
• Figure A.4: Cahaba Future Land Use
• Figure A.5: Crestline Future Land Use
• Figure A.6: Crestwood Future Land Use
• Figure A.7: East Birmingham Future Land Use
• Figure A.8: East Lake Future Land Use
• Figure A.9: East Pinson Valley Future Land Use
• Figure A.10: Ensley Future Land Use
• Figure A.11: Five Points West Future Land Use
• Figure A.12: Grasselli Future Land Use
• Figure A.13: Huffman Future Land Use
• Figure A.14: North Birmingham Future Land Use
• Figure A.15: Northside Future Land Use
• Figure A.16: Pratt Future Land Use
• Figure A.17: Red Mountain Future Land Use
• Figure A.18: Roebuck – South East Lake Future Land Use
• Figure A.19: Smithfield Future Land Use
• Figure A.20: Southside Future Land Use
• Figure A.21: Southwest Future Land Use
• Figure A.22: Titusville Future Land Use
• Figure A.23: West End Future Land Use
• Figure A.24: Woodlawn Future Land Use

II — Market Reports for Five Locations

• Carraway-Norwood Community Redevelopment Market Report
• Ensley Community Redevelopment Market Report
• Five Points West Community Redevelopment Market Report
• Parkway East Community Redevelopment Market Report
• Woodlawn Community Redevelopment Market Report

III — Blight Elimination and Code Enforcement Tools

• How Community Progress Can Help You, Center for Community Progress
• Turning Vacant Spaces into Vibrant Spaces, Center for Community Progress
• City of New Orleans Code Enforcement Update, January 14, 2013
• Real Estate Market Analysis, The Reinvestment Fund
• Re-Imagining Cleveland: Ideas to Action Resource Book
• Re-Imagining Cleveland: Vacant Land Re-Use Pattern Book
• REO and Beyond: The Aftermath of the Foreclosure Crisis in Cuyahoga County, OH.
• Managing Foreclosures and Vacant Properties
• Smart Management and the Turnaround of a City
• Should the Site be Preserved?

IV — Community Audit and Sustainability Tools

• STAR Community Rating System
• Sustainable Design and Green Building Toolkit for Local Governments
• A Citizen’s Guide to Phytoremediation
• Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site Cleanup

V — Arts and Culture in Redevelopment

• Creative Placemaking
• Culture Clash: Addressing Conventional Urban Challenges Through Unconventional Partnerships
• Developing Artist-Driven Spaces in Marginalized Communities

VI — Foundation and Grant Resources

• Cities for Financial Empowerment

  About CFE Coalition How We Work

• Enterprise
• Local Initiatives Support Corporation

  Building Sustainable Communities

• Surdna Foundation

  Environmental Grant Guidelines Strong Local Economies Grant Guidelines Thriving Cultures Grant Guidelines

• W.K. Kellogg Foundation

  Growing Communities Where All Children Thrive

• Ford Foundation

  Connecting People to Opportunity Expanding Access to Quality Housing Promoting Metropolitan Land-Use Innovation

• Code for America

  What We Can Do For Your City

• Reconnecting America

  Possible Funding Sources for Sustainable Communities

VII — Conference for Birmingham Neighborhoods Resources

• Suggestions for the Birmingham Neighborhoods Conference

⬚ figure

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:

People, Prosperity, Place, Partnership, Performance

WHY WE DEVELOPED THIS PLAN

This is the City of Birmingham's first full comprehensive plan since 1961 and the first comprehensive plan based on a community process. With community consensus behind it, the 2012 City of Birmingham Comprehensive Plan puts the city on a new strategic path for the 21st century towards a renaissance of city neighborhoods, a strong economy with more jobs, and more opportunity and quality of life for all.

HOW WE DEVELOPED THIS PLAN

The City of Birmingham Comprehensive Plan was developed through a process of broad public participation by citizens, business owners and other stakeholders. The planning process touched over 2,300 people whether through citywide forums, workshops in different parts of the city, topical workshops, or open house events. Stakeholders from all walks of life gave many hours of their time to serve on the Steering Committee that helped shape the plan.

⬚ figure

HOW WE'LL PUT THE PLAN TO WORK

The purpose of planning is to get to action. The Comprehensive Plan includes a detailed implementation plan setting out the What, How, Who, and When for specific actions to achieve the goals of the plan. A Comprehensive Plan Implementation Committee made up of planning commissioners and citizens will serve as the stewards of the plan, advising government and other partners, and monitoring progress. Annual public hearings will give citizens a report on implementation and the plan will be used in capital improvement planning, work plans, and to guide land use decision making. Partnerships with residents, businesses, medical and educational institutions, and nonprofits will be critical to success.

BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STRATEGIC POLICY MAP

⬚ figure

STRATEGIC MIXED-USE CENTERS

• Downtown Core
• Urban Villages

STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY AREAS

• Neighborhood revitalization
• Urban Agriculture Innovation District
• Planned Development Area

ROBUST GREEN CONNECTIONS

• Major greenways
• Parks and open space
• Conservation

TRANSPORTATION CHOICE

• Enhanced transit

⬚ figure

Birmingham's Vision for the 21st Century

In 2032, the City of Birmingham leads the South as a community of choice and opportunity: diverse, prosperous, sustainable, and beautiful.

• People choose the City of Birmingham as a place to live. Our neighborhoods are attractive, walkable, well maintained, and safe. The blighted properties of the past have been transformed into new or renovated housing, greenways and green open spaces, or other community assets. Across the city, there are appealing housing choices for all kinds of households: young singles and couples, families with children, empty nesters, and retirees.
• Birmingham has a connected network of walkable urban places. Our compact, mixed use, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood centers support an enhanced and efficient transit system, and a network of safe and attractive pedestrian and bicycle routes links neighborhoods with city destinations.
• Birmingham is innovative and prosperous, with a diversified and sustainable economy. Education, innovation and investment have grown the economy and reduced poverty by creating new economic opportunities. As a community of learning, Birmingham offers excellent educational options for all age levels and interests, creating well-educated citizens and a modern workforce qualified for 21st century jobs. Vacant or underutilized industrial sites are finding new uses that benefit the city and its economy. Because our culture of opportunity supports innovation and creativity, our diversified economy supports entrepreneurial start-ups and creates new jobs, ranging from businesses that emerge from the interdisciplinary research of UAB to our acclaimed food culture and arts scene.
• Birmingham is the most sustainable, "greenest" city in the South. The city has become cleaner, healthier, more energy- and resource-efficient, and more attractive as a place to live. We have worked within the city and through regional partnerships to improve air quality, preserve sensitive lands, and protect and enjoy our excellent water resources. Our parks and greenways provide convenient, safe environments for all residents to play and exercise. Everyone has access to our city's premier health services, healthy food choices, and healthy lifestyles.
• Birmingham's success is built on local and regional partnerships. We created strong partnerships encompassing citizens, the business community, institutions, nonprofits, and governments to transform Birmingham into the best place to live, work, study, and play in the South.

Fifty years after 1963:

FULFILLING THE PROMISE FOR 21ST-CENTURY BIRMINGHAM

Honor our past Meet the challenges of our present Build on assets for a future of opportunity

TEN GAME-CHANGING STRATEGIES FOR THE CITY'S FUTURE:

PEOPLE

• Prepare students and workers for 21st century jobs through high quality career education and a coordinated and responsive workforce development system.
• Reinvigorate the citizen participation process.

PROSPERITY

• Cultivate innovation: strengthen and promote Birmingham's entrepreneurial ecosystem.
• Capitalize on the city's economic drivers by targeting life science, advanced manufacturing, and entrepreneurship.

PLACE

• Create transit-ready urban villages through investment in strategic neighborhood areas to make a visible difference.
• Invest in quality of life: design excellence, complete streets, marked bicycle routes, well maintained parks.
• Create and implement a Downtown Connections Plan to link all the attractions and neighborhoods in downtown.

PARTNERSHIP

• End working in "silos:" cooperate, coordinate and collaborate across municipalities, communities, constituencies, institutions, agencies, and departments.

PERFORMANCE

• Accelerate revitalization through a city redevelopment authority and land bank and a comprehensive property information system.
• Prepare an annual public report on progress implementing the comprehensive plan.

UNITED FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY MAYOR WILLIAM A. BELL, SR. GOODY CLANCY ARCHITECTURE PLANNING PRESERVATION OUR CITY | OUR VOICE | OUR PLAN WWW.BIRMINGHAMCOMPREHENSIVEPLAN.COM

WHAT'S IN THE

2012 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?

IMAGINE ▶ PLAN ▶ ACT

The Comprehensive Plan covers a broad range of topics in 15 chapters about current trends, the planning process and all aspects of community life that affect the way our city can develop in the future.

IMAGINE

What kind of place do we want to be in the 21st century?

• Part I: Setting the Stage. Our vision for the future, guiding principles for planning, the public process, and where we are starting from today.

PLAN

How do we get there? Strategies to achieve the vision.

• Part II: Green Systems. Nature and environment, parks and recreation, and sustainability and green practices.
• Part III: Neighborhoods, Housing and Community Renewal. Sustaining, enhancing and renewing neighborhoods to provide a good quality of life.
• Part IV: Prosperity and Opportunity. Supporting and growing the industries that drive the city's economy, while reinforcing the economy's building blocks—education, workforce development, entrepreneurship, and quality of life to retain and attract talent—and continuing the downtown renaissance.
• Part V: Strengthening City Systems and Networks. Expanding transportation choice based on land use strategies and providing excellent city services.

ACT

How do we get started?

• Part IV: From Plan to Action. A new development framework of land use, regulation and urban design, with step-by-step actions to achieve the vision and monitor progress.

BIRMINGHAM’S POWER OF PLACE

High quality of life—resident satisfaction in daily living—is the foundation of successful 21st century communities. Businesses locate where people want to be, and good neighborhoods, along with a great open space system and a vibrant cultural life are among the key attractions that any city and metropolitan area can offer.

With its ridge and valley topography, lush greenery, historic downtown, and neighborhoods that emerged from small towns, Birmingham has the pedestrian-friendly street grid, neighborhood centers, and local parks that people increasingly seek in a place to live. At the same time, the city’s large nature parks and emerging greenway system will make it possible for Birmingham residents to experience nature without leaving the city limits.

This combination of urban lifestyles with access to nature creates a powerful mix for quality of life.

the big picture

Birmingham has many assets—economic, cultural, historic—but it also has to grapple with many challenges. The city needs better tools, better systems, more internal and external communication, and enhanced partnerships to achieve Birmingham citizens' vision for the future.

Raise the city’s “information quotient” for data and evidence-based decision making

• A comprehensive property information database, a real estate market analysis on a block to block basis, detailed data on city jobs and enterprises, and an asset management system—result in more informed decision making and effective use of taxpayer dollars.

Use the right tools for each job

• A professionally-run Birmingham Redevelopment Authority and Land Bank along with a high profile system of coordinated code enforcement will deploy a variety of tools to eliminate blight and redevelop neighborhoods.

Be strategic, focused, and systematic to create visible success

• Target coordinated investments in housing, infrastructure, transportation, parks, facilities, and workforce and social services to areas with assets, so that visible successes can create confidence and increasingly leverage private investment.
• Target incentives to support emerging industries, entrepreneurship and microbusiness, and revitalization in designated Urban Villages and Strategic Opportunity Areas.

No more silos: coordinate, cooperate, collaborate

• Create a Housing Policy Advisory Council that includes government, the housing authority, neighborhoods, housing developers, realtors, and economic development specialists.

GREEN SYSTEMS

Natural Resources and Environmental Constraints

• Work with partners to protect and enhance water quality.

Parks and Recreation

• Work towards a goal of a park within walking distance of every resident.
• Update the 1996 Park and Recreation Plan, and include a section on management and maintenance of the system.
• Implement the Red Rock Ridge and Valley Trail System.

Sustainability and Green Practices

• Make City government a model of resource-efficient and green practices.
• Develop incentives for green building and stormwater management.
• Use natural drainage systems where possible.
• Promote white roofs as an easy way to mitigate the urban heat island.

⬚ figure

NEIGHBORHOODS, HOUSING, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL

Good neighborhoods are the foundation of successful cities. Regardless of household income level, neighborhoods should provide safety, decent and sanitary housing, well-maintained infrastructure, environmental and aesthetic amenities such as street trees, and easy access to parks, public spaces, and neighborhood retail and services.

• Create a community-based Housing Policy Advisory Council including representatives of government staff, neighborhood organizations, for-profit and non-profit housing developers, realtors, and representatives of economic development organizations.
• Create a Public Facilities Working Group to meet regularly on city, county, state, federal, and school facilities decisions in order to ensure they further city goals for development.
• Establish a rental housing code to ensure that rental properties are fit for habitation.
• Create a set of Framework Plans for 23 Communities in order to provide guidance on desired development.
• Create a historic preservation ranking system to guide decision making about programs and incentives.

COMMUNITY RENEWAL

Many of Birmingham's traditional neighborhoods have experienced decades of disinvestment, with the large number of abandoned houses and stores, tax delinquent properties, and vacant lots bearing witness to this reality. In addition, there are “environmental justice” neighborhoods affected by the legacy of industrial pollution and residential segregation.

• Pursue a comprehensive and coordinated system to eliminate blight, assemble land and redevelop neighborhoods in disinvested areas.
• Create a comprehensive property information system.
• Understand the details of neighborhood real estate markets by commissioning a real estate market study at the block level.
• Establish a professional Redevelopment Authority and Land Bank to take charge of blight elimination and redevelopment activities to create mixed-income neighborhoods.
• Focus redevelopment activities strategically on compact urban villages and their surrounding neighborhoods to create transit-ready centers and a visible difference to create confidence. Target coordinated housing, infrastructure, transportation, park, and service investments to create a successful mixed-income neighborhood.
• Create an Urban Agriculture Innovation District in Ensley to develop a for-profit district of intensive food production through hydroponics and aquaponics in buildings and land-based agriculture.

⬚ figure

PROSPERITY AND OPPORTUNITY: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Economic development recommendations for Birmingham revolve around four key priorities: supporting established and emerging industries; improving the education system for all; supporting entrepreneurship and the city's role as a center of innovation; and continuing robust support for creating a live-work-play downtown.

Established and emerging industries

• Cultivate entrepreneurs and make it easy for them to stay in The City.
• Target a portion of money incentives to emerging industries.

Developing human capital

• Proceed with public school programs to improve student progress across the system
• Coordinate the workforce development system.

Sustaining Downtown

• Develop and implement a plan for the Entrepreneurial District and strengthen the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
• Develop and implement a Downtown Connections Plan to link downtown’s activity centers and residential areas with streetscape improvements, ground floor activities, popup events, public art, and transit.
• Create a Contemporary Culture Future District from Railroad Park to Sloss Furnace to showcase Alabama fine crafts.
• Develop and implement a plan for the southeast quadrant of downtown.

STRENGTHENING CITY SYSTEMS:

TRANSPORTATION, INFRASTRUCTURE AND

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES

Offering more transportation choice—through better transit, bicycle facilities, and sidewalks—was at or near the top of Birmingham residents' desires for the city at every public meeting. While the city belongs to regional water and sewer systems, it controls the local road and drainage infrastructure. City facilities suffer from deferred maintenance.

Transportation

• Integrate transportation and land use planning to build up centers of density that can support enhanced transit systems such as bus rapid transit.
• Expand opportunities to walk and bike safely: implement the “complete streets” policy adopted by the Planning Commission, and the Red Rock Trail system pedestrian and bicycle routes.

⬚ figure

• Improve transit service through creation of SuperStops at Five Points West and other locations to facilitate transfers and establish express routes.
• Develop policies to make City facilities, buildings and operations models of resource efficiency and sustainable practices.
• Set long term priorities for infrastructure by funding and implementing a municipal asset management system (including pavement management) linked to an up-to-date GIS (Geographic Information Systems) database.

IMPLEMENTATION

The plan includes an implementation plan that lays out potential actions, responsible parties, time frames (short-, medium- and long-term), and potential resources. Implementation will require strong partnerships including business, neighborhoods, institutions, nonprofits, and citizens.

Where’s the money? Serious plans attract funding and investment. Just having a plan developed through a participatory process demonstrates that the city knows where it wants to go, has a strategy to get there, and is creating the organizational capacity to get the job done. A wide diversity of funding sources must be pursued and coordinated. Over the long term, potential sources of funding to implement the strategies and achieve the goals of this plan include:

• Capital improvements bond funding
• Dedicated millages or sales taxes
• Property and sales tax abatements as incentives
• User fees and betterment fees to implement improvements and incentivize activities
• Tax Increment Financing
• Catalyst Funds (private investment funds with “patient capital”).
• Federal grant programs that recognize the Comprehensive Plan is aligned with federal program goals
• Cost savings from operating efficiencies
• Leveraged private investment through incentives such as waived fees, below-market sales of vacant land, limited-time tax abatements
• Foundation grants
• Volunteer activities

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS A LIVING DOCUMENT

• Designate a position in the City’s Planning Division as the long-range planner to be the in-house expert on the Comprehensive Plan and implementation coordinator.
• Create a Comprehensive Plan Implementation Committee to monitor progress.
• Review implementation progress in annual public hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council.
• Use the Comprehensive Plan in creating departmental work plans, the budget and the capital improvement program, required planning documents for federal funding programs, and grant proposals.
• Schedule a public process every five years to review implementation progress on the Comprehensive Plan and to confirm or revise the Vision, Principles, and Goals.
• Update the Comprehensive Plan thoroughly at least every 20 years.

Mayor William A. Bell, Sr. Andre Bittas DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND PERMITS Tom Magee CHIEF PLANNER Doug Hale PRINCIPAL PLANNER David Fleming CHAIR, BIRMINGHAM PLANNING COMMISSION

Consultant Team Goody Clancy LEAD CONSULTANT Kittelson & Associates KPS Group Mt Auburn Associates NHB Group KHAFRA BLOC Global Enclave

THANKS TO ALL THE CITIZENS WHO GAVE THEIR TIME TO BE ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE AND WORKING GROUPS AND TO ATTEND PUBLIC MEETINGS.

Preface

WHAT IS THE BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?

The Birmingham Comprehensive Plan is a 20-year policy and strategic guide for future decision making about our city’s growth, quality of life, economic prosperity, and environment. The Plan is guided by an overall vision for the future created through an unprecedented program of community engagement. This vision embodies the unique personality, culture, and heritage of our city. The Plan provides community-based goals, strategies to achieve the goals, and implementation actions for a broad array of issues that affect our citizens’ daily lives and opportunities in the future: from economic development, transportation and neighborhood revitalization to land use, public facilities, and natural systems and parks. Through an implementation process described in Chapter 15, specific actions are assigned to agencies responsible for implementation, along with potential partners from outside government. Committed citizens working together with the appropriate government agencies, the private sector and non-profit organizations can help to fully realize the vision and initiatives set forth in the plan. While local government through the Mayor and City Council must provide funding for many programs and capital improvements such as parks, sidewalks, and streets, the strategic framework in this community-based plan can also attract funding through competitive grants, philanthropy, and private investment.

The City of Birmingham’s Comprehensive Plan is the product of many months of work by city staff, Planning Commission members, Steering Committee members, and citizens of the City of Birmingham. It was created to accomplish the following:

• To identify and examine the city’s assets and the challenges it faces, and to identify appropriate strategies and opportunities that take advantage of the city’s existing and potential strengths.
• To define a vision of Birmingham’s future that will inspire, guide and director growth in the city while being responsive to citizen needs and desires.
• To develop a plan based on realistic and achievable goals, building on the city’s considerable assets and designed to restore and enhance basic services, attract and retain quality businesses and jobs, rebuild neighborhoods, reinvest in families and schools, and continue the city’s historic role as a leader in the region and the state.

The Birmingham Comprehensive Plan is the city’s guide to future land use, transportation, and economic development decisions, and a unifying document that brings together many existing plans that guide and enhance growth in Birmingham’s communities. The Birmingham Comprehensive Plan is comprehensive because:

• The Plan analyzes a broad spectrum of existing conditions to provide a clear picture of the current state of the city including population and land use trends, housing, neighborhoods, economic development, transportation, and public facilities and services.

• The Plan covers a wide array of subject areas related to the future growth and development of the city, from land use, transportation, economic development, workforce development, and downtown and neighborhood development to the natural environment, parks and open space, and public facilities.

• Fundamentally, the Birmingham Comprehensive Plan is about growth, redevelopment and revitalization. Birmingham is a city built upon a foundation of world-class health care, strong financial institutions, a diversified and entrepreneurial business community, and a lively culture of higher education, the arts, and entertainment. This Plan is supported by an involved citizenry, an active business community, a committed institutional, educational, and cultural sector, and city government. As the city redevelops, its future is dependent on the vitality of and cooperation among these groups.

STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

Alabama law requires that:

The [comprehensive] plan shall be made with the general purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the municipality and its environs which will, in accordance with present and future needs, best promote health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare as well as efficiency and economy in the process of development, including, among other things, adequate provision for traffic, the promotion of safety from fire and other dangers, adequate provision for light and air, the promotion of the healthful and convenient distribution of population, the promotion of good civic design and arrangement, wise and efficient expenditure of public funds and the adequate provision of public utilities and other public requirements. — Alabama Code 5 11-52-9

The language of the statute is general in nature and allows local governments a broad degree of freedom in writing their comprehensive plans, while ensuring that the fundamentals of a good comprehensive plan are all present. The plan

must help guide future development, protect and promote the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Birmingham, promote good civic design, and coordinate the efficient and adequate provision of public services.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND A ZONING ORDINANCE?

A comprehensive plan is a vision of what a community wants to become, and a framework for accomplishing that vision. A comprehensive plan consists of various elements that are separate but related to each other, such as transportation, community and neighborhood revitalization, the natural environment, and how land is used now and in the future. The elements share a set of common assumptions, such as the plan’s geographic area and the time horizon for recommendations and implementation. The elements are intended to work together and reinforce each other so that the plan sets forth a comprehensive and holistic strategy for where and how the city should develop and redevelop in order to provide existing and new citizens with a high quality of life, prosperity, and opportunities for success.

In the State of Alabama, a comprehensive plan is advisory in nature and does not have the force of law. A comprehensive plan usually includes a Future Land Use Plan that is intended to help achieve the city’s long-range vision of growth. Birmingham’s Future Land Use Plan provides guidance and recommendations on the parcel level for the general type and density of new development within the existing city limits, which may be the same or may differ from current land uses. A Future Land Use Plan may be used by planning staff and decision-making bodies such as the Planning Commission and City Council as a reference for evaluating land use decisions that come before them.

A comprehensive plan also contains narrative recommendations in the form of goals, policies, and strategies. The recommendations are intended to be implemented over the full time frame of the plan, with some being implemented in the beginning, and others later; some may not be adopted at all, depending on changing conditions or opportunities over time. These recommendations come in several forms. Some recommendations may be capital projects, such as a new park or a rehabilitated community building. Other recommendations are programmatic, meaning they recommend items that are not necessarily regulatory, such as providing information to the public or establishing new processes for how work is done in city government. Still other recommendations are regulatory, requiring changes in regulations or ordinances by standard procedures that require public hearings and City Council actions. For example, the Community Framework Plans recommended in the Birmingham Comprehensive Plan will include detailed analysis of Birmingham’s communities and may result in new zoning and development regulations. The

important distinction is that, while the recommendations may advocate for change to legal requirements and documents such as the zoning ordinance, the recommendations are not enforceable unless legal changes are actually made to the regulations in question. Such changes require the review of the Planning Commission and the approval of City Council, with separate public hearings for each.

A zoning ordinance is a regulatory tool used to implement plans and policies. It is a legal, enforceable part of City Code that is used to regulate the use of land within the city limits and the type, scale, and intensity of use on that land. Zoning ordinances are legally binding, and as part of City Code they have the force of law. Requirements of a zoning ordinance must be met, unless a waiver or variance is granted, and planning staff and decision-making bodies such as the Planning Commission and City Council must apply it to cases that come before them. A zoning ordinance may be amended from time to time, but it is not intended to have a limited timeframe. A zoning ordinance is one tool for implementing a comprehensive plan.

WHAT IS THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE MAPS IN THE BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?

The Birmingham Comprehensive Plan contains many descriptive and analytical maps based on digital map layers. The digital map layers and map data were provided by the City of Birmingham and a few other entities (individual maps provide source information), and the maps were created either by the consultant team or the City of Birmingham. Because the Comprehensive Plan is an advisory document, the maps in the Plan are not legally authoritative sources on the location of natural or manmade features. They are intended for general reference, informational planning or guidance. The City and the consultant team make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, or currentness of the maps.

How to Use This Plan

T he new Birmingham Comprehensive Plan is neither a prediction nor a projection of the future. It is a plan. Built on the ambitious vision of the people of the City of Birmingham, it recognizes the existence of obstacles and unresolved practical questions. It provides strategies for overcoming the obstacles and answering the questions. But no plan is self-implementing. A new era of partnerships—government, residents, businesses, institutions, and nonprofits all working together—can bring this ambitious vision to reality.

WHAT’S IN THE PLAN? HOW SHOULD I READ IT?

The Birmingham Comprehensive Plan includes an Executive Summary and covers a broad range of topics in 15 chapters about current trends, the planning process, all aspects of community life that affect the way our city can develop in the future, and implementation actions. The chapters are organized into six Parts, each of which starts with a summary of the contents of each Part. The plan can be read all the way through or selectively, according to the reader's interests. Government agencies, businesses, nonprofit institutions and others can choose specific topics relevant to their activities. There is also an Appendix to the plan containing technical reports and resources relevant to topics in the plan.

• For a quick overview of key themes, major recommendations, and the process used to create the plan, read the Executive Summary.

• To understand the aspirations for the future and community values that are the foundation of the plan, read Chapters 1–2. These chapters are based on an extensive community participation process and designed to answer the question: What kind of place do we want to be in the 21st century? They provide the vision for the future, guiding principles for planning, and a description of the public process.

• To understand the starting point for the comprehensive plan and how we got here, read Chapter 3. It lays out the key existing conditions and circumstances of the city when the plan was developed in 2011–2012.

• To find out about specific topics, from green systems to neighborhoods to economic development and infrastructure, choose the topics of interest to you from Chapters 4–13. Each chapter provides a table of goals and policies, an introduction with a brief list of priorities, a set of recommended strategies and actions to achieve the goals, and a final section, “Getting Started,” identifying possible early action items to get going on the recommendations of that chapter. Many of them are organizational and do not require new funding.

• To find out about recommended changes in land use, and principles for new zoning and urban design approaches, read Chapter 14.

• To find out about how to make this a living plan and how to implement it, read Chapter 15. There you will find a matrix of actions, responsible parties, timelines, and potential resources for Chapters 4–14.

Part I

Setting the Stage

Chapter 1 Vision and Principles

Chapter 2 The Community Speaks

Chapter 3 Understanding Birmingham Today

SUMMARY THEMES

Where do we want to go? A 21st-Century Vision for the City of Birmingham’s future

A 20-year Vision for the city’s future and a set of principles will guide the planning process and the implementation of the plan. The Vision for Birmingham as a community of choice and opportunity revolves around five statements for the future:

• People choose the City of Birmingham as a place to live.
• Birmingham has a connected network of walkable urban places.
• Birmingham is innovative and prosperous, with a diversified and sustainable economy.
• Birmingham is the most sustainable, “greenest” city in the South.
• Birmingham’s success is built on local and regional partnerships.

How did the planning process ensure that the plan reflects the aspirations, needs and desires of people who live, work, study and own businesses in the city?

The public participation process for the comprehensive plan engaged over two thousand people in developing the vision and principles, discussing needs and improvements in the communities where they live or work, focusing on specific topics like transportation or neighborhood revitalization, and giving feedback as the plan developed.

What’s the starting point? In 2011–2012, what are the city’s assets and challenges, and how are conditions trending if we don’t make changes?

The baseline conditions in the City of Birmingham—in the region and the world at the time this comprehensive plan was written—serve as the launchpad for this plan: population and land use trends, environmental conditions and constraints, housing and neighborhood conditions, jobs and economic trends, transportation, and the city’s facilities and services.

Chapter 1

Vision and Principles

⬚ figure

1.2

21st-Century Birmingham: A Vision for the City

This is the City of Birmingham’s first full comprehensive plan since 1961, a half-century ago. Developed during 2011–2012, this plan is a blueprint for Birmingham to become a successful 21st-century city—a city that honors its past, faces and overcomes the challenges of the present, and builds on its assets to create a future filled with opportunity.

As this new comprehensive plan is being written in 2012, the city is preparing to celebrate the 50-year anniversary of Birmingham’s renowned role as a critical turning point in the struggle for civil rights and the end of racial segregation in America. The 1961 comprehensive plan was overtaken by events and few of the plan’s recommendations were implemented. Since then the city has experienced population decline, a profound economic transition from a predominantly manufacturing economy to a service economy, and—in recent years—an ongoing downtown revival bringing people to live in the city center. Birmingham has a rising national profile as a center of medical research and technology; it has built important new parks and sports venues; and it continues to be the region’s center of arts and culture. While the City’s 2004 downtown plan has served as a guide to downtown revitalization efforts, this new comprehensive plan is designed to encompass the entire city.

The purpose of a plan is to get to action. This plan includes a common vision; a set of strategies to capitalize on opportunities that exist right now, as well as opportunities that will emerge in the future; and an implementation plan for positive change with concrete steps that citizens, businesses, the nonprofit sector, and government can take to advance the strategies towards the goals.

Just having a plan can help make it a reality. A good plan supported by a community consensus and a government committed to implementation attracts partnerships, funding and private investment:

• A plan shows that the city and community know what they want. Funders and investors like to know what to expect and what is expected of them, because it means that their investments can go to work more quickly.
• A plan shows that the city and community are willing to invest some of their own efforts and resources to achieve their goals. For example, when a community makes public improvements or works hard to improve its effectiveness, it demonstrates its seriousness about making the plan a reality.
• A plan shows that the city and community know what to do with new resources. Federal funds increasingly come with requirements for coordinated planning. Without a plan, funds can go unspent, even though needs are evident in the community. A citywide plan provides a framework of policies and strategies for using resources to accomplish goals.

AN AMBITIOUS VISION

Developing a vision statement is an essential early step in creating a city comprehensive plan. Vision statements focus attention on a community’s values, sense of identity, and aspirations. The vision statement tells a story and paints a picture of an ideal future. In creating their vision for the future Birmingham residents and stakeholders decided what they wanted to preserve and what they wanted to change. They articulated their desires and hopes, developed a consensus on an ideal future, and committed themselves to working toward that ideal. The City of Birmingham vision represents the guiding image for the community as it faces new challenges and complex choices. Accompanying the vision statement is a set of principles based on precepts that are important to Birmingham residents. The principles serve as a set of values that guide the master plan itself and its implementation. Together, the Vision and Principles are like the constitution of the comprehensive plan, setting the course for the future.

The Birmingham Comprehensive Plan Vision and Principles emerged from an extensive public outreach program and series of community participation events. They distill many hours of community activity and the contributions of over a thousand Birmingham residents and stakeholders who participated in a citywide visioning forum, “communities of place” meetings in six locations throughout the city, “communities of interest” meetings on specific topics, and who commented online. After this community process, the draft Vision and Principles then went to the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, which reviewed the detailed results of activities and community comment. After revisions by the Steering Committee, the draft Vision and Principles were endorsed by the City of Birmingham Planning Commission on March 6, 2012 and by the City Council on May 22, 2012. The Vision and Principles are the guiding framework for the elements of the City of Birmingham Comprehensive Plan.

Birmingham’s Vision for the 21st Century

In 2032, the City of Birmingham leads the South as a community of choice and opportunity: diverse, prosperous, sustainable, and beautiful.

People choose the City of Birmingham as a place to live. Our neighborhoods are attractive, walkable, well maintained, and safe. The blighted properties of the past have been transformed into new or renovated housing, greenways and green open spaces, or other community assets. Across the city, there are appealing housing choices for all kinds of households: young singles and couples, families with children, empty nesters, and retirees.

Birmingham has a connected network of walkable urban places. Our compact, mixed use, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood centers support an enhanced and efficient transit system, and a network of safe and attractive pedestrian and bicycle routes links neighborhoods with city destinations.

Birmingham is innovative and prosperous, with a diversified and sustainable economy. Education, innovation and investment have grown the economy and reduced poverty by creating new economic opportunities. As a community of learning, Birmingham offers excellent educational options for all age levels and interests, creating well-educated citizens and a modern workforce qualified for 21st century jobs. Vacant or underutilized industrial sites are finding new uses that benefit the city and its economy. Because our culture of opportunity supports innovation and creativity, our diversified economy supports entrepreneurial start-ups and creates new jobs, ranging from businesses that emerge from the interdisciplinary research of UAB to our acclaimed food culture and arts scene.

Birmingham is the most sustainable, “greenest” city in the South. The city has become cleaner, healthier, more energy- and resource-efficient, and more attractive as a place to live. We have worked within the city and through regional partnerships to improve air quality, preserve sensitive lands, and protect and enjoy our excellent water resources. Our parks and greenways provide convenient, safe environments for all residents to play and exercise. Everyone has access to our city’s premier health services, healthy food choices, and healthy lifestyles.

Birmingham’s success is built on local and regional partnerships. We created strong partnerships encompassing citizens, the business community, institutions, nonprofits, and governments to transform Birmingham into the best place to live, work, study, and play in the South.

⬚ figure

PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

People

⬚ figure

• Celebrate Birmingham’s diversity and welcome newcomers to live in the city.
• Connect people across barriers of neighborhood, race and class to work together for a better Birmingham.
• Celebrate our civil rights, cultural, and industrial history as a positive source of distinctive identity and contribution to the state and the nation.
• Make Birmingham a center of education excellence at all levels, including workforce training and adult education.
• Support holistic programs of social supports, community policing, and physical design to make every neighborhood safe.

Prosperity

• Establish a climate friendly to investment and entrepreneurs to create jobs and grow local businesses, building on the strength of our medical, educational, and other growing economic sectors.

⬚ figure

• Ensure that Birmingham residents have the skills to compete for the full range of jobs in the city.
• Build on our cultural institutions and artistic community and on our entertainment and sports attractions as a source of distinctive economic competitive advantage.
• Streamline regulations while preserving appropriate safeguards for our resources and quality of life.

Place

• Create walkable neighborhoods of choice, including mixed-income opportunities and mixed-use commercial areas that support enhanced transit.
• Continue the transformation of downtown into a vibrant urban center of employment, housing, culture, and entertainment.
• Maintain and build on our park system by expanding greenways, bicycle and pedestrian routes to link neighborhoods and city destinations.
• Celebrate our history and heritage by preserving distinctive historic buildings and sites by giving them new uses.
• Make Birmingham a model clean, green, and healthy community by improving environmental health, promoting energy and resource-efficiency, and providing access to health care, exercise and nutritious food.
• Ensure high-quality development by making public investments a model of excellent design and function and through quality design standards for private development.

⬚ figure

Partnerships

• Partner among citizens, government, business, institutions and nonprofits to achieve comprehensive plan goals and reach out to the region, other Alabama cities, and other regions to grow and sustain our community and economy.

• Promote communication and transparency to keep residents, businesses and others informed about community conditions, decisions and options.

• Reinvigorate civic engagement in neighborhood associations and other groups to ensure that all voices are heard, with an emphasis on engaging young people.

Performance

• Officially adopt the Comprehensive Plan as the framework for the city's future.

• Incorporate the plan in city policies and decision-making at all levels, including capital planning.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

• Establish regular reporting on implementation progress, including an annual public hearing, and publicize implementation activities.

• Strengthen coordination with city and regional partners to achieve comprehensive plan goals.

PERSONAL VISIONS

During the citywide Visioning Forum held in October 2011, participants were asked to share their personal visions for the future of the City of Birmingham.

Chapter 2

The Community Speaks

⬚ figure

PERSONAL VISION STATEMENTS

“I hope that we will have an entire city that is clean, green, and livable. [A city] that is united in such a way that progress will continue.”

2.2

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

A. Community-Based Plan

Effective master plans are rooted in an understanding of the values, aspirations and concerns of the communities whose future they are intended to guide. The Birmingham Comprehensive Plan benefitted from a conscious commitment to extensive public outreach and citizen engagement that provided thousands of participants an opportunity to share their hopes and aspirations for Birmingham’s future.

The public engagement process incorporated a variety of outreach techniques and activities, allowing residents to participate in ways that worked best for them. Residents, business owners and other stakeholders provided feedback to the planning team by attending the citywide Visioning Forum, meetings for “Communities of Place” focused on geographic areas, meetings for “Communities of Interest” focused on specific themes, open houses for feedback on the developing plan, and by contributing comments online through the project website. Some participated in advisory and working groups. The planning team used the community’s feedback and guidance to shape all aspects of the plan, from creating a Vision and Principles for Birmingham that reflected the aspirations of the community, to the strategies and actions needed to achieve that vision.

1. COMMITTEE STRUCTURE

In the fall of 2011, Mayor William A. Bell, Sr. appointed a Steering Committee made up of a representative group of people from the public, private and nonprofit sectors to work with the planning team and provide guidance throughout the planning process. The Steering Committee met regularly in the fall of 2011 to provide information and guidance, and to ensure that the vision and principles reflected the values and priorities of the community. Steering Committee members also participated in the public meetings. In the summer of 2012, the Steering Committee met five times to review and comment on all sections of the draft Comprehensive Plan.

The Steering Committee was also divided into four Subcommittees with additional members, such as city and regional agency staff and local professionals, invited because of their knowledge of the subject matter. The Subcommittees—Green Systems; Housing, Neighborhoods and Community Renewal; Prosperity and Opportunity; City Systems—met twice in 2012 to share information and ideas with the planning team and review preliminary plan materials.

2. PUBLIC OUTREACH

Public outreach opportunities were designed to offer a variety of ways for residents to participate so that the planning team would receive input from a broad cross section of the City of Birmingham community. Because people prefer to contribute and receive information in different ways, whether in person, online or by telephone, a certain amount of redundancy was built into the process to allow more people to participate. Outreach opportunities included:

Birmingham Comprehensive Plan website. The master plan project website, www.birminghamcomprehensiveplan.com, provided general plan information, background materials, a project calendar, and was used to make announcements about upcoming public events around the plan. Visitors to the site had the opportunity to sign up for email updates and meeting reminders so they could remain up-to-date with the plan’s progress and activities. Public meeting materials, including visuals, presentations, and result summaries, were posted to the site so that citizens could engage with the plan throughout the process.

Media and community outreach. The planning team took out newspaper and radio advertisements to publicize large meetings, and local print and television media outlets reported on the major events and issues. All public meetings for the Comprehensive Plan were also promoted with e-blasts and flyers that were distributed through the school system and at public locations throughout the city. Nine public libraries served as information centers for the comprehensive plan.

2.3

3. CITYWIDE VISIONING FORUM: “WE ARE MORE ALIKE THAN DIFFERENT...”

⬚ figure

On Saturday, October 22, 2011, over 200 Birmingham area residents from a broad range of backgrounds and neighborhoods decided to spend a morning in the community meeting room at the new Birmingham CrossPlex on the former Alabama State Fairgrounds. They came to share their hopes and aspirations for the future of the City of Birmingham as part of the Birmingham Comprehensive Plan process.

The purpose of the visioning forum

• To provide a place for people who live and work in the City of Birmingham to meet and exchange ideas about their community.
• To provide an opportunity for structured conversation to identify the community’s assets—the best things about Birmingham—and challenges. The discussion focused attention on assets that the community can build on as well as problems that need solving.
• To take a few moments to think about their personal vision for Birmingham’s future and to share that personal vision with participants at their discussion table.
• To identify together a common set of priority elements that should be a part of the city’s 20-year vision and statement of principles.

What happened at the Forum

Registration and exhibits. Participants registered as they came in and were asked to indicate on a map where they lived or worked. Each participant received a folder containing a handout giving an overview of the entire comprehensive plan project; a handout with selected data on current conditions in the city related to issues such as demographics, land use, economic development, and transportation; several worksheets for individual use during the Forum activities; and an announcement about future public meetings in six locations around the city. As participants moved from the registration counter to the stairs up to the meeting room, they had the opportunity to view exhibits of analytical maps.

Welcome and presentation. Mayor William A. Bell, Sr. opened the Forum by welcoming participants and encouraging them to work together for the future of the City. His remarks were followed by a presentation by David Dixon, FAIA, principal of Goody Clancy (the firm leading the

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

At registration, every resident was asked to show on a large city map where they live (green dot) and where they work (red dot).

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

⬚ figure

consultant team working with the City on the preparation of the plan). The presentation focused on how cities are making a strong comeback in the 21st century and that Birmingham has many assets and the potential to be a successful comeback city.

Small group activities. Participants were randomly seated at tables to maximize the opportunity for people who did not know each other to talk to one another. Each table had a base map of the city, as well as a few worksheets.

Participants were first asked to list on one of the individual worksheets the things that they felt represented the best of Birmingham and to list the things that presented the most challenges. They also identified places that fit into those two categories on the base map, using blue for the “best” and red for the “challenges.” Participants then shared and discussed their individual lists.

The next exercise was to develop the elements of an overall 20-year vision and a statement of principles to guide the remainder of the planning process, the plan itself, and ultimately, the implementation of the plan. First, participants were asked to write their personal vision for Birmingham, imagining that they were going to leave the city for 20 years and envisioning what they would want the city to be like when they returned home. Then, they shared their personal visions with the people around the table. The next step was to make a list on the map of all the elements of the personal visions that everyone could support. Finally, each participant used five dots to choose his or her top priorities among the list of elements. The top five priorities were then transferred to a worksheet that represented the joint work of all the people at each table.

People responded with a powerful outpouring of ideas, thoughts, challenges, inspirations, and insights. Facilitators assisted the participants at each table. Many rich and thoughtful conversations took place. Through their discussions, participants’ revealed the values that are important to them, such as diversity, education, connection, and history. At the end of the meeting, a volunteer from each table reported back to the entire group on the priorities recorded at each table, giving the flavor of the table discussion.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

2.5

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

The results

The individual worksheets indicate significant consensus around what people from Birmingham see as the best aspects of the city as a community and as a place, and they likewise agreed on many of the challenges that the city faces. In a few cases, an issue appears on both lists. For example, while downtown was cited as one of the best things about Birmingham, some also felt that it is not vibrant enough.

The Best. Birmingham’s landscape, history and cultural amenities (including its restaurants) were strongly valued by the participants in the Forum. They also saw the people and the sense of community that has been forged in many Birmingham neighborhoods as an important aspect of the city’s life.

The Challenges. There were more challenges listed, with a strong emphasis on two issues: lack of good transit and transportation alternatives to the car, and the state of the city’s public education system. Vacancy, blight and crime in many neighborhoods was also a top challenge, as were the lack of good food stores and environmental pollution.

2.6

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

Personal vision statements. The personal vision statements in many respects reflected the preferences and concerns expressed in the lists of the best things about Birmingham and the challenges facing the city. While some participants were more eloquent than others, most people wanted the city in 20 years to be more prosperous, with thriving neighborhoods free of blight, served by a variety of transportation options, more “green” in character and practices, and with a vibrant downtown reinforced in its role as the cultural capital of the region.

Top priorities. After sharing their personal visions and discussing common elements, the participants around each table then focused on identifying the top five priorities for the city. A summary table and graph of the priorities across all the tables can be seen in Figure 2.1.

⬚ figure

FIGURE 2.1: VISIONING FORUM TABLE PRIORITIES SUMMARY

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

TABLE 2.1: TABLE PRIORITIES SUMMARY

NUMBER OF TIMES THE IDEA APPEARED ON TOP FIVE TABLE PRIORITY LISTS

2.7

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

⬚ figure

Participants’ evaluation of the Visioning Forum

Participants were asked to fill out an evaluation form for the Visioning Forum. They were asked to rank various aspects of the event as Excellent, Good, Neutral, Poor or Very Poor. The form also included the following open-ended questions, as well as an area for any other comments:

• In a few sentences, how would you explain what the group accomplished at this forum to a friend who did not attend?
• Do you have suggestions for improvements to future comprehensive plan public meetings?

Ninety-nine percent of the participants found the overall program to be Good or Excellent, and 100% ranked the table discussions Good or Excellent. This indicates how much value they put on the chance to exchange ideas with other people who care about the future of Birmingham.

Representative comments from participants

In answering the open-ended questions, participants were overwhelmingly positive about the Forum. In their own words:

• Clarified that our community shares a common heartfelt vision for ourselves and our families. We are more alike than different.
• It was a chance for people who believe in the city to meet, and share what we want to see our city become. The best part was realizing that there are people from every background and from every part of the city that all want the same things, and that all believe it is possible.
• Our diverse table came to the same conclusion about Birmingham. So refreshing to agree with folks from very different neighborhoods.
• We were able to see that most people are on the same page as to what we see as important to the city: mass transit, education, revival of downtown and communities, more grocery stores, removal and reuse of abandoned property, etc.
• Open discussion and exchange of ideas, hopes, dreams, practical and sky is the limit. Listened to others. I learned from listening. Seemed to reach consensus on many goals.
• We brainstormed about what we like about Birmingham, what our challenges are, and last, what our vision is for a perfect city in the future. We met new people, shared our ideas and left with a positive feeling about Birmingham’s Future. It was wonderful to see a wide range of ages in the group. We need input from a broad spectrum of our community, including Latinos & other groups. Find a way to convince people that the comp plan will be used to improve Birmingham and will guide our leaders.
• Great dialogue with diverse people.

TABLE 2.2: PARTICIPANTS’ EVALUATION

⬚ figure

2.8

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

What did participants say about the Visioning Forum?

⬚ figure

• We had thoughtful and serious discussion—a sense of goodwill was evident!

• We realized that in general, we all share the same vision for our community.

• The city took time out to listen to what regular people had to say.

• The meeting was extremely beneficial and an opportunity to learn that we had a lot in common.

• Long overdue! And VERY productive!

• Involvement, cooperation, exciting, great. Well executed. Great workshop.

• Good workshop. Very well organized. Developed a good list of priorities.

• This was well planned and thought out preparation—job well done.

• What a learning experience. Glad I didn’t miss the opportunity to voice my opinion.

• This was really encouraging. I hope the rest of the meetings have as good of a turnout. Thank you!

• Everyone in the group from different backgrounds seemed to want some of the same changes for the city.

• A wonderful opportunity to let your voice and ideals for our city to be heard in a forum for our future as a vibrant and forward moving city.

• Great ideas, wish attendance was 10 times greater, although it was a very good turnout.

• A very enlightening event.

• Persons from all backgrounds, races, neighborhoods came together in small groups to talk about what they feel is right and wrong with the city and they’d like to see the city become.

• Thanks for providing facilitators. Our person tactfully kept us on course and helped our group make better choices. I appreciate being included in this decision making process.

• Got people talking about the city and how to make it better. Came away with vibrant ideas for vision of what our city can become.

• This was an amazing, watershed of community consciousness, conscience and future-visualizing.

2.9

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

4. COMMUNITIES OF PLACE WORKSHOPS

During the month of November 2011, six Community of Place meetings were held in different locations throughout the city. These place-based comprehensive plan workshops were held during the evening and covered all residential and commercial neighborhoods within the city. At each one of the workshops, there was a short presentation on the Draft Vision and Principles and on the existing conditions in that area of Birmingham. Participants then worked with facilitators in small groups around tables with maps to identify and rank the most important assets and the most important issues needing improvement in their part of Birmingham. These findings were categorized by:

• Housing and Residential Areas • Commercial and Industrial Areas • Transportation, Infrastructure, and Public Services • Environment and Parks

While each area reported unique assets and issues needing to be addressed, several important themes were prevalent at all six community workshops:

1. The value of parks and green spaces;
2. The need to deal with vacant and abandoned properties;
3. The need for more and better connections; and
4. The need for more neighborhood-serving retail and services

⬚ figure

Parks and green spaces were considered an important asset in all six Community of Place meetings.

FIGURE 2.2: COMMUNITIES OF PLACE

⬚ figure

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

⬚ figure

While well-maintained areas were also noted, concerns about vacancy and blight were voiced across the city.

The city’s parks and green spaces were universally highlighted as important neighborhood assets, and in most cases the participants included recommendations to expand, enhance, or create new quality recreational spaces. Issues surrounding vacant and abandoned properties were prevalent and identified in nearly all parts of the city, along with requests for new policies to deal with them. However, well-maintained areas were also noted throughout the city by participants within both challenged and stable areas, the quality of the homes and their historic relevance were commonly noted attributes. More often than not, the participants called for rehabilitation and reuse over demolition. Improved connections were another theme evident at all workshops. Participants repeatedly made requests for improved transportation choices, more walkable neighborhoods, better pedestrian and bike systems, and connectivity between the city’s many parks, trails and greenways. Lastly, enhanced retail options—with a particular focus on providing quality and affordable grocery stores—was repeatedly mentioned as an important community need.

⬚ figure

Residents called for more neighborhood-serving retail.

5. COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WORKSHOPS

In January 2012, there were four citywide meetings focused on the following topics: Green Systems and Sustainability; Transportation; Neighborhood Renewal and Downtown Revitalization; and Economic Development. At each meeting, planning team consultants presented existing conditions, issues and best practices and then asked the participants to take part in group exercises structured for the particular topics. The participants worked together in small groups at tables with maps. And the end of the exercises, each of the small groups reported back to the larger group to share the results of their discussions.

2.11

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WORKSHOP 1

SUMMARY RESULTS

1 | JANUARY 10, 2012: GETTING FROM HERE TO THERE—TRANSPORTATION

A. What do you see as your highest transportation priorities for the City of Birmingham?

Participants particularly emphasized the need for improvements in public transportation reliability, accessibility and facilities. There was also an emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle friendly culture, improving connections to parks and between neighborhoods, and a need for facilities to improve pedestrian and bicyclist comfort and safety.

• Public transportation: Provide more reliable service with posted schedules at stops; develop dedicated bus lanes and/or light rail. Prioritize funding to increase frequency of priority routes and develop more “hubs” in desirable locations (shopping centers, UAB, entertainment districts, etc.) for people to transfer.
• Neighborhood connectivity: Improve connectivity between neighborhoods with more reliable and frequent transit and pedestrian and bicycle trails.
• Connectivity to green spaces and parks: Create designated pedestrian and bicycle routes to green spaces and parks within the City of Birmingham. Identify and implement rail to trail opportunities that could connect parks and green space to communities.
• Pedestrian and bicycle facilities: Implement dedicated roadway space and right-of-way to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and comfort. Implement complete streets concepts along major roadways in neighborhoods like Five Points West.
• Pedestrian and bicycle advocacy: Educate drivers and transit to respect pedestrians and bicyclists, particularly along roads that have a speed limit of less than 25 mph.
• Perception of alternative modes: Rethink Birmingham as a multiuse city for all. Improve the perception of transit and encourage biking, walking and taking transit to work.

B. What transportation improvements should the City of Birmingham implement early to improve livability, connectivity, mobility and economic vitality?

Participants generally emphasized a need for better connectivity between neighborhoods at the urban and suburban scale as well as a need for more “complete streets” and better access to multimodal options.

General:

• More transit hub stations around the City at key crossroads with user amenities for convenience, comfort and safety
• Bus service directly to the airport
• A pilot program that seeks corporate transit riders, attracts all backgrounds and groups to ride the bus and encourages people that run the service to ride transit to improve the perception of transit.

For Downtown:

• Real time transit information at bus stops to improve reliability and user friendliness
• Wider sidewalks and active storefront businesses
• ADA compliance and maintenance of sidewalks, transit stops and downtown businesses
• Bike friendly roads with dedicated space for bicycles as well as a grid of dedicated bike lanes
• Prohibit right-on-red at major downtown intersections to improve pedestrian safety at crossings
• A transit fare-free zone downtown
• Prioritized funding for certain transit routes to improve reliability and frequency

For Urban Scale Neighborhoods:

• Reduce the priority for cars in urban neighborhoods like the UAB campus. Change the 9 to 10 blocks of campus to be more walkable and accessible with clean and safe transit shelters

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WORKSHOP 1

• Emphasize a focus on transit with more hubs at desirable locations such as the Five Points West Shopping Center or UAB for connections where people ride

For Suburban Design Neighborhoods:

• Connect resources like the medical centers to the surrounding neighborhoods
• Reduce or eliminate barriers for pedestrian and cyclists like the ones to schools and the medical center in the Huffman-Roebuck neighborhoods
• Create routes to parks that connect neighborhoods to places like Red Mountain Park, CrossPlex and Central Park

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WORKSHOP 2

SUMMARY RESULTS

2 | JANUARY 12, 2012:

GREEN SYSTEMS AND SUSTAINABILITY

A. What aspects of Green Systems and Sustainability are you most interested in?

Immediately before the small group discussions began, participants were asked what topics brought them to the Green Systems and Sustainability meeting. Responses were diverse but several topics had widespread interest: air and water quality, connectivity, parks, greening/beautifying the city, community health and sustainable development:

• Natural Resources and Environmental Constraints: Improve and protect water quality through stormwater management, maintenance of sewer facilities, and other efforts; improve air quality; create an interconnected green infrastructure network; protect and plant more trees; and limit sprawl and greenfield development.
• Parks and Open Space: Interconnect parks and open spaces through greenways; provide a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities, including for different age groups; continue investment in parks; promote recreational access to the Cahaba; and use Birmingham’s green amenities as development incentives.
• Sustainability: Increase access to fresh, healthy food (i.e., through urban farming and community gardens); use alternative energies; support sustainable development practices (i.e., zoning improvements, reinvestment in existing areas, compact development, and green building design); increase recycling; and improve community health by changing the physical environment.

B. What are your priorities for improving the City as it relates to Green Systems and Sustainability?

Group discussions identified the following as priorities for the City regarding the environment, parks and open space and sustainability. Each of eight groups was asked to discuss and identify their top five priorities. Many priority recommendations echoed or overlapped with those of other groups:

• Improve air quality
• Improve water quality, protect and clean up waterways (i.e., Village and Valley Creeks); encourage best stormwater management practices/alternatives
• Improve development regulations to support compact, sustainable development and design; provide incentives for green building design
• Increase access to fresh food
• Maintain habitat for [native] wildlife; protect biodiversity
• Protect, promote, expand and link parks and open spaces through greenways and trails (including along streams)
• Promote and expand recycling
• Improve connectivity through better transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; dedicate annual funding to sidewalk and trail improvements
• Increase public awareness on the importance of green systems and sustainability
• Promote alternative energy sources and energy efficiency
• Protect and increase Birmingham’s tree canopy
• Clean up and re-use brownfields
• Provide points of interest and activities along greenways and access to Cahaba
• Finish what we start

Many participants noted the connection between environmental quality, community health, alternative transportation modes and sustainable development. Participant groups also viewed transit (and other alternative transportation modes) as being critical to improving the city environmentally and economically. Almost every group included transit and/or walkability among their top five priorities.

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WORKSHOPS 3

SUMMARY RESULTS

3 | JANUARY 23, 2012: COMMUNITY RENEWAL AND DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION

Participants worked in small groups focusing either on community renewal in neighborhoods or on downtown revitalization.

A. Community renewal—where should we start?

Participants working on Community Renewal were asked to consider criteria which could be used to guide decisions on where to make strategic interventions for neighborhood revitalization and to identify some areas in the city which meet some or all of the criteria. Suggested criteria included the presence of a large employment center, community assets (such as parks or schools), a commercial center, location near a major transportation route, and opportunities for new or renovated housing. The small groups were asked to identify their top three priority choices, which are indicated here by “Priority Choice.”

Additional criteria:

• Existing momentum
• Good local leadership (neighborhood and merchant)
• Walkability
• Large parcels of surplus land

Potential locations for strategic action:

• Priority Choice: Norwood and 12th Avenue North

  City and county employers Greenway (Norwood Blvd) and potential Village Creek Greenway Historic School (high performing) Bus route—transit potential Proximity to interstates and airport Attractive housing with rehab potential—historic district Vacant land Momentum in place Walkability Commercial district at 12th Avenue North with a bus route Farmers market pilot project

• Priority Choice: Avondale

  Proximity and access Recent investment Commercial district Avondale Park and library Walkability School Transit potential (train tracks underutilized at 1st Avenue South) Good neighborhood leadership Main Street District Momentum

• Priority Choice: Woodlawn

  Transportation (all roads lead in / out of downtown) Historic, intact commercial core Woodlawn (renovated) High School Momentum and partnerships Interesting housing ready for rehab Arts incubation Walkability Good local leadership Large parcels for redevelopment Main Street Birmingham District

• Priority Choice: Downtown

  Buildings to renovate for business to occupy Restaurants Southtown Public Housing—make it a mixed income neighborhood Multi-use around Railroad Park area Catalyze 7th Avenue South Needs reliable transportation; entertainment throughout downtown; grocery store

• Priority Choice: Northside Adjacent to Downtown—Druid Hill/Norwood/Enon Ridge

  Good housing stock Adjacent to downtown Near future Village Creek greenway Transit potential—extend DART beyond downtown Commercial district Renovated elementary school in Enon Ridge

• Priority Choice: East Lake

  Commercial development on 1st Avenue North Good housing stock Two good parks Industrial park proposed by airport authority

• Priority Choice: West End

  Mixed use commercial on Tuscaloosa Avenue Future Valley Creek greenway Good housing stock for potential rehab

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WORKSHOP 3

Others areas mentioned include:

• North Birmingham

  Historic commercial center Vacant land for infill on US 78 Potential for light rail line Walkability Historic school Vacant light industrial property ready for redevelopment Good neighborhood leadership Main Street District

• Fountain Heights at Civil Rights District

  Employment center Park with Recreation Center New Affordable Housing Master plan in place Large parcels and vacant/tax delinquent property Walkability

B. Downtown revitalization: what issues need to be addressed for downtown to move to the next level?

Connections and Transportation:

• Public transit that is more than DART
• Corridor development from 2nd Ave North to the Art Museum for walking; park once and then walk in downtown
• Establish a good wayfinding system
• Make downtown more pedestrian friendly
• Create a bike trail link to Crossplex

Retail and Services:

• Affordable retail in the central part of downtown, not scattered in fragments
• On Sundays, a farmers’ market and flea market
• Attract a grocery store
• Attract a movie theater

Downtown Lifestyle:

• Promote the 2nd Ave North lifestyle, exemplified by new restaurant opening (El Barrio), for young professionals
• Build condos
• Focus redevelopment to benefit the people who live in downtown

Downtown Character:

• Preserve historic buildings
• Explore creating a water feature—bring the lake back to Lakeview
• Brand the various downtown districts

Security:

• Install more and better lighting
• Expand CAPS to more areas in downtown

Businesses:

• Recruit high tech businesses rather than car-dependent businesses
• Move the car dealerships to more suitable locations
• Streamline business and development processes and provide incentives

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WORKSHOP 4

SUMMARY RESULTS

4 | JANUARY 24, 2012: PROSPERITY AND OPPORTUNITY

A. What are the 3 or 4 most important things the city can do to make the City of Birmingham a place where people want to work and do business?

Participants particularly emphasized the need for improvements in public transportation, P-12 education, the business environment, and the city's general quality of life. Other frequently mentioned topics included downtown revitalization, enhancing the city's image, and governmental reform. Some of the specific ideas put forward included the following:

• Public transportation: provide more reliable service with posted schedules at stops; develop dedicated bus lanes and/or light rail
• P-12 education: enhance curricular offerings, improve staff and teacher capabilities; engage businesses in career exploration and exposure activities; provide trade schools and apprenticeships; increase the number of students entering post-secondary institutions
• Business environment: streamline the process of starting a business and doing business with the city (e.g., permitting, licensing, inspections, contracting); provide incentives to startups and other small businesses; provide incentives for vacant or derelict property renovations; establish a business retention service; develop technology parks; establish a microloan program; make existing programs and incentives more transparent
• Quality of life: develop more public green spaces; expand cultural offerings; create more livable neighborhoods with urban amenities; improve public safety; develop attractive business districts; repair urban infrastructure; make the city more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly
• Downtown revitalization: provide incentives for property renovation and mixed use development; provide incentives for businesses to locate downtown; attract more retail businesses, particularly grocery stores; provide affordable space for business-startups; increase cultural attractions and other evening activities; improve transit options; improve lighting and other security measures
• Image enhancement: increase marketing activities to the region and beyond; dispel negativism and misinformation in the surrounding region; more effectively showcase the city's assets; highlight positive developments
• Government reform: increase government efficiency; restructure city council and school board to include at-large representation

B. What kinds of industries, businesses, and jobs do you think the City of Birmingham is best positioned to grow and attract during the next five to ten years?

Participants identified several industries and economic activities that they considered Birmingham well positioned to grow and attract. Most frequently mentioned were medical technology (e.g., pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostics, and bioinformatics), health care, research (with a focus on life sciences), higher education, tourism (e.g., historic, cultural, recreational, ecotourism) and transportation/distribution. Others included automotive and light manufacturing, computer- and internet-related businesses, financial activities, food products, and green industries (e.g., green-standard manufacturing, green energy, energy efficiency, recycling).

A number of participants noted the nexus between research, higher education, health care and technology industries, with UAB at the center. Some participants more generally emphasized the opportunity to shift from traditional to more knowledge-based industries.

2.17

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WORKSHOP 4

C. How can business, government and residents best work together to support economic development?

Some of the responses to this question focused on improving processes for engagement and collaboration while others identified key issues that should be the focus of collaborative efforts. Among the process-focused recommendations were the following:

• Develop stronger mechanisms for resident and business input into economic development planning processes and demonstrate that this input is meaningful by incorporating it into public policy decisions
• Political leaders must demonstrate greater internal unity and alignment on economic development issues in order to demonstrate to residents and businesses that their engagement will be productive
• Integrate and align the various local and regional economic development planning initiatives
• Participants also identified several issues related to economic development that they believe business, government, and residents should work collaboratively to address. These included the following:
  • Improving the city’s image by communicating its assets and successes
  • P-12 educational reform and greater business engagement with the schools around career development
  • Public-private partnerships to expand and improve job training and placement
  • Support for increased research funding to local research institutions and expanding the city’s research base
  • Developing a stronger entrepreneurial “ecosystem” through public and private investments
  • Improving public transit
  • Increasing governmental efficiency

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

6. OPEN HOUSES

Three Comprehensive Plan Open Houses were held the week of March 12, 2012 at CrossPlex, the Central Library, and the Don Hawkins Recreation Center, and drew over 240 residents and other community stakeholders. The Comprehensive Plan Open Houses marked the halfway point in the comprehensive plan process.

⬚ figure

The purpose of the Open Houses

The Open Houses built on four months of analysis by the planning team and public discussion about the assets, challenges, issues, and opportunities facing each part of the city, as well as the Comprehensive Plan Vision and Principles. At the time of the Open Houses, the planning team was in the early stages of drafting the comprehensive plan. The purpose of the Open Houses was:

• To provide an opportunity for residents and other stakeholders to view and comment on preliminary goals, strategies and actions, as well as talk informally with members of the planning team.

• To help shape key components of the comprehensive plan and guide the planning team as the plan was being drafted.

What happened at the Open Houses?

The open houses were drop-in events in which participants could spend as much time as they wished during the three hours of the events. After registration, participants received a packet of handouts including the comprehensive plan vision statement and a Frequently Asked Questions handout to bring people up to date on the planning process so far and provide information on additional ways to comment.

At each location, there were a series of posters with preliminary goals, strategies and actions listed under four comprehensive plan topic areas: Strengthening City Systems (Public Infrastructure, Facilities and Services); Green Systems; Neighborhoods, Housing and Community Renewal; and Prosperity and Opportunity. At registration, each participant received 8 green adhesive dots and 8 yellow adhesive dots. Green dots were used to identify items that participants felt important to the city as a whole; yellow dots were used to indicate items that were important to the participants personally. Participants could distribute the dots any way they chose—putting them all on one item or spreading them across different topics. Each topic area also included a blank poster where participants could give free comments by writing on a post-it and attaching it to the poster.

Open House results

Following the Open Houses, participants’ “votes” were tallied and all additional comments were compiled. The results of the Open Houses indicate community enthusiasm for goals and strategies that align with the results of previous comprehensive plan public participation events. Top goals and strategies are identified below, along with a summary of representative comments. Overall, several key priorities emerged from community input:

• A strong transportation network that supports high quality transit, pedestrian, and bike connections, along with well-maintained streets.

2.19

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

• Improved public schools and education outcomes as a foundation for Birmingham’s prosperity—for instance, through further collaboration with the Birmingham Education Foundation.
• Reinvestment in neighborhoods, including removal of blight, vacancy, sub-standard housing and more neighborhood-oriented retail (e.g., small grocery stores).
• A strengthened downtown with a positive reputation, more entertainment options, and thriving businesses.
• Connected parks, a robust recycling program, and less litter.

OPEN HOUSE RESULTS

OPEN HOUSE RESULTS

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

Summary of representative comments

Green Systems

• More green jobs
• Why can’t we recycle here and now?
• Fight pollution like it’s nobody’s business. Clean AIR and H20 are our birthright. Without them we are unhealthy, unhappy, unproductive, and negative. Let’s clean it up in Bham
• Get the parks connected as priority
• Link existing sidewalk system to parks and open space

Prosperity and Opportunity

• Prosperity and opportunity begin with education, youth and adult
• Improving our education system has to be priority #1 if we are to keep our age 25–40 group in the city—they move out, if possible, when kids are school age
• Downtown area needs a grocery store and entertainment to draw in new residents
• Allow small and minority businesses to use vacant city buildings as hubs and place of business for a small fee
• Create an attractive environment for people and business: jobs, school, public safety, transportation

Strengthening City Systems

• Strengthening city systems begins with improving education for youth and adults
• It is imperative to create better public transportation systems
• Rail system would be nice
• Libraries are an important component of any great city’s infrastructure
• Tear down elevated highways—create boulevards and incentivize mass transit
• Transparency in all activities

Neighborhoods, Housing & Community Renewal

• People are leaving the city because of poor housing conditions. The housing in many of the neighborhoods is substandard
• Focus on neighborhoods
• Tear down old homes and buildings that are falling apart
• Streamline permitting
• Get a Trader Joe’s grocery store
• Provide permanent supportive housing for the chronic homeless
• Keep Birmingham clean of trash, literally!

7. CITYWIDE FORUM ON THE PLAN

On the morning of Saturday, August 25, 2012—almost one year after the Citywide Visioning Forum in October 2011—over 200 participants came to the Birmingham Museum of Art to hear about the Draft Birmingham Comprehensive Plan and discuss its recommendations. Fox News anchor Steve Crocker emceed the event, and Mayor William A. Bell, Sr. welcomed participants. He spoke about the need for implementation and active use of the plan once it is approved by the Birmingham Planning Commission. Participants viewed exhibits about the plan’s recommendation and the planning process and gave individual and group feedback about major implementation of the plan.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

⬚ figure

As residents filtered into the museum, they were introduced to the project via a series of maps and posters that summarized key topics in the Comprehensive Plan. Each participant received an Executive Summary handout with information about the purpose, process, and major recommendations of the plan. One of the posters at the entrance was a “word cloud” of keywords that was signed by participants as they entered into the conference room, marking their commitment to contributing their energy toward the success of this plan.

After Mayor Bell’s remarks, a two-part presentation by lead consultant Larissa Brown of Goody Clancy was followed by roundtable discussions to review participants’ priorities, table interviews where participants shared what they discussed in their table groups, and, finally, a question-and-answer session with a panel with local members of the consultant team, Herschell Hamilton of BlocGlobal, Nolanda Bearden of NHB Group, and Jason Fondren of KPS.

The first half of the presentation, “The Big Picture: Shaping the 21st-Century Birmingham,” focused on the plan vision; building a community consensus; and national and local demographic trends. The second half of the presentation, “Investing in People and Places,” spoke to the core strategies and implementation actions being called for in the Draft Plan.

Participants were randomly seated at tables to maximize the opportunity for people who did not know each other to talk to one another. There were roughly 10 people seated at each table. Following Part One of the presentation, participants reflected both individually and with those at their tables on “The Big Picture”. Individually, they completed worksheets on which they indicated their level of support for various plan recommendations. Following that reflection, they discussed their priorities and came up with “table priorities,” composite rankings of each topic based on the

priorities of the individuals. The table below highlights the overall rank of each priority, based on the average rank position for each priority from all of the tables.

After the second part of the presentation, participants at each of the tables went through a similar process to agree on a set of top three priorities for implementation. In addition to discussing and then ranking the priorities, participants provided numerous comments that highlighted their aspirations for what the Comprehensive Plan needed to address. Neighborhood revitalization and a variety of recommendation initiatives received repeated support in

TOP TABLE PRIORITIES FOR PART 1, “THE BIG PICTURE”

2.23

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

TOP TABLE PRIORITIES FOR PART 2, “PEOPLE, PLACE, PROSPERITY, PARTNERSHIP, PERFORMANCE”

the public discussions. Participants also expressed concern about how the plan would be implemented and how to obtain resources for implementation.

At the end of the event, participants were asked to fill out a sheet identifying how they might want to contribute to the implementation of the Plan. The results show that people in Birmingham want to be a part of the process to revitalize Birmingham in every capacity. There was an especially strong interest in improving neighborhoods and monitor-

⬚ figure

BE A GAME CHANGER: ACTIONS PARTICIPANTS WOULD UNDERTAKE TO SUPPORT THE PLAN

⬚ figure

2.24

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

ing the implementation process. The City’s Planning Division will contact participants who filled out this form.

B. Public Review and Adoption

After the August Citywide Forum, the plan was revised and reviewed by the City’s Planning Division. It was posted on the plan website and a hard copy distributed to public libraries in Spring 2013 for a public review process. The Birmingham Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 4, 2013, to receive public comment on the plan. At the request of several groups, the Planning Commission extended the period for written public comment to June 4, 2013. All public comments were documented along with a response from the consultant team. The Planning Division staff worked with the Birmingham Planning Commission, individuals, and groups to develop mutually acceptable revisions on issues where there were concerns. The final draft of the plan with public comments was submitted to the City of Birmingham Planning Commission for review and adoption in September, 2013.

After several public hearings, the text of the plan in Volume I was officially adopted by the Birmingham Planning Commission on October 2, 2013. After additional public hearings on the Future Land Use Plan Maps, the Land Use Plan Maps were officially adopted on February 5, 2014.

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 2 THE COMMUNITY SPEAKS

2.26

Chapter 3

Understanding Birmingham Today ...for a Better Birmingham Tomorrow

⬚ figure

PERSONAL VISION STATEMENTS

“A city that values and builds off its historic assets and character.”

1. The City of Birmingham and 21st-Century Trends

The 21st century is an urban century. The majority of the world’s people now live in urban centers. Increasingly, it is metropolitan centers that are competing for people and resources, even though states and nations remain important. Strong central cities are essential to the success of metropolitan regions. “Next Economy” is the term increasingly used for the era of innovation and opportunity that is emerging from the economic crisis of the Great Recession.¹ The Next Economy will be built on technological innovation and advanced production, exports, resource-efficiency and clean, reliable and affordable energy. It also requires a workforce with the education and skills to take advantage of the millions of new jobs and occupations that will provide a good quality of life. Metropolitan areas and cities will be in the forefront of creating and benefiting from the Next Economy, but they must plan and invest for this future. How can the City of Birmingham meet the challenges of the 21st century?

In early 2012, the Economist Intelligence Unit was asked to compare several hundred global cities for competitiveness. Defining competitiveness as “the demonstrated ability to attract capital, businesses, talent and visitors,” they analyzed the cities in terms of eight categories: economic strength, human capital, institutional effectiveness, financial maturity, global appeal, physical capital, environment and natural hazards, and social and cultural character.”² When they asked global businesses what kinds of location criteria they used, “quality of life” along with availability of human capital and talent, were among the top criteria. One company indicated that they looked for cities that are “forward thinking,” because the firm wants to make long-term commitments.³

In addition to this global world of urban competition, the 21st century ushered in a new generation—the Millennials or Gen Y—the first generation to come of age in the new millennium. It is this generation that will shape and inherit the City of Birmingham envisioned by this comprehensive plan. The numerically biggest generation in American history, Millennials are the first generation born into the digital age, the most educated generation ever, the most racially and ethnically diverse, and more likely to live in

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

central cities than other post-World War II generations.¹ The Urban Land Institute (ULI), the research institution of the real estate development industry, identified them as “technologically savvy, highly mobile, and hungry to build careers while delaying families. They gravitate to more urban places looking for jobs and crave interactive environments that nurture social diversity and fun. They prefer flexible working situations, want to live in stimulating neighborhoods, and don’t mind dealing with less individual space. At the same time, new immigrants and less well-educated young people seek places that allow financial and cultural growth.” Other trends the ULI identified in a 2011 report include:²

• Technology will reshape workplaces. Office tenants will decrease space per employee, and new office environments will need to promote interaction and dialogue. Offices will be transforming into meeting places more than work places, with an emphasis on conference rooms, break areas and open configurations. Developers will craft attractive environments to attract young, talented workers.
• Major companies will value space that enables innovation. They will continue to pay more for space in a global gateway served by a major international airport, or in 24-hour urban centers. Hard-to-reach suburban work places will be less in demand.
• The influx of Generation Y, now in their teens through early thirties, will change housing demand. They are comfortable with smaller homes and will happily trade living space for an easier commute and better lifestyle. They will drive up the number of single households and prompt a surge in demand for rentals, causing rents to escalate.
• For most people, finances will still be constrained, leading to more shared housing and multi-generational households. Immigration will support that trend, as many immigrants come from places where it is common for extended families to share housing. This may be the one group that continues to drive demand for large, suburban homes.
• The senior population will grow fastest, but financial constraints could limit demand for adult housing developments. Many will age in place or move in with relatives to conserve money. Developers may want to recast retirement communities into amenity-laden “age friendly” residences. Homes near hospitals and medical offices will be popular, especially if integrated into mixed-use neighborhoods with shops, restaurants and services.
• Energy and infrastructure take on greater importance. Businesses cannot afford to have their network connections down, and more will consider self-generated power or onsite generator capacity.

What does this mean for the City of Birmingham? First, it demonstrates how an educated and skilled workforce, quality of life, distinctive character, effective governance, and economic success are all interrelated. Second, it illustrates the importance of planning and a strategic approach to the future. This comprehensive planning process and

3.3

[page 57 could not be transcribed: google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite: incomplete response (finish_reason=error); google/gemini-3-flash-preview: incomplete response (finish_reason=error)]

document is Birmingham’s first full citywide plan in 50 years. During the last half

[page 58 could not be transcribed: google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite: incomplete response (finish_reason=error); google/gemini-3-flash-preview: incomplete response (finish_reason=error)]

• Establishing a record of performance. New leadership in the private and public sector is establishing a record of

ral systems of water and air underlie and influence all our human uses of the land and stewardship of the environment.

• Housing and Neighborhoods. This section focuses on the way we live on the land as an urban community.

• Prosperity and Opportunity. The city’s economic conditions influence the levels of opportunity and prosperity available to residents and businesses.

• City Systems. The man-made infrastructure systems, facilities and services make it possible for neighborhoods and the economy to function in the city.

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

trends at a glance

FIGURE 3.1: POPULATION CHANGE BY COMMUNITY, 2000–2010

⬚ figure

Population Change (%)

• -25% or more
• -15% to -24.9%
• 0% to -14.9%
• 0% to 15%
• 15.1% or more
• Community Boundaries

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

FIGURE 3.2: OWNERSHIP VS. RENTAL ⬚ figure 49% 51% OWNER-OCCUPIED RENTER-OCCUPIED

SOURCE: 2010 CENSUS

FIGURE 3.4: HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE ⬚ figure TOTAL: 97,779 HOUSHOLDS

SOURCE: 2005-2009 ACS

FIGURE 3.6: POPULATION CHANGE FOR SELECTED CITIES, 1900–2010 ⬚ figure SOURCE: 2010 US CENSUS

FIGURE 3.3: CHANGE IN POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS, 1970-2010 ⬚ figure SOURCE: 2010 US CENSUS

FIGURE 3.5: TRADITIONAL NUCLEAR FAMILIES* ⬚ figure

• Husband, wife, and their own children under 18

SOURCE: 2005-2009 ACS

What does it mean?

• The number of households is more important than the number of people. Birmingham’s loss of 37% of its population between 1960 and 2010 is not unique. Most industrial cities peaked in population in 1950 or 1960, before the suburban expansion of the second half of the 20th century. Households were bigger then, too. Cities today have many single-person households and families are smaller than they used to be. Although the City of Birmingham lost 30% of its population between 1970 and 2010, the total number of households declined by only 10%.
• Families with children are leaving the city. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of family households with children under 18 declined by nearly 30%. The number of traditional nuclear families—a married couple with their own children under 18—declined by 43%. Birmingham does not have to have a majority of family households, but the city needs to be a place that families believe is a good place to raise children.

3.8

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

*28,000+ people

⬚ figure

There is no premium public transit service that could attract riders who have other alternatives. The transit system has been in a continuing crisis over operational funding for a number of years.

FIGURE 3.8: CITY OF BIRMINGHAM—HOW RESIDENTS GET TO WORK

⬚ figure

FIGURE 3.9: GETTING AROUND METRO BIRMINGHAM COMPARED TO THE NATION

3.9

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

FIGURE 3.10: HOUSING UNITS (OCCUPIED & VACANT) BY TYPE

⬚ figure

SOURCE: ESRI ACS HOUSING SUMMARY (2005-2009 ESTIMATE)

About 8,000 housing units are vacant and out of the housing market, and there are thousands of vacant lots in residential neighborhoods.

⬚ figure

Most of the city is made up of residential neighborhoods, and the majority of housing units are single-family homes.

⬚ figure

Many neighborhoods need more occupied housing units to support retail and services in their neighborhood commercial districts.

FIGURE 3.11: CITY OF BIRMINGHAM—HOUSING UNIT OCCUPANCY, 2010

⬚ figure

SOURCE: 2010 US CENSUS

3.10

Birmingham has an extensive park system: over 3,000 acres of parks and nature preserves owned and operated by the City and nonprofit organizations.

⬚ figure

Large vacant or underutilized sites remain as a legacy of Birmingham’s mining and industrial history.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

In the last decade, new housing construction has created a City Center neighborhood of about 4,000 people living in apartments and condos.

What does it mean? The power of place

• Birmingham is getting greener. Railroad Park, Ruffner Park, and Red Mountain Park are creating new city and regional destinations. Valley Creek and other floodplain areas are planned to become parks and greenways. The Our One Mile campaign will include the city in a network of regional greenways.

• The city’s neighborhood park system has limited funding. Three major parks—Avondale, Cooper Green and Crestwood—have been renovated with capital bond funding. However, funding for everyday maintenance and programming is very constrained.

• Birmingham has a variety of neighborhoods that could attract new residents. Older housing stock needs to be renovated and supplemented with new housing. The fate of many neighborhoods will depend on the outcome of the generational transition that will occur over the next two decades as elderly homeowners pass on.

• Blight—abandoned and derelict housing, vacant lots—is a critical challenge in many neighborhoods, especially those closer to the city center.

• Commercial corridors and many neighborhood commercial districts have vacant stores and lots. Many neighborhoods need more occupied housing units to support retail and services for their needs.

• Pollution remains a concern. Contamination at vacant industrial sites and adjacent areas, pollution of waterways, air pollution with elevated ozone levels, and lead paint in older housing and in soils are among the issues that can affect human health and safety, as well as constraining economic redevelopment.

• There are few practical alternatives to getting around by car. Transit routes, frequency, and overall service do not attract riders who have a choice. A vision plan for bicycle and pedestrian routes has existed since 1995, but there has been little progress in its implementation.

• City government has limited control over basic infrastructure. It has responsibility for the storm drainage system and local streets, but water, sewer, and other utility systems are owned and operated by other public or private entities.

A NOTE ON THE DATA

Data for the comprehensive plan was gathered from public and private sources. Census 2010 data is used when available. Some data is from the American Community Survey (ACS). The US Census Bureau no longer collects housing and economic data in census years through the long form census form. Instead, the Census Bureau conducts surveys every year and releases data based on rolling three-year averages through the ACS. Proprietary databases, such as ESRI Business Analyst and EMSI, were also used to make estimates when data from public sources was unavailable. For example, the State of Alabama does not provide employment data by city, so the planning team used proprietary data by zip code and land use data to estimate the number of jobs in the City of Birmingham.

2. Population and Land Use Trends

A. THE CITY HAS LOST POPULATION TO THE REGION BUT REMAINS THE REGION'S JOB CENTER.

1. Birmingham is the core city of a large metropolitan region.

The City of Birmingham, comprised of 152 square miles of land and water, is at the center of the Birmingham-Hoover Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The MSA is a seven-county region of 5,332 square miles, with a population of 1,127,741¹ at the time of the 2010 census.¹ Population in the MSA grew 7.2% in the 2000 to 2010 decade. Nonetheless, in 2010, 75% of the MSA population was concentrated in Jefferson and Shelby Counties. The city’s 2010 population density is 1,396 persons per square mile, with 588 households per square mile.

While the city continues to be the region’s biggest employment center, as a whole it has been losing population to suburban communities and semi-rural (sometimes called “exurban”) locations since 1970. Population grew rapidly in Shelby, St. Clair and Chilton counties between 1970 and 2010: more than 400% in Shelby County alone. St. Clair County, east of the city along I-20, has also been growing rapidly in recent years. The suburban and exurban growth on former agricultural and forest land is characterized by low-density, single family housing served by strip commercial development, forming bedroom communities concentrated along transportation routes to the City of Birmingham, which continues to be the region’s most important employment center.

Governance in the region is fragmented by multiple jurisdictions. Unlike many cities in the South and West, Birmingham is surrounded by other municipalities and has relatively little unincorporated land on its borders. There are 52 municipal jurisdictions in Jefferson and Shelby counties alone. The municipalities on the southern border of the city, such as Mountain Brook, Vestavia Hills, and Homewood, tend to be more affluent, while other small cities that began as mining or industrial camps are often struggling. In many respects, the City of Birmingham’s role and its experience within its metropolitan region has more in common with the experience of formerly industrial Northeastern and Midwestern cities, sometimes known as the Rustbelt, than with the recent growth of other southern cities like Charlotte. Rustbelt cities, like Birmingham, were once powerhouses of industrial manufacturing and their regions are typically divided into many smaller jurisdictions. “New South” cities like Charlotte became prosperous based on services and real estate development and have been able to expand by annexation to include economically diverse neighborhoods.

Regional organizations focus on the metropolitan area. Regional organizations that play an important role for the city’s long-term destiny are the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Birmingham Business Alliance (BBA). The MPO is the federally designated regional

PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

FIGURE 3.12: TOTAL JOBS | BIRMINGHAM VICINITY BY CENSUS TRACT

⬚ figure

organization for transportation planning in Jefferson and Shelby counties and is housed in the Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham, which has an advisory planning role for the seven-county MSA. The MPO works with local jurisdictions in Jefferson and Shelby counties to plan and program federal transportation investments. It is responsible for creating a long-term Regional Transportation Plan, as well as programming short-term funds. The BBA focuses on promoting economic growth and development in the seven-county Birmingham-Hoover MSA. It was created in 2009 by the merger of the Birmingham Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Metropolitan Development Board. In 2010, the BBA released Blueprint Birmingham, a five-year strategic plan for regional economic growth.

Total Jobs

• 20 - 2,500
• 2,501 - 5,000
• 5,001 - 10,000
• 10,001 - 20,000
• 20,001 - 40,389

3.13

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

2. The city is part of an emerging “megaregion.”

Birmingham is included in the emerging Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion—one of eight major regions in the United States identified by researchers as areas with interrelated economic systems within a common ecosystem and linked by shared transportation systems. The Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion stretches from the Carolinas, through the Atlanta region, to Birmingham, generally following the I-20 and I-85 corridors. It is called an “emerging” region because of the significant extent of rural area remaining between the metropolitan areas. Moreover, as is the case in the Birmingham metropolitan area, intra-metropolitan coordination remains limited. However, as the metropolitan areas in megaregions grow more connected, with increasing demands on transportation and water infrastructure for example, the value of coordinating policies over a broader geographic scale will grow.¹

B. HISTORIC GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT, AND PLANNING

Like many other cities, Birmingham’s post-Civil War, nineteenth century roots can be found in the nexus of natural resources, transportation, and real estate speculation. The city’s development has been marked by the boom and bust cycles of the mining and industrial economy, the struggle for civil rights, the legacy of residential segregation by race, and the ongoing transition from a primarily industrial economy to a service-based economy.

1. The railroad crossing becomes “The Magic City.”

Birmingham’s founders named the city in the hopes that it would emulate its English namesake as a manufacturing metropolis. Founded after the Civil War in the Appalachian piedmont where coal, iron ore, and limestone were abundantly available in close proximity to make steel and at the point where important railroad lines were converging, Birmingham in 1871 was destined to be a company town.² The physical development of the city was marked by the region’s topography—the steep mountain slopes to the north and south of Jones Valley and the floodplains of Village and Valley Creeks—as well as by the location of industrial furnaces or mines and the railroads that served them. Outside of the original city located around the railroad reservation, mining and industrial communities sprang up spontaneously to house workers, and industrial firms later laid out company towns for their employees.

Growth was so fast between 1881 and 1920 that Birmingham was nicknamed the “Magic City.” Like all industrial and mining boom towns, early Birmingham was an uncomfortable, unsanitary, and dangerous place for everyone. From the beginning, the work force was both black and white and the two racial groups tended to live on different blocks or in different company-built camps or towns even before legally-defined racial segregation. A major annexation in 1910 added 70,000 people and 48 square miles to the city, including the towns of East Birmingham, North Birmingham, Thomas, and Ensley. In the late nineteenth century, Birmingham’s industrial elite lived in the South Highlands and Forest Park neighborhoods, while new suburbs were built for the white working class in Eastlake, Woodlawn, Ensley and West End. By the 1920s the affluent elites were beginning to move “over the mountain” to areas that eventually become separate municipalities such as Mountain Brook and Homewood.

In the early 20th century, most of the African-American population lived in areas considered less desirable—in the floodplains of the creeks, along railroad lines and near heavy industry, and in alleys. These neighborhoods lacked paved streets, streetlights, and sewer and water infrastructure. However, the small African-American middle class and professionals tended to live in Enon Ridge and Smithfield (where the black architect Wallace A. Rayfield designed many houses).

2. Birmingham’s early plans were innovative—but not implemented.

The City Plan. Birmingham’s first City Plan was issued in 1919. It contained recommendations on transportation, natural resources, parks, downtown, and a land use system based on the idea of neighborhood centers. It also proposed the establishment of zoning districts. Created by Warren H. Manning, who had worked with the firm of Frederick Law

PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

Planning in Birmingham, 1919–2004

Olmsted, the plan included many innovative proposals, such as the creation of neighborhood centers, a park system to retain floodwaters, and separate water systems for drinking water and for recycled graywater for industrial cooling.¹ Except for the establishment of zoning seven years later, the only part of the city plan that was implemented was a “city beautiful” style plan for the downtown civic center (the public buildings surrounding Linn Park).

The Olmsted Plan. The Manning plan was followed in 1925 by a parks plan created by the nation’s foremost landscape architects and planners, the Olmsted Brothers. Building on the City Plan, it proposed a network of parks, including management of the Village Creek floodplain by making it open space. The plan was never implemented but interest in the plan has been revived in the last decade.

The First Zoning Ordinance. Efforts to establish a zoning ordinance came to fruition in 1926. This ordinance created a system of racial zoning, despite the fact that in 1917 the US Supreme Court had struck down a law prohibiting real estate sales to African-Americans (Buchanan v. Warley). The Birmingham ordinance was fashioned as a “separate but equal” system that prohibited whites from living in areas zoned for blacks and blacks from living in areas zoned for whites. Less desirable areas, such as floodplains and industrial areas, were designated for black occupancy. Legal challenges to Birmingham’s racial zoning system began in the late 1940s and the US Supreme Court found it unconstitutional in 1951.

Planning Board. The Birmingham Planning Board was created in 1943 to advise on planning issues, but by 1950 the city had no subdivision regulations, no housing code, and no planning staff except for the city engineer and a draftsman.

3. The struggle for civil rights is intertwined with Birmingham’s planning and development history.

Legacy of substandard housing. During the first half of the 20th century, repeated housing surveys found that a significant percentage of the city’s housing stock was substandard, with poor sanitary conditions, and lacking in public services, especially in neighborhoods zoned for African-Americans. In 1950, 45% of the housing stock had no indoor plumbing, and 85% of blacks lived in substandard housing. The enforcement of health and sanitary codes after World War II also resulted in demolition of housing in black residential areas. As the city grew, black demand for housing grew, while the areas zoned for blacks did not. Challenges to racial zoning by African-Americans who moved into North Smithfield, which had been zoned for whites, sparked the bombings that made the neighborhood into “Dynamite Hill.”

Annexation History

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

City planning after 1950. After the federal government passed urban renewal legislation in 1949, the city identified three poor African-American areas in Southside, Ensley and Avondale as candidates for urban renewal. The federal law required an urban renewal plan that was consistent with a city comprehensive plan, which the city did not have. In 1952, therefore, the Birmingham Planning Board issued a “Preliminary Report” to serve as a comprehensive plan that included general recommendations on transportation and public facility improvements as well as identifying the urban renewal target areas. As was the case in cities around the country, urban renewal projects and interstate highway construction during the 1950s and 1960s displaced many residents without providing sufficient alternative housing and reinforced de facto residential segregation.

The first comprehensive plan. In 1957, the group which later became Operation New Birmingham called for a citywide comprehensive plan. This effort led to the creation of a series of documents: a 1958 report on the economy and the city’s first comprehensive plan in 1961. The economic report recommended diversification of the economy and investment in quality community facilities such as schools, parks, and streets in order to attract new kinds of industry and new residents to the city. The Birmingham manufacturing economy was stagnating and its retail and trading economy was not as competitive as those sectors in other southern cities. The 1961 comprehensive plan focused on improving the city’s facilities and amenities—such as a recommendation to expand the city park system by 1,700 acres—and emphasized the importance of a strong downtown. The park system was closed in 1963 during the civil rights struggle, but Birmingham leaders did focus on downtown redevelopment. In 1964, the local architectural community developed the Design for Progress plan which became the general guide for downtown development until the 1980 Downtown Plan.

Annexation after 1950. Birmingham’s leading role in the civil rights struggle was behind three unsuccessful annexation efforts from 1959 to 1971. The white leadership of the city attempted to annex or merge with surrounding white suburbs. These efforts failed because of school desegregation, which was at the root of the “white flight” that increasingly affected the city during the 1960s and 1970s. Annexation initiatives since 1971

FIGURE 3.13: ANNEXATION HISTORY | 1960-2011

⬚ figure

3.16

have focused either on small, predominantly African-American communities or on unbuilt land with water supply protection, development and fiscal potential. The annexation of the Cahaba area during the 1980s under the administration of Mayor Richard Arrington, proved to be particularly valuable for the city, as the US-280 corridor became the location for new retail and office development. During the 1990s and 2000s, annexation has been limited to smaller areas.

C. LAND USE

1. Land use is not the same thing as zoning.

“Land use” is an umbrella term for the activities that actually occur on a given parcel of land, such as residential, retail, industrial, agricultural, or transportation uses. Land uses can change over time—for example, when a farm becomes fallow land and then is turned into a residential subdivision. Zoning is the tool that a local government employs to regulate the uses of the land.

Land use and zoning are not identical. For example, land that has nothing built on it can be zoned for a use that has not yet been developed; land uses can be “grandfathered” or “nonconforming” (meaning that they existed before the land was zoned for a different use); and zoning categories can permit more than one use—for example, an area zoned for industrial uses may also permit commercial uses, which may come to predominate in the area.

The Existing Land Use Map shown in Figure 3.14 is based on the City of Birmingham’s land use map, whose content was updated in fall 2011 by the city’s Division of Planning for the purposes of this comprehensive plan. The City’s land use map includes a much more detailed range of land uses than Figure 3.14. For this map, land uses were aggregated into a smaller number of categories so that the overall pattern of land use in the city would be more easily understood.

According to the City’s land use data, half of the land area within the city limits does not have buildings or structures on it: parks and open space account for 17% of the total land, agriculture (which is really forestry since it is almost all timber land) takes up 16% of the total, and another 16% is more generally categorized as vacant. The city’s large nature parks—such as Red Mountain and Ruffner—help give it a large amount of unbuilt land, as do the more recently annexed and mostly undeveloped areas on to the north, southwest and southeast. Some 22% of the total land is residential, with commercial and industrial uses occupying another 12%. Within these residential, commercial and industrial areas, however, there are vacant buildings and unoccupied lots.

2. Land use is regulated by the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations.

The City of Birmingham zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations are the primary tools by which the city regulates land uses. Municipal authority to regulate land use arises from the police power, which is the power to protect public health, safety and welfare. Zoning initially arose as a way to separate noxious land uses, such as highly polluting industry, from residences. Zoning also typically regulates lot size, density, and building dimensions such as height and massing.

For the most part, the Birmingham zoning ordinance is a modified cumulative or pyramid zoning system, in which the most restrictive zoning districts (single-family homes) are permitted in subsequent less restrictive zoning districts. For example, Birmingham’s business districts also allow residential uses. The city’s zoning ordinance has ten residential districts, four business districts, four industrial districts, two agricultural districts, as well as two mixed-use districts and several special zoning districts for health care, institutions, planned recreation and other special cases. Two overlay districts, for the US-280 corridor and for the Highland Park neighborhood, provide additional standards that “overlay” the base zoning requirements.

The Highland Park overlay district establishes “form-based” zoning requirements for this neighborhood. Form-based zoning, which has emerged in the last twenty years as an alternative to traditional “Euclidean” zoning (so named from the US Supreme Court case in 1916 that established municipal zoning authority), focuses on building form, rather than separation of uses, in order to create or preserve a human-scaled environment that is pedestrian-friendly.

FIGURE 3.14: EXISTING LAND USE

⬚ figure

Existing Land Use

SOURCE: CITY OF BIRMINGHAM GIS

TABLE 3.2: CITY OF BIRMINGHAM LAND USE

* Designated parks and open space, such as cemeteries, flood protection and floodway lands, water protection land. ** Parking as a primary use (parking structure or lot), not parking accessory to another use.

SOURCE: CITY OF BIRMINGHAM GIS LAND USE

Subdivision regulations control the development of multiple lots and the streets and other infrastructure needed to access the lots. The purpose of these regulations, updated in October 2011, is to ensure that the soils, topography, geological and hydrological conditions, and other circumstances are suitable for safe development of the properties for the desired land uses and that the new development conforms to design standards for infrastructure. Subdivisions of 15 or more lots must make available suitable land for parks and/or schools, or obtain a waiver from the Director of Parks and Recreation and/or the Superintendent of Schools.

The Birmingham Planning Commission has adopted a “Complete Streets” policy for both new and retrofit projects within the city. Complete Streets are designed to accommodate all users: pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. The policy is advisory to the city and to the regional planning organizations.

3. Development trends are mixed.

The City of Birmingham is experiencing a mixture of development conditions, reflecting vastly different markets and circumstances in different parts of the city. As of early 2012, real estate market conditions favor rental properties and six large rental developments have been announced—in several locations including downtown, Oxmoor, and Southside.

Downtown. Over the course of the last decade, downtown Birmingham experienced new investment and development in a variety of forms: redevelopment of existing buildings for residential and commercial use; new construction of residential and mixed use projects; revitalization of cultural icons like the Alabama Theater; Park Place, a successful mixed-income HOPE VI residential development; creation of a major new amenity in the form of Railroad Park; and additions and renovations to the medical district and the UAB campus. Downtown was one of the very few areas of the city to see an increase in population and households between the 2000 and 2010 censuses. With a slowdown in private development as a result of the financial crisis of the Great Recession, several private projects, such as the Pizitz Building, are taking longer to complete than originally hoped. Projects supported by public funds are going forward, including a Westin hotel at the Birmingham-Jefferson County Convention Center and a new baseball stadium near Railroad Park.

Older neighborhoods. Many of the older neighborhoods of the city, with the exception of the southside neighborhoods, have experienced disinvestment since the 1970s as population has declined. This disinvestment is manifest in the number and growing extent of abandoned and vacant properties in residential areas. It is not uncommon to find enclaves of several blocks of attractive and well-maintained housing with blight and vacancy in nearby blocks. Similarly, the combination of fewer households to support sales and changes in retailing over recent decades has resulted in empty storefronts in the traditional, main street style commercial districts that used to serve these older Birmingham neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are designed to be urban in character, with sidewalks and relatively small lots. In a number of locations over the decades, poorly designed and constructed multifamily developments were inserted in these older neighborhoods and in some cases, these developments have also become vacant. Real estate markets in these kinds of neighborhoods are very weak.

Revitalization efforts in some older neighborhoods have brought an infusion of philanthropic and public funds

to support new housing (for example, the the Woodlawn Foundation and Tuxedo HOPE VI development) and commercial spaces, and several individual developers have created small portfolios of renovated single family homes for sale or rent in neighborhoods with good housing stock, such as East Lake. A few small market-rate subdivisions built in recent years can also be found.

The older city neighborhoods that continue to be stable, with strong real estate markets, are on the south side of the city adjacent to affluent suburban communities. These neighborhoods have high amenity values—historic character, parks, and nearby neighborhood-serving retail—and are urban in character with relatively dense, pedestrian-friendly environments. Both single-family and multifamily housing attracts residents without difficulty. The continuing success of these neighborhoods, as well as the rise of downtown, shows that neighborhoods with urban character can be competitive in the Birmingham region.

Suburban-style neighborhoods. In contrast to the city’s older neighborhoods, with their history as independent small towns, suburban-style neighborhoods emerged in areas farther from downtown such as Roebuck-Huffman to the northeast and Oxmoor to the southwest. Developed mostly from the 1960s on, these neighborhoods were built to be car-dependent and many do not have sidewalks. Retail areas were developed on major arterial streets with strip shopping centers, large expanses of parking in front of the stores, and no expectation of walking access.

FIGURE 3.15: POPULATION CHANGE FOR SELECTED CITIES, 1900–2010

⬚ figure

SOURCE: 2010 US CENSUS

Vacant industrial sites. Birmingham’s transition from a manufacturing economy to a service-based, knowledge economy has left a legacy of large vacant and underutilized industrial sites, many of which are also brownfield sites. A few, such as the Trinity Steel site, have been remediated and are ready for new uses.

Significant vacant commercial and institutional sites. There are a number of large vacant properties in the city, such as Carraway Hospital and Century Plaza Mall. Trinity Medical Center, which is moving to a location on US-280 which will still be inside the city limits, will also leave its current site on Montclair Road.

D. POPULATION COMPOSITION AND TRENDS

1. Total population numbers have declined since 1960.

Total population. The City of Birmingham’s total population peaked in 1960 at 340,887 and has declined 37% to 212,237 over the fifty years to 2010. Although there may have been some undercounting during the 2010 census, which is not uncommon in urban areas, the trend remains clear. While the intensity of the civil rights struggle during the 1960s and the establishment of school desegregation during the 1970s produced a particularly strong white flight reaction in the 1970s and 1980s, Birmingham’s population decline also resulted from broader trends that affected industrial cities throughout the country. Figure

TABLE 3.3: CITY OF BIRMINGHAM TOTAL POPULATION 1960-2010

SOURCE: US CENSUS

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

3.15 shows that Birmingham’s general population trend over the 20th century has not differed much from cities such as Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Boston. However, towards the end of the 20th century, a few of these cities saw a slight increase in population. While population decline was a common experience for many older cities between 1960 and 2000, some of these cities were retaining population and attracting new residents by the early 21st century. The demographic composition of these new populations was not the same as in 1960 and total populations were unlikely to reach the 1960 highs, but urban living was once again highly attractive in cities with a strong economy and quality of life. Population decline in the second half of the 20th century does not have to presage a destiny of permanent urban decline.

The decline in total population numbers is only part of Birmingham’s demographic story. The composition of today’s population—number and type of households, as well as the composition of the population by gender, age, race and ethnicity—also tells us how the city is faring.

2. Households include fewer families and more singles.

Number and size of households. Although many US cities lost population in the last 50 to 60 years, the decline in the number of households has typically not been as steep because the average number of people per household (“average household size”) declined steadily until 2000. (The Great Recession produced a slight increase in average household size in the 2010 census because young adults and others did not form new households, living with parents or doubling up.)

Compared to 1950 and 1960, there are many more households made up of only one or two people. In 2010, 27 percent of all US households were made up of one person, more than double the 13 percent of single person households in 1960. The 2010 average household size in the US was 2.69 persons. Cities typically have smaller household sizes and the City of Birmingham follows this trend. In 1990, the average household size was 2.26 persons in Birmingham, decreasing yet again to 2.17 in 2000. In 2010, however, still following the national trend, average household size in Birmingham was somewhat higher at 2.27 persons.

*Families = persons related by blood or marriage SOURCE: CENSUS 2010

SOURCE: CENSUS 2010

SOURCE: CENSUS 2010

3.21

Type of households. The census divides households into “family” and “nonfamily” households. Family households are made up of persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, including married couples who do not have children living at home. Nonfamily households include single person households and households made up of unrelated people. (They do not include people who live in institutional settings such as college dormitories, nursing homes, or prisons—the Census counts these people as living in “group quarters.”)

Household trends in the City of Birmingham are consistent with a number of long-term, national changes in types of households. While in 1960, 85 percent of all households in the US were family households (and most of them were married-couple households), by 2010 only 66 percent of all households were family households. The nuclear family household—a married couple with children under 18 living under the same roof—made up only 21 percent of all American households in 2010. Today, both men and women are waiting longer to marry, more couples live together without marrying, more people live alone at some point in their lives, and life expectancy has increased.

Family households. In Birmingham, in 2010, only 14 percent of the family households were made up of a married couple with their own children under 18 living at home. (These married, two-parent families constitute only 8% of all Birmingham households, nearly two-thirds less than the national average.) A quarter of all family households are single parent families with their own children at home (the vast majority are single female households). (See Table 3.5)

Households with children. Another way to look at families is from the point of view of households that include children under 18 years old. Seventy-nine percent of the City of Birmingham households with children include at least one biological or adoptive parent. The remainder of the family households with children are headed by grandparents or other non-parent relatives, or other caretakers.

TABLE 3.7: CHILDREN UNDER 15 YEARS OLD

SOURCE: US CENSUS

Family households are a significant source of Birmingham’s population decline. According to the Census, there were 30,603 fewer persons in the City of Birmingham in 2010 than in 2000, including 10,132 fewer family households. The number of family households with children under 18—whether married couple or single parent families—declined by nearly 30% between 2000 and 2010. The number of households made up of a married couple with their own children under 18 declined drastically—by 43%. In contrast, the number of families with children in the Birmingham-Hoover MSA outside of the city grew modestly over the same period.

3. The city’s age composition is similar to the region as a whole.

TABLE 3.8: CITY OF BIRMINGHAM MEDIAN AGE

As the baby boom generation ages, the City of Birmingham, like most communities across the country, is getting slightly older, but the overall age composition of the city’s population has not changed very much.

Often, older industrial cities with declining populations like Birmingham’s tend to have a relatively higher proportion of older residents as the younger working-age population seeks employment opportunities elsewhere. However, in Birmingham, the age composition of the city’s population is much like that of the Birmingham-Hoover MSA, with the exception of a slightly lower percentage of children under 15 and a somewhat higher percentage of youth in the late teenage and early adult years, probably because of the college student population in the city. The city’s elderly population is slightly lower than in the MSA as a whole.

⬚ figure

SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS

⬚ figure

SOURCE: 2010 U.S. CENSUS

4. The city is predominantly African-American.

Nearly three-quarters of the City of Birmingham population is African-American. Whites make up 23% of the population, Asians account for 1%, and a remaining small percentage is made up of people who identify with other racial categories.

⬚ figure

SOURCE: 2010 U.S. CENSUS

Hispanics/Latinos can be of any race. At the time of the 2010 census, they made up 3.6 percent of the total city population. Two-thirds of the city’s Latino population is of Mexican origin. Although this group’s 7,704 persons is a relatively small number, it grew significantly in the last 10 years.

5. School enrollment has declined steadily for decades.

Public school enrollment in the City of Birmingham has declined by approximately 50% in the last thirty years, from about 50,000 in 1980 to approximately 25,000 in 2011. Over 80% of students are eligible to receive free or reduced lunch, which means that they come from low-income families. While smaller families have resulted in fewer schoolchildren in many communities around the country, Birmingham’s falling public school enrollment is also the result of declining public confidence in the school system over many years. Parents with choices have either enrolled their children in private schools or, increasingly, have moved from the city into suburban jurisdictions with better schools.

6. Because of demographic trends, the city will not reach its 1960 peak population soon, if ever.

Population projections are based on past trends. Population projections are not the same as population predictions. Projections are based on historic population changes, known future housing and economic development projects, and evaluations of trends in the economy and development. Future population is composed of the net result of births minus deaths and in-migration minus out-migration. While it is important to understand likely outcomes if current trends are extended, it is also important to be aware that if conditions and trends change, population movements can change as well.

Using population projection methodology based on current trends produces projections of continued decline for most of the City of Birmingham. The Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham (RPC) provides the most detailed population projections for the metropolitan area and sub-areas. The most recent projections to 2035 forecast continued population decline for most of the City of Birmingham and continued sprawling development patterns for the region as a whole, unless there are “significant redevelopment efforts.” The only exception is downtown, which is projected to have a population of over 6,700 by 2035. The RPC points out that the “traditional large neighborhoods of the City of Birmingham,” such as East Lake/Woodlawn, Tarrant Airport Area, North Birmingham, Pratt City/Ensley, and West End/Midfield, “consist of some of the oldest housing within Jefferson County.” Birmingham’s downtown contains the only two census tracts with significant population growth between 2000 and 2010.

The strategies in this comprehensive plan are intended to help the City of Birmingham community—government and its partners—change the conditions that have led to fifty years of population decline. However, because nationwide and local demographic trends are very different in the 21st century than they were in 1960, the city will not

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

return to the population and household configurations of 1960. Today, families are smaller and there are many more small households and single person households. Rather than focusing on population numbers per se, it is more important to focus on improving quality of life, which will help retain and attract people to live in the city.

3. Green Systems and Sustainability

In recent years there has been growing community interest in enhancing Birmingham’s green systems. This has resulted from increased generational awareness, public discourse on local, national, and global environmental issues, and success stories in conservation and parks development.

Numerous state, regional and local public and governmental agencies and private organizations are involved in the creation, conservation and maintenance of open spaces and corridors, in addressing and promoting awareness of environmental quality and environmental justice issues, and promoting and implementing sustainability initiatives. Since 2000, there has been a surge in the number of nonprofit groups and advocacy organizations whose missions in some way relate to Birmingham’s green systems. Public authorities, utility providers, major developers and landowners, and a variety of business interests are also playing an important role in the conservation of open space, resource management, and influencing public policy on environmental and sustainability issues in the Birmingham area.

A. NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

The City of Birmingham lies in the Ridge-and-Valley Appalachian ecoregion which is located between the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Cumberland Plateau in parallel ridges and valleys of various heights and widths stretching northeast to southwest.¹ The area abounds in natural resources—from the rich mineral deposits in its mountains to the rare aquatic life in its waterways. The city’s piedmont

location is a geographic transition point that supports significant, unique biodiversity, notably on the Cahaba River and Turkey Creek.

1. The city is located in the Black Warrior River and Cahaba River watersheds.

A watershed is all the land area that drains precipitation into a stream or waterway, or that supplies the stream with ground water. There are five major watersheds partially in the city: Valley Creek, Village Creek, Five Mile Creek, Shades Creek, and the Cahaba River. Shades Creek flows into the Cahaba River and the other creeks flow into the Black Warrior River. With the exception of the Cahaba River and Shades Creek, where the predominant land uses in the city’s portion of the watershed are forestry and open land, all of the watersheds are predominantly residential with a mixture of other land uses. Because of the lack of historical data and early stages of the current monitoring system, the City’s stormwater management consultant found in 2009 that “it’s not possible at this time to make any hard or statistically significant conclusions regarding water quality needs.”² However, Village Creek has been listed as an impaired stream (pathogens and agricultural pesticides). The upper watershed contains the Birmingham-Shuttleworth International Airport and is mostly residential otherwise, while the middle and lower watershed is predominantly industrial.

The Cahaba River and the Black Warrior River provide drinking water to metropolitan Birmingham. The Cahaba River has also been listed for impairment due to siltation that affects habitat.

The Cahaba River is the longest free-flowing river in Alabama, draining over 1,800 square miles in central Alabama, and is recognized for the diversity of its aquatic life, as well as its general habitat and recreational value. Portions of the Cahaba River have also been listed for impairment due to siltation that affects habitat. Lake Purdy, a water reservoir owned by the Birmingham Water Works Board, is located in the Cahaba watershed.

Much of the city is located in the headwaters of the Black Warrior River Watershed, which drains 6,276 square miles

in northwest Alabama. Like the Cahaba, the Black Warrior River is notable for its aquatic diversity and recreational value. The Black Warrior River is also Birmingham’s link to the gulf port of Mobile for shipment of coal, lumber, and other commodity goods.

2. The Birmingham area includes significant biodiversity, especially in the Cahaba River watershed.

According to the Alabama Natural Heritage Program, a number of rare, endangered or threatened species have been reported in Jefferson County, including several globally rare species. Some of these species may exist in the city’s natural areas. According to the Nature Conservancy, the Cahaba River includes “at least 69 rare and imperiled species in this watershed, 12 fish and mussel species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, and 131 species of freshwater fish, more than any other river its size in North America.”¹

3. Major projects have resulted in significant environmental successes.

As Birmingham continues its transition from an economy based on mining and industry to one driven by health care and other services, vacant mines and foundries are seeing a second life as regional parks (Ruffner Mountain Nature Center, Red Mountain Park and Vulcan Park), greenways, and historic landmarks (Sloss Furnaces).

In 2003, a consortium of local governments including three counties and twenty cities developed the Upper Cahaba Watershed Study. This planning process has raised the level of regional dialogue on water quality and other environmental issues.

Over the years of industrial dominance, waterways like Village Creek and Five-Mile Creek (at the northern edge of Birmingham) became polluted and efforts are currently underway to improve water quality and restore the natural habitats. The Freshwater Land Trust (originally known as

⬚ figure

the Black Warrior Cahaba River Land Trust) was funded by Jefferson County during its first ten years as part of the consent agreement with the EPA. The land trust was a “Supplemental Environmental Project” intended to acquire riparian and greenway properties to reduce nonpoint source pollution and enhance stream corridor and aquatic habitat. Since its creation, the land trust has acquired a total of 4,300 acres in fee and 200 acres in conservation easements along multiple waterways and in other strategic locations. Acquisitions by the Freshwater Land Trust led to the establishment of, and additional acquisitions for, Red Mountain Park. The Trust has created a leadership group, Village Creek Champions, to highlight stewardship activities for Village Creek. In addition, the Trust managed the planning process for the Red Rock Ridge and Valley Trail system, a greenway master plan for Jefferson County, funded through the county’s Health Action Partnership. The plan identifies routes for interconnected walking trails, bike paths, sidewalks and blueways to connect neighborhoods, parks and other community destinations.

The Southern Environmental Center, at Birmingham Southern College, has developed ten “ecoscapes” as outdoor learning sites and neighborhood amenities using vacant and abandoned lots. One is located on the campus of Birmingham-Southern College but the others are located in neighborhoods such as Arlington-West End, Brown Springs, College Hills, North Birmingham, Seven Springs, and Woodlawn.

4. Air quality has improved but requires continued vigilance.

In late 2011, the EPA proposed that the Birmingham metropolitan area be certified as complying with federal air quality standards for the first time in two decades. The American Lung Association in 2013 ranked Birmingham as the 14th most polluted metropolitan area for ozone and the 24th most polluted metropolitan area for particulate matter.¹ This is a significant improvement over previous years. Many businesses, citizens and non-profits have collaborated to improve air quality, such as programs like CommuteSmart, a program to reduce Single-Occupancy-Vehicle (SOV) commuting by providing services to support car- and van-pooling, as well as other transportation alternatives.

5. Environmental justice is an issue in some neighborhoods.

Environmental justice programs focus on the need to redress existing and prevent future inequitable distribution of environmental burdens and impacts. For example, low income and minority communities throughout the country typically have been more likely to experience adverse environmental impacts such as pollution from industrial facilities or transportation projects. Another example of an environmental justice initiative is the use of U.S. EPA authority to order cleanup of hazardous substances in North Birmingham neighborhoods including Collegeville, Fairmont and Harriman Park. Birmingham has a history of residential streets in close adjacency to sites with heavy industry use.

B. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE

Within the City of Birmingham there are over 3,500 acres of park land for public use owned and managed by the City and other groups. This gives the city approximately 17 acres of park land per 1,000 persons, a commonly-used metric. According to the Trust for Public Land (TPL), this puts Birmingham slightly below the median of 20.3 acres for the group of low-density cities in which the city was included.² A significant portion of the parks inventory can be found in two major nature parks, Ruffner Mountain and Red Mountain. While these are wonderful resources, they do not meet the day-to-day needs of many Birmingham residents for community and neighborhood parks. The TPL and other urban park advocates emphasize the accessibility of parks—how many residents can reach a park within a ten-minute walk—as much as total acreage in evaluating city park systems. The TPL conducted a Recreation and Open Space Needs Assessment in 2008 for the Jefferson County Greenways Commission that found that people would be more likely to use parks and open space if they

could walk or bike to the parks. Hiking, walking, and biking trails, as well as new parks, were supported by 82% of respondents to the survey.¹

Much city-owned park land is legally dedicated to park use and cannot be transferred, sold or used for another purpose without a public referendum vote. Similarly, land created through flood mitigation must remain open land. City-owned park land which has not been dedicated could potentially be sold or developed.

1. The 1925 Olmsted Parks Plan is a source of inspiration nearly a century later.

In 1925 the Birmingham Parks and Recreation Board published the Olmsted Brothers’ “A Park System for Birmingham.“ This countywide plan, based on the 1919 City Plan, recommended acquisition of a network of strategic lands to protect the drinking water supply, the preservation of floodplains, natural drainage systems and ridge tops, as well as numerous park expansion and development projects. Although several individual parks were created, the plan as a whole was not implemented. However, in recent years the Freshwater Land Trust and other groups in Birmingham have increasingly recognized this visionary plan as a foundation for contemporary park improvement goals. The Red Rock Ridge and Valley Trail plan is one of several initiatives inspired in part by the environmental principles of the Olmsted Brothers’ plan.

2. The City of Birmingham park system is governed by a board appointed by City Council.

The board provides direction to the Parks and Recreation Department and establishes park policies. The five member Parks Board holds 124 individual properties, which comprise over 2,000 acres throughout the city. However, the Parks Board does not have any independent funding, so all staff, capital projects, and maintenance are paid for by the City. Major renovations were recently completed at Avondale Park, Greenwood Park, Cooper Green, and Crestwood Parks. A list of City-owned parks can be found in Chapter 4 of the Birmingham Data Book prepared by the City’s Department of Planning, Engineering, and Permits as an adjunct to this comprehensive plan.

The city system includes a variety of park and greenspace types, from pocket parks and neighborhood parks to public golf courses and greenways. Operation of the park system involves interaction among multiple city departments in addition to the Parks and Recreation Department. The Department of Planning, Engineering, and Permitting acts as the project manager for parks and recreation improvements and new construction. The Public Works Department is responsible for park maintenance. Maintenance staff within the parks department was transferred to the Public Works Department in the 1990s. A commensurate portion of the expanded Public Works Department’s budget was to be reserved for park maintenance as a part of the reassignment of staff. City financial constraints have recently made full funding of park maintenance and operations difficult. Some city parks are also supported by a number of “Friends of the Park” community organizations. Several special city-owned park properties, such as Vulcan Park, Ruffner Mountain Nature Center, the Birmingham Zoo, Railroad Park and the Botanical Garden are managed and operated by public-private partnerships.

The Community Development Department (CDD) and the Floodplain Management office have also contributed to the city’s park system. Historically, a portion of Community Development Block Grant funds managed by CDD was available to the parks department for park improvements. However, those funds are no longer available. The Floodplain Management office has engaged in past flood-mitigation efforts, which have included floodplain buy-outs, in coordination with FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and CDD, along Village Creek in Ensley and Vanderbilt Road. These efforts created opportunities to develop new park facilities, such as the planned Greenwood Park.

3. A number of unique parks serve the entire region.

The City is fortunate to include several unique and well-used public parks. Some are formally part of the city parks system while others are managed and, in some cases, owned by other entities.

• Kelly Ingram Park is located adjacent to the Civil Rights Institute and includes interpretive features about events of the Civil Rights Movement, many of which happened at or near the park. The Civil Rights Institute and Urban Impact, Inc., provide tours of the park’s historic interpretive elements.

• Vulcan Park and Museum sits atop Red Mountain overlooking downtown. Owned by the City and operated by the Vulcan Park Foundation, the 10-acre park includes the iconic 1904 Vulcan statue, the world’s largest cast iron statue, and an interpretive museum of industrial history. Adjacent to the park is a one-mile rail-trail that runs along the north face of Red Mountain.

• The Birmingham Botanical Gardens is a 67.5-acre park owned by the City and operated by the Friends of the Botanical Gardens. Adjacent to the zoo, the park serves both as an environmental education facility as well as a tourist destination, attracting 350,000 visitors each year.

• The Birmingham Zoo occupies 45 acres of its 123-acre site south of Red Mountain and is owned by the City and by the nonprofit Birmingham Zoo, Inc. It is one of the largest zoos in the southeast drawing some 450,000 visitors each year.

• Railroad Park, an urban recreational park in downtown Birmingham that opened in 2011, was created and is now operated by the nonprofit Railroad Park Foundation on a four-block former brownfield. The park has been a tremendous success and symbol of the continuing revitalization of downtown.

• Ruffner Mountain Park is an urban nature preserve of 1,011 acres established in 1977 in northeast Birmingham and operated by the nonprofit Ruffner Mountain Nature Center. It includes 11 miles of hiking trails and an environmental educational center.

• Red Mountain Park is overseen by the Red Mountain Greenway and Recreational Area Commission, which was created by the State Legislature in 2007. Like Ruffner Mountain, Red Mountain Park was once an iron mine. Opened in 2012, the park is restoring the environment while also honoring its industrial history with interpretive elements.

4. Recreation centers and stadiums serve local and regional groups.

The city operates 18 recreation centers with activities six days a week, 17 public swimming pools, 2 public golf courses, and 4 public tennis centers staffed by a tennis pro (as well as tennis courts in many parks). The city is also home to two historic stadiums and a new downtown baseball stadium that has opened for the 2013 season.

• Legion Field is a 70,000-seat football stadium located in McLendon Park west of Downtown Birmingham. In 1996 the facility was used for preliminary soccer matches as part of the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. It currently serves as the home field for the UAB Blazers. The City Parks and Recreation Department is housed in the ground floor of the stadium.

• The oldest surviving professional baseball stadium in the United States, Rickwood Field is owned by the City and operated by Friends of Rickwood Field. Rickwood hosted several farm teams until 1987, when the Birmingham Barons moved to a modern facility in suburban Hoover south of Birmingham. The stadium was renovated in 2005 and remains an important site in professional baseball history.

• Regions Field, Birmingham’s new downtown baseball park, is located at the southwest corner of Railroad Park. The Birmingham Barons moved back to the city when the 8,500-seat stadium was completed. The project also includes a Negro Leagues Museum on 16th Street.

C. SUSTAINABILITY AND GREEN PRACTICES

The Birmingham community is making progress in incorporating green practices and sustainability thinking into everyday life.

1. City government is beginning to take steps to incorporate sustainability.

As part of the 2009 federal stimulus program, Alabama Power, UAB and Southern Company Services were awarded energy efficiency funding and the City of Birmingham was awarded an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant of $2,469,900 which was used to install

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

geothermal heat pumps in eight recreation centers. The Mayor has designated a staff member to be responsible for environmental initiatives.

2. Universities often take the lead in sustainability.

Colleges and universities around the country have been among the leaders in promoting sustainable practices for practical reasons—because they are long term stewards and users of buildings and sites—and as part of their educational role. Green initiatives at UAB provide an example of local efforts. The 2011 College Sustainability Report Card program gave UAB an overall “C” grade for sustainability, but the institution is making progress by establishing new efforts and programs. UAB initiatives include:

• First greenhouse gas emissions inventory is underway
• Rooftop solar panels to charge electric vehicles on campus
• Four buildings meet LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a green-building certification program) criteria, and there is a green roof on the Hulsey Center
• Use of water conservation technologies and practices
• Use of energy conservation technologies and practices for lighting and mechanical equipment
• GreenLight—sustainability-themed student living
• Bike paths on major campus arteries
• Bike sharing program with 10 bikes
• Partners with CommuteSmart
• Car-sharing program through Hertz
• Endowment invested in renewable energy funds

In early 2012, UAB held a sustainability conference and announced the establishment of the Sustainability Smart Cities Research Center, with plans to focus some of its efforts on Birmingham.

3. Birmingham offers recycling.

The City of Birmingham’s Public Works Department provides curbside and drop off recycling for most single-family detached dwellings but lacks recycling-specific trucks that can make the process much more efficient. Tenants in multifamily buildings are less likely

to recycle because building management must provide the opportunity. The Alabama Environmental Center has long provided drop off services at its Downtown Recycling Center and special events such as an electronics recycling day. In late 2011, it received a grant through the Jefferson County Department of Health to expand recycling services including glass and office paper pickup service for Downtown Birmingham, expanding UAB’s recycling program, purchasing 20,000 curbside recycling bins for Birmingham residents, and providing recycling at events and festivals. It is also notable that over 90% of the debris from the April 2011 tornado was recycled.

4. Alternative energy sources.

Alabama has some limited incentives for energy efficiency and alternative energy. The state has an opportunity to enhance its existing incentives.

5. Green building design is becoming more widespread.

Like their counterparts throughout the country, architects and developers in the Birmingham region are increasingly incorporating green building practices that reduce energy and resource use in new development, and designing buildings that meet LEED standards. LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design and is a certification program created by the US Green Building Council. There are several LEED-certified buildings in the City of Birmingham, including the Ruffner Mountain Nature Center, a dormitory at Birmingham-Southern College, and the APCO Employee Credit Union, and some new buildings meet LEED criteria without certification.

The Birmingham Airport’s renovations will include state of the art green elements including greater use of natural sunlight; energy-efficient LED lights and sensors; harvesting rainwater for use in toilets and urinals; solar water heating; recycling of construction materials; energy-efficient heating and air conditioning; use of native, drought-resistant plants in landscaping; and green housekeeping and maintenance practices. Despite a doubling of the size of the terminal, it is expected that these “green” aspects of the renovations will cut water costs by 40%.

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

6. Urban agriculture is expanding.

Urban agriculture is a growing national movement, especially in cities with vacant land, to strengthen local food systems and public health, and to bring environmentally sustainable uses to vacant land. Birmingham is the site of one of the most well-known urban farms in the country, the Jones Valley Teaching Farm. It is both a production farm that sells produce through farmers markets, community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs, and sales to upscale restaurants, and an educational program for youth and the community at large that provides experiential learning about sustainable agriculture and nutrition. In addition to Jones Valley Teaching Farm, there are several community garden sites in Birmingham neighborhoods, such as the West End Community Garden.

7. Green infrastructure is becoming more widespread.

Green infrastructure in the broadest sense includes all the interconnected natural systems that keep the environment healthy. The term is increasingly used to refer to the use of natural systems for stormwater management, including swales, rain gardens, detention ponds, pervious pavement, and constructed wetlands. The purpose is to promote natural infiltration of stormwater rather than transfer it through pipes to streams. Much of the city’s stormwater system is in traditional storm sewer pipes, but Birmingham’s flood-mitigation projects are creating a green infrastructure system in the floodplain of the major creeks.

4. Housing and Neighborhoods

A. HOUSING

1. The majority of Birmingham homes are single family houses.

Nearly two-thirds of the housing units in the City of Birmingham are single-family houses. An additional 23% percent of the units are in small to medium sized multifamily buildings with fewer than 20 units, and only 10% (approximately 10,000 units) are in buildings with 20 or more units.

SOURCE: CENSUS BUREAU

2. City of Birmingham households are almost equally divided between owners and renters.

Forty-nine percent own their housing units and 51% rent. In the Birmingham-Hoover metropolitan area as a whole, about 71% of households are owners and 29% are renters. There is often an assumption that a higher percentage of owners rather than renters is always preferable because homeowners have a stake in keeping up the neighborhood. Birmingham’s greater proportion of renters is not unusual for urban centers, nor does a high rental rate always

⬚ figure

SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

correlate with lower incomes. In Table 3.20, Boston and Washington, DC, (which are growing cities) have higher percentages of rentals than cities such as Birmingham and Pittsburgh, which continue to decline in population. The cities of Youngstown, OH, and Flint, MI, which are often identified as true “shrinking cities,” actually have lower percentages of rentals than many growing cities.

3. Nearly 20% of housing units are vacant.

While there are nearly 109,000 housing units in the City of Birmingham, only 82% were occupied at the time of the 2010 census. Some of these were units on the market for rent or for sale, but nearly 8,000 were not being marketed at all. Moreover, the 2011 Jefferson County assessor’s list shows 10,812 tax delinquent properties “in the hands of the state” located in the City. This is 42% more than the 7,546 tax delinquent properties found only five years earlier in a 2005 study.¹ The tax liens on these properties were brought to auction and not sold. The owners may redeem these properties for another three years. Some of these are vacant lots, and therefore not counted as housing units, and a small percentage are non-residential properties.

SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS 2010

4. Market-rate housing in Birmingham is affordable compared to many other cities—but many people need “affordable” housing that is below market rate.

Housing is typically defined as “affordable” when a household pays no more than 30 percent of its income for housing-related costs. For rental housing, this figure includes rent and utility expenses; for homeowners, it includes mortgage payments, taxes and insurance. The “no more than 30% of income” standard is used by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for its housing programs.

A wide variety of people need below-market affordable housing. They include persons on fixed incomes (the elderly and disabled), working individuals and families who earn low wages, and homeless and special-needs populations with supportive-service needs. In Birmingham, this group can include people like restaurant workers, maintenance workers, retail salespersons, and health care aides. Members of these households are productive members of the area workforce and essential to some key economic sectors, such as health care.

5. The housing market in much of the city is weak.

Much of Birmingham has long been a “weak market” city, experiencing declining real estate values as a result of years of population decline and disinvestment. The national housing and foreclosure crisis that began in late 2007 has exacerbated these conditions. The areas that typically have stronger residential markets are the southside neighborhoods. In-town neighborhoods and northern neighborhoods tend to have lower values than other parts of the city. According to the real estate website Trulia.com, the sales price of City of Birmingham homes has declined 27.5% over the last five years (in contrast to a national decline of 11% and statewide decline of 16%). From September to November 2011, the median sales price for homes in the city was $116,000.²

Although much of Birmingham’s housing is relatively old, age alone is not the issue, as the values of many historic neighborhoods demonstrate. However, in weak market

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

⬚ figure SOURCE: TRULIA

neighborhoods, the older housing is often small, does not meet the needs of modern households, and has not been maintained. For too long, investing in improvements has been more costly than the value of the house itself. Except for scattered infill housing and small subdivisions in the southside neighborhoods and a few other locations, new market rate housing development during the 2000–2010 decade occurred primarily in the city center as urban rental housing, and in the Oxmoor area, where several suburban-style subdivisions were built. Building permits for single-family homes have declined from 313 in 2006 to 117 in 2010, with an average cost of construction of $171,402. As mentioned earlier, market rate rentals are under development as of early 2012.

According to real estate professionals, one of the difficulties in the city real estate market is that there are a number of stable subareas of neighborhoods where housing is in good condition and can attract buyers, but where appraisals for mortgages are based on a wider area that includes disinvested blocks. As a result, even after the buyer and seller have agreed on a price—clearly the “market price”—the appraisal will be lower, which then pushes values down.

6. The median household can afford to buy the median house for sale in the Birmingham region.

The Alabama Center for Real Estate’s Housing Affordability Index for the second quarter of 2011 found that the median sales price for a single-family house in the Birmingham-Hoover MSA was $148,732, requiring a minimum household income of $30,127 to buy the house at prevailing mortgage rates. This was the approximate median income in the City of Birmingham in 2009, indicating that the median household could afford the median house in the region.

7. The foreclosure crisis has also had a significant impact on the Birmingham market.

A snapshot of the housing market as of late December 2011, showed 1,539 homes listed for sale in the City of Birmingham, of which the most expensive was priced at over $600,000 in Crestwood and the least expensive (a two-bedroom, 800 sf home) was priced at $2,800 in Wahouma. Thirty-eight percent of the homes listed for sale on Trulia.com were in foreclosure, including the property in Wahouma. Twenty-five houses were for sale at less than $10,000. December is the usual low point for housing sales. Six months later in June 2012, two houses were selling for over $1 million in Forest Park.

There is a range of rental housing available in the City of Birmingham, including single-family homes, townhouses, and apartments. A recent report calculated that a household making the estimated average hourly wage for a renter ($12.46/hr) could afford a rent of $663 a month. A minimum wage earner ($7.25/hr or approximately $15,000 per year full time) could afford rent of $377 a month.¹

8. There continues to be a high need for subsidized affordable housing in the city.

According to the most recent Census Bureau estimates, 41% of City of Birmingham homeowners and 50% of renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Nearly 30% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on housing. Assisted-housing programs have many technical requirements. In most, households pay no more than 30% of their income, and the government pays the difference. Standard definitions are based on an "area median income" (AMI) that is calculated annually by HUD for metropolitan areas. The FY 2012 AMI for a household of four persons in the Birmingham-Hoover area is $61,400. Most HUD programs target households with 80% or below the AMI, adjusted for household size. For a family of four in the Birmingham-Hoover area, that would be $50,250. Because incomes within the City of Birmingham tend to be lower than in the rest of the metro area, assisted housing programs in the city typically serve households at 50% or below the area median.

Assisted housing programs. Government programs have been created to help people obtain decent, affordable homes. "Assisted housing" is housing that is made available at below-market cost through government programs to households who meet income-eligibility requirements. The role of housing assistance varies according to the strength of the local housing market and the cost of housing. In high-cost markets, subsidies are required if affordable housing is to exist at all. In weak and/or low-cost housing markets, like many parts of Birmingham, many market-rate housing units—both rental and ownership units—are inexpensive and meet the standard for affordability for many low-income households. While a segment of Birmingham's market-rate housing inventory, both rental and ownership, is very affordable, much of it is in poor condition.

Assisted housing programs in Birmingham are administered primarily by the Housing Authority of Birmingham District (HABD) and the City's Community Development Department. Nonprofit organizations also provide some housing assistance. Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV, previously known as "Section 8") provide federal funds to make up the difference between what a tenant can afford to pay (30% of income) and the monthly rent, up to limits set annually by HUD. Tenants with vouchers are not tied to a particular location, and the holder of the voucher can go anywhere in the United States to rent a place to live. In practice, most remain in the City of Birmingham. In 2011, HABD owned or managed 5,531 public housing units of which 3,534 were occupied, and managed 4,933 Housing Choice Vouchers. There are 14 public housing developments with an average of 331 units each. HABD has successfully transformed several public housing developments into mixed-income developments through the federal government's HOPE VI program. HABD has planned a program of improvements and modernization for many of the authority's developments and is pursuing funding for large scale redevelopment along the lines of HOPE VI for four public housing developments. As of 2011, the average annual income of public housing households was $9,249.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program. Through 2007, 51 housing projects (16 with new construction) in the city had been redeveloped or newly constructed with the aid of federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits.¹ Tax credits are the major source of financing for mixed-income projects around the country, and in Birmingham they have created 3,574 affordable units (901 new) and 148 market-rate units (all new).

City of Birmingham housing programs. The Community Development Department manages housing programs focused on homeownership including down payment and closing cost assistance; deferred loans (up to $25,000) and grants (up to $600 for critical repairs, which can be requested by the same resident again every three years); and loans to upgrade and rehabilitate substandard or multifamily housing. The department receives a total of about $5.5 million a year in federal funds for homeownership, rehabilitation and supportive housing programs. Because housing resources are limited and the need is great, they are provided only to households with very low incomes (30% of AMI or below) and the resources are spread throughout the city.

Nonprofit housing partners. Community-based non-profits that partner with the City and others to provide permanent and temporary housing opportunities include Habitat for Humanity; Worldchangers Rehabilitation; Rising West Princeton; the YWCA; First Light; Cooperative Downtown Ministries; Aletheia House; BEAT (Bethel Ensley Action task Force); and the Interfaith Hospitality House.

Homelessness is a significant problem in Birmingham. One Roof, a coalition of homeless program providers, estimates that 7,500 to 9,000 people in Jefferson, Shelby and St. Clair counties experience homelessness at some point in a year. The 2011 annual one-night survey found 1,950 homeless persons (with slightly more than half in shelters), of whom 536 were chronically homeless. Family and teen/youth vulnerability to homelessness is a problem. Chronically homeless persons often suffer from substance abuse, severe mental illness or both. Studies have found that providing housing and supportive services for chronically homeless persons is less expensive than the hospital, mental health, and legal system costs that result when they access services on an emergency basis. The City of Birmingham, following national policy, has adopted a “Housing First” plan focused on providing housing and supportive services.

B. NEIGHBORHOODS

Birmingham neighborhood identities are based on the city’s history of annexing independent towns and, more recently, the development of subdivisions. The older neighborhood identities predate their absorption into the city, and Birmingham residents have a very strong sense of neighborhood. In the 1970s, residents created a system of neighborhoods with identified boundaries grouped in “communities” made up of two or more neighborhoods. There are now 99 recognized neighborhoods and 23 communities. These groupings have not been significantly changed since the 1970s, except to add new neighborhoods and communities.

1. Birmingham’s Citizen Participation Plan was one of the first in the nation.

The changes in the city as a result of the civil rights struggle and requirements for federal funding led to a neighborhood planning process in the 1970s and the creation of the City’s Citizen Participation Plan, one of the first in the nation. The neighborhood and community system mentioned above was created at this time (See Figure 3.22). Neighborhood leaders are elected by residents, these leaders then meet in the 23 communities to elect community leaders, and then these leaders make up the Community Advisory Board.

The program focused for many years on how federal community development funds were to be distributed among neighborhoods, with a guaranteed minimum amount for every neighborhood to be used for projects or events in the neighborhood. The Department of Community Development and the Mayor’s Office of Citizen Assistance remain the major liaisons with the neighborhood/community system, but funding for neighborhood activities and capacity building has become scarce. Federal community development funds for the City of Birmingham have declined by 46% since 1980, while the general fund budget has increased by over 400% in the same thirty years. At the same time, population loss has changed the profile of many neighborhoods. The decline in funding and population has weakened the effectiveness of the citizen participation program.

2. Commercial Revitalization Districts are intended to promote good design.

There are 28 Commercial Revitalization Districts established by ordinance. Many cover downtown and adjacent areas but the city’s traditional neighborhood centers and shopping strips on major arterials are included. Projects in these districts are subject to design review and, in many cases, offer rebates for façade and other improvements.

3. The Main Street Program targets nine commercial districts.

The Main Street revitalization program, which was developed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, has a four-point approach:

• Organization: Volunteer committees, usually anchored in merchants’ associations, govern the program and do much of the work.

• Promotion: Marketing, events and other campaigns create a positive image for the area.

• Design: Physical improvements and attractive design create an appealing environment for shoppers, workers, and residents.

• Economic Restructuring: A competitive and balanced commercial mix meets consumer needs and brings new businesses into vacant or underutilized spaces.

The Birmingham Main Street Program is a nonprofit organization that typically has received about half its funding from the City. Unlike most Main Street programs, many of the Birmingham districts lack a strong merchant association and volunteer base and cannot support Main Street managers. Because of funding constraints and neighborhood conditions, the Birmingham program has focused efforts on Woodlawn (where the program office is located), Avondale, East Lake and Ensley. Dependent on City funding and grants, the program has focused on renovating space and marketing it to creative businesses and on creating a distribution system for fresh food. As of spring 2012, Birmingham Main Street has merged with Operation New Birmingham to form REV Birmingham.

4. Widespread scattered blight and vacancy is a huge challenge.

Blight, inadequate housing, and environmental concerns are not peculiar to recent decades in Birmingham. As noted earlier, nearly half of Birmingham housing had no indoor plumbing in 1950 and the city had no housing code until 1957, when it was adopted under federal pressure as a condition of receiving urban renewal funds. The city’s early development pattern of workers’ camps and villages surrounding mines and plants sometimes left a legacy of environmental issues. Black neighborhoods under segregation typically had poor housing conditions and few amenities. Although by 1990 almost all of Birmingham’s housing units were connected to the water and sewer systems, the upheavals and economic dislocations of the previous three decades had produced a legacy of vacancy and housing deterioration. The large number of tax-delinquent properties in the hands of the state, as mentioned earlier, is a critical issue for revitalization. Figure 3.25 shows that tax-delinquent properties are widely distributed across city neighborhoods.

5. The lack of grocery stores has become symbolic of limited neighborhood-serving retail and services in many parts of Birmingham.

With high rates of obesity and related illnesses, such as diabetes, in the population, Jefferson County and the City of Birmingham are focusing on promoting healthy lifestyles. A recent study commissioned by Main Street Birmingham found that the eastern and northern parts of the city can be considered a “food desert” because of the lack of full service grocery stores, and that a much larger portion of the city lacks “food balance,” which is defined as having closer access to fast food vendors than to a grocery store. Another study that included data from Birmingham, concluded that access to fast food was a stronger indicator of poor food choices than the presence or absence nearby of a grocery store. In any case, grocery stores are often the anchor stores of neighborhood shopping areas and attract smaller retailers that serve residents.

TABLE 3.10: TAX-DELINQUENT AND VACANT PROPERTIES CITYWIDE

SOURCE: CITY OF BIRMINGHAM (JEFFERSON COUNTY ASSESSOR, 2010 DATA)

⬚ figure

FIGURE 3.22: CITY OF BIRMINGHAM NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

FIGURE 3.23: COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION DISTRICTS

⬚ figure

FIGURE 3.24: MAIN STREET PROGRAM

⬚ figure

3.38

PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

FIGURE 3.25: TAX DELINQUENT AND VACANT PARCELS

⬚ figure

3.39

FIGURE 3.26: GROCERY STORES

⬚ figure

C. HISTORIC RESOURCES

Birmingham has 146 individual sites and multi-site historic districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places, including three National Historic Landmarks: Bethel Baptist Church, Sloss Furnaces, and the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church. There are 40 National Register Historic Districts with multiple properties, and special groups, including ten historic fire stations and three historic apartment hotel groupings. National Register listing is an honor but only requires that the federal government evaluate and mitigate any impacts that result from federal projects. Otherwise, property owners are free to alter or demolish listed properties, as long as they comply with state and local law (including local historic district regulations).

Like other cities, Birmingham has also designated nine local historic districts. In these nine local historic districts, property owners have agreed to a design review regulatory process based on an adopted Historic Preservation Plan in order to protect the historic character of a defined area from inappropriate alterations, additions and demolition. The City’s Design Review Committee is the regulatory body. Buildings or districts listed on the National Register, eligible for listing, or meeting state legislative criteria, may be designated as local historic districts.

A list of historic resources in Birmingham can be found in Chapter 4 of the City of Birmingham Data Book prepared by the City’s Department of Planning, Engineering and Permits for the comprehensive plan process as an adjunct to the plan.

5. Prosperity and Opportunity

Although the iron and steel industry that created Birmingham still has a presence in the city, it began declining after World War II, and by the 1980s the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) was already the city’s biggest employer. The transition from manufacturing to services as the city’s economic base and the diversification of the city’s economy has been underway for 50 years.

A. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

1. The city remains the largest employment center in the region.

The City of Birmingham is increasingly facing competition from other communities in the metropolitan area and the nation and some of the local industries with high concentrations of employment are also industries that show significant employment declines in 2000–2010. Retaining existing economic assets and expanding the number of jobs is a critical task for the city’s future.

Employment in the City of Birmingham declined during the 2000–2010 decade in contrast to growth in the Birmingham region as a whole as well as the state and the nation. While all of these areas have lost jobs since the Great Recession of 2008-9, Birmingham’s decline has been more severe. At the same time, the city’s employment decline of four percent during the decade was only about one-third as great as its population decline, indicating some degree of strength in its economic base.

Birmingham’s health care industry is its largest single industry by a wide margin. The industry has experienced strong growth during the past decade, particularly in its ambulatory care segment. It also employs more Birmingham residents than any other industry. Other important industries are retail, “other services” (notably personal household services and religious organizations), finance and insurance, and professional, technical and scientific services.

Employment trends among industries show a mixture of growth and decline. The strongest growth has occurred in “other services,” health care, management of companies and enterprises (e.g., corporate offices), and finance and insurance, while the most severe declines have occurred in manufacturing, construction, information, and retail.

Local industries in the strongest competitive position, as measured by relatively high concentrations of employment, include utilities, information, management of companies and enterprises, health care, and wholesale trade. However, utilities, information, and wholesale trade experienced high

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

FIGURE 3.27: JOBS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, BY INDUSTRY, 2010 ⬚ figure SOURCE: EMSI

rates of employment decline during the 2000–2010 decade, indicating a declining role in the city’s economic base.

Among the regional target industries identified in the Birmingham Business Alliance’s (BBA) Blueprint Birmingham, the city is in the strongest position in health care, finance and insurance, biological and medical technology, and arts, recreation, and tourism, with some potential niche opportunities in diverse manufacturing.

The city economy has a diverse occupational structure with a mix of jobs by skill and wage levels. The largest occupational categories are office and administrative support, sales, health care practitioners, and management. The fastest growing occupations are personal care and service, business and financial operations, education, and health care practitioners.

Over the last decade, the number of middle income jobs has declined, with growth at both ends of the wage spectrum (although much higher growth at the low end.)

B. THE CITY WORKFORCE

1. Birmingham has many challenges in workforce development and reducing disparities.

A competitive city and region for the Next Economy depends on a skilled and educated workforce. Because of lower educational and skill levels, city residents, particularly African-Americans, are less likely to hold the higher-paid jobs in the city than residents of other communities in the region.

City residents are more likely to be unemployed than residents of the region as a whole. They are also more likely to be outside the labor force altogether than their peers elsewhere in the region, the state, or the region. These differences are especially significant for African-American residents of the city.

City residents are employed in a wide range of industries and occupations. Among industries, they are most likely to be employed in health care, followed by retail, education, manufacturing, and accommodation and food services. Among occupations, they are most likely to be employed in office and administrative support, followed by sales, transportation and material moving, food

3.42

preparation and serving, and production. Residents employed in some of these occupations, including office and administrative support, transportation and material moving, and production, may be vulnerable to job loss since city employment in these occupations has declined significantly over the past decade.

In general, city residents are somewhat more likely to be represented in lower-wage occupations and less likely to be represented in higher-wage occupations.

Educational attainment among Birmingham residents is somewhat lower than their peers at both the regional and national levels. A lower percentage of residents 25 and older have obtained high school diplomas, although the difference is not great. The more substantial differences are in the proportion of residents who have obtained post-secondary degrees, which are increasingly a key to obtaining well- paying jobs.

Lower educational attainment and employment levels have contributed to income disparities between Birmingham residents and their peers at the regional and national level. Birmingham households earn considerably lower incomes and experience higher poverty rates. Among Birmingham residents, the non-white population earns considerably less income and experiences higher poverty rates than whites.

Occupations of Birmingham residents vary significantly by race and ethnicity. Whites tend to be much more heavily represented in management and professional occupations than other racial and ethnic groups.

FIGURE 3.28: JOBS HELD BY CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RESIDENTS, BY INDUSTRY, 2009

⬚ figure

SOURCE: EMSI

Educational attainment varies significantly by race. More than double the percentage of whites has obtained bachelor’s or graduate degrees than either African-Americans or Hispanics.

Unlike many mature cities with declining populations, Birmingham has not seen a disproportionate aging of its population relative to the region or the nation. In fact, it actually has a higher proportion of residents in the prime working-age 25–44 year age group.

C. INCOMES AND EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

1. City residents have lower incomes and higher poverty rates on average than other residents of the region and the nation.

Incomes. Lower occupational skills and education attainment levels typically correlate with lower incomes. Income levels in the City of Birmingham are considerably lower than the average for the Birmingham-Hoover MSA and the nation. Among all Birmingham households, the median income in 2009 was $30,000, 68 percent of the MSA average, and only 61 percent of the U.S. average. Among family households, the median income of $39,700 lagged the MSA and national by similar ratios. Per capita incomes were also lower, but by smaller ratios, suggesting that some of the differences in median incomes may be accounted for by smaller household and family sizes in the city.

Poverty. Poverty rates are also substantially higher in Birmingham. The city’s poverty rate of 28 percent in 2009 was almost double the MSA and national rates, which were about equal. Approximately 40 percent of children under 18 live in poverty. Income levels and poverty rates in Birmingham vary considerably by race and ethnicity, with whites having significantly higher incomes and lower poverty rates than other groups.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

2. Although fewer city residents overall have a post-high school degree, residents in the 25-34 age group are more likely to have post-secondary education than their peers in the region and the nation.

Education. City of Birmingham adults 25 or over are slightly less likely to have a high school diploma than adults in the region or the country. They are substantially less likely to have a post-high school degree: 71 percent of Birmingham residents 25 and over have not obtained a post-secondary degree. The percentage of Birmingham residents with at least an associate’s degree is only 85 percent of the MSA average and 83 percent of the national average. The differentials in higher-level degree attainment are even higher. At the graduate or professional level, the percentage of Birmingham residents who have obtained a degree is 75 percent of the MSA average and 67 percent of the U.S. average.

However, there is a positive trend, because city residents in the 25–34 age group are more likely than older residents to hold post-secondary degrees, including bachelor’s and graduate degrees. In fact, Birmingham actually outperforms the nation in this regard, which has seen a decline in educational attainment from the 35–44 age group to the 25–34 age group.

Disparities in educational attainment. Educational attainment varies significantly by race. Twenty percent of African-Americans and 46 percent of Hispanics age 25 and over have not graduated from high school compared to 20 percent of whites. Conversely, 38 percent of whites have received a bachelor’s or graduate degree compared to 14 percent of African-Americans and 15 percent of Hispanics. Asians are far more likely than all other groups to have reached this level.

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

FIGURE 3.31: MEDIAN INCOME

⬚ figure

FIGURE 3.32: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR BIRMINGHAM POPULATION BY AGE GROUP, 2009

⬚ figure

SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS, AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY, 2009

FIGURE 3.33: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR POPULATION, 2009: BIRMINGHAM, BIRMINGHAM-HOOVER MSA, AND U.S.

⬚ figure

SOURCE: U.S. CENSUS, AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY, 2009

3.45

6. Strengthening City Systems and Networks

A. TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY

1. The City of Birmingham and the entire metropolitan area is extremely car dependent and development over recent decades has made it more so.

While the City of Birmingham remains the major employment center, development outside of the city means that residents of the Birmingham metropolitan area drive approximately 34 miles a day—the fourth highest average daily mileage in the United States at a cost of $133 a week or nearly $7,000 a year. The most traffic congested corridors are I-65 and US-280, which bring commuters to the city center.

In 1970, nearly 11% of all trips in the City of Birmingham were by transit, while in 2009 the corresponding number was 2.5%. Increasing traffic congestion, rising gasoline prices, downtown housing growth, and greater interest in healthy lifestyles have all begun to spark more interest in transportation alternatives. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has completed numerous plans that would enhance transit and increase options for bicycling and walking. Regional leadership organizations, such as the Birmingham Business Alliance, have expressed support for the expansion of transit.

Roadways. There are 2,337 miles of roadway within the city. Roadway projects within or near the city include:

• Corridor X/Interstate 22. This new interstate begins at US-31 and will link the city with Memphis. It is expected to be completed in 2014.
• I-20/-I-59 project. Although a feasibility study has been completed on the concept of lowering I-20 at the I-59 interchange downtown, Alabama DOT is focused on rehabilitation of the elevated highway.
• Northern Beltline project. A proposal to construct a 52-mile interstate through northern Jefferson County to fully connect the interstate system serving the City of Birmingham is popularly known as the Northern Beltline.

2. Birmingham has the largest transit system in Alabama, but needs improvement in reliability and a dedicated funding source.

Birmingham falls well below the U.S. average transit mode share of 5% and faces many barriers, such as lack of coordination, local support, and funding, that prevent transit from improving. The net effect is a chronic inability of BJCTA to effectively make the most of the resources that are available. Surveys shows that the current system is viewed as unreliable, unappealing, and transportation of last resort. However, within the city, an estimated 13,307 households do not have access to a private vehicle. At the average household size of 2.7 persons, this could cover as many as 30,000 persons. It has been estimated that while

⬚ figure

TABLE 3.11: TRANSPORTATION MODE SHARE COMPARISONS, 2009

98% of the zero-vehicle households were located near a bus stop, bus routes gave them access to only 29% of the jobs in the region.¹ Inexpensive parking downtown, which can cost as little as $3 per day, as well as the unreliability of the circulator trolley, both function as disincentives to trolley ridership for those who have a choice. With a transit mode share to work of about 2.5% (in 2009), half the U.S. average, the city still has the highest mode share of any municipality in Alabama. Despite a decrease in ridership since 2004, participants in the comprehensive plan process placed an improved transit system among the highest priorities for the city’s future.

Bus and paratransit. Public transportation by bus is provided by the Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority (BJCTA) in 38 fixed routes (of which 34 are within the city), as well as a door to door demand-response service for disabled persons. This is the largest transit system in the state of Alabama. The fixed route system is radial, focused on downtown, though a few routes act as circulators within neighborhoods. Bus headways (the time between service) are typically 30–60 minutes. Additional paratransit service for senior citizen and disabled populations are provided by a number of nonprofit agencies, with ClasTran (Central Alabama Specialized Transportation) consortium of agencies as the primary provider. Buses operate on compressed natural gas (CNG) and have bicycle carriers.

Operational funding for the bus system is limited to fares and funding from local jurisdictions. Unlike most regional transit agencies, BJCTA receives no state funds for operations. (Alabama is one of four states that give no funds for transit.) The City of Birmingham is required to pay 10% of its property tax for transit, Jefferson County is required to pay a smaller percentage of property taxes according to a formula, and other municipalities that desire transit service pay according to a formula based on cost per hour times the number of service hours. Additional small amounts of funding come from a portion of the beer tax and proceeds earned from the Birmingham Racing Commission. Funding for capital expenses is available from the federal government but a local match is generally required. Even when federal funds have been appropriated, the local match has not always been forthcoming.

A recent study included the BJCTA in an analysis done for the Memphis transit system of peer transit systems.² The other systems were Jacksonville (FL), Tampa (FL), Louisville (KY), Norfolk (VA), Charlotte (NC), Dayton (OH), Nashville (TN), and Columbus (OH). The City of Birmingham had the third lowest average population density of core cities within this group (only higher than Nashville and Jacksonville). In comparison to these transit systems, the BJCTA had the lowest transit usage per capita (4.4 unlinked passenger trips per capita compared to a peer average of 16.4), the highest operating cost per passenger trip ($8.15 compared to the peer average of $5.37), the highest operating cost per passenger mile ($1.53 compared to the peer average of $1.11), and the highest subsidy per trip ($7.33 compared to the peer average of $4.40).³

Visionary transit plans. The Birmingham regional MPO has created a long-range vision for a regional transit system for six major corridors in the region. It distinguishes commuter and circulator service types and introduces the concept of superstops. This would change today’s system, which requires that every route travel through the downtown Central Station where passengers can make transfers, to a system where transfers can be made at several superstop. This would improve efficiency and convenience for most riders. Two projects with more detailed planning are:

• The In-Town Transit Partnership (ITP) Project. ITP is a transportation plan for downtown and adjacent neighborhoods designed to connect key destinations in the City Center, including the UAB/Hospital District, and

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

Five Points South, the Birmingham-Jefferson Convention Center and proposed Entertainment District, the new Intermodal Center, government buildings, arts and culture destinations, the Civil Rights District and the Entrepreneurial District. The plan includes dedicated bus lanes (eventually to serve as part of a regional Bus Rapid Transit system), amenities at bus stops, and connector routes to link with surrounding adjacent neighborhoods. It is intended to support new development and redevelopment in the city center around transit stops. Funding for this project has not been identified and it currently lacks the champions from the downtown community to move it forward.

• Southwest Corridor Transit Study. Underway in 2012, this study will analyze ways to improve transit (with a focus on a potential Bus Rapid Transit line) on the US-11/Bessemer Highway corridor from downtown towards McCalla.

Inter-Modal Center. The Birmingham Intermodal Transit Facility, in planning since the mid-1980s, is advancing to construction. The downtown center will include the BJCTA, intercity bus (Greyhound), intercity passenger rail (AMTRAK), bicycle amenities, taxi and car and van pool services, as well as a structured and surface parking.

3. Policy and planning initiatives seek to improve the generally poor conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists.

The Birmingham metropolitan area has attracted unfavorable attention as a biking and walking region:

The ninth most dangerous city in the nation for pedestrians.¹ Among the three worst cities for bicycling.² Sixteenth out of 54 metro areas in preventable pedestrian deaths over the last decade.³

The city as a whole has a “Walk Score®” of 40 (the top score is 100), meaning that on average, there are few amenities within walking distance. (Selma and Florence are the only other cities in Alabama with a walk score as high as 40.) However, downtown Birmingham’s zip code, 35203, has a walk score of 94, earning it the description, “walker’s paradise.”⁴ Walk Score® ranks communities based on concentration of and walkable proximity to daily needs such as businesses, schools, entertainment, and parks rather than the walking environment. The ability to walk to destinations spans the extremes in Birmingham; from suburban-style neighborhoods at the edge of the city that lack nearby amenities to the walker’s paradise downtown. A measure of the walking environment itself, Pedestrian Level of Service, which considers the quality of the walking environment, such as crosswalks, lighting, and shade, has not been calculated for Birmingham.

Bicycle facilities are also limited though there is growing interest in bicycle travel, as evidenced by the new UAB and Alabama Power bike-sharing programs and the Red Rock Ridge and Valley Trail System Plan. There are three roadway segments in Birmingham with striped bike lanes or marked shared lanes totaling less than 1.4 miles (sections of 7th Avenue South, and 16th Street South). In 1996, the MPO adopted the “Birmingham Area Bicycle, Pedestrian & Greenway Plan.” The MPO has updated this plan with the “2035 Birmingham Regional Active Transportation Plan: A Strategic Plan for Walkways and Bikeways in Jefferson and Shelby Counties” (in draft form as of August 2011).

The Birmingham Planning Commission has adopted a “Complete Streets” policy, advisory to the City and the MPO, to promote street and streetscape design that accommodates all users.

4. Inter-city passenger rail, bus and air service is available in Birmingham.

AMTRAK offers daily passenger train service to Atlanta, New Orleans and New York, while Greyhound and Megabus provide inter-city bus service. The Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport, Alabama’s busiest airport, served nearly 3 million passengers in 2010 on 7 airlines with 120 flights per day to 50 cities. A $200+ million renovation of the airport is underway as of 2012.

3.48

5. Birmingham has major freight transportation connections of national importance.

Born at the intersection of two railroad lines, the City of Birmingham today is one of only seven cities nationwide where major East and West rail carriers meet, making it well-positioned for goods distribution to markets in the Midwest and Northeast. Three Class I railroads serve Birmingham: CSX, Norfolk Southern, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe. A short-line railroad, the Birmingham Southern Railroad Company, provides switching service in Birmingham on 84 miles of track. The Port of Birmingham (“Birmingport”) on the Black Warrior River is connected to the Port of Mobile on the Gulf of Mexico for imports and exports of bulk commodities. Commodities will also move between rail and truck at the Birmingham Regional Intermodal Facility being built in McCalla as part of Norfolk Southern’s Crescent Corridor rail expansion project stretching approximately 2,500 miles from New Orleans to Newark, Delaware. The renovation of the Birmingham airport includes a major expansion of its cargo capacity. In addition to these major freight facilities, there are a number of trucking companies located in the Birmingham area.

B. INFRASTRUCTURE

The City of Birmingham’s sewer, water and utility infrastructure is operated and maintained by entities other than the city. The only infrastructure, other than roads, owned and operated by city government is the storm drainage system and associated right-of-way. It is therefore extremely important that the City identify its interests and priorities related to infrastructure operated and maintained by other entities and participate fully, to the degree possible, in their management.

1. The city’s drinking water supply is controlled by the Birmingham Water Works Board, whose board is appointed by the City Council.

The Birmingham Water Works Board (BWWB) owns and operates the drinking water system that serves the city, as well as the rest of Jefferson County and four other counties. The BWWB was established in 1951 as an independent public utility, meaning that it operates independently of city government and finances operations and capital expenditures from its own revenues. The Board’s five members are appointed by the Birmingham City Council. Through 200,000 connections, the Water Works serves approximately 600,000 people. About half of its service is in the City of Birmingham. The system covers 759 square miles, has 3,966 miles of water pipes, can reliably produce 184 million gallons of water a day through four filtration plants, and has access to 289 million gallons of water per day from its four water sources. In addition, an industrial water supply network provides less treated and more inexpensive water for industrial uses. Water demand is projected to be about 222 million gallons per day by 2075. BWWB has an ongoing maintenance program, currently budgeted at $24 million annually, to replace and maintain current facilities. Since about half the system’s customers are in the city, approximately half of the maintenance budget is used for the system within the city.

After the severe droughts of 2000 and 2007, the BWWB began planning to make sure that the region would continue to have a reliable water supply. In addition to encouraging water conservation by the public and lowering the rate of water loss in the system, the BWWB is developing water wells to access untapped groundwater for use only during droughts. In addition, the Board is expanding its supply area to upper Holt Lake on the Black Warrior River. About three-quarters of the water is expected to be returned to the river as treated wastewater.

The only drinking water source located within the City of Birmingham is Lake Purdy, a 990-acre reservoir created in 1923 by damming the Little Cahaba River. The lake has a drainage area of only 43 square miles, and the Water Works Board has purchased much of the land around the lake to protect it from point and nonpoint pollution. Lake Purdy is typically used as a secondary source of water during the dry months.

Since 2008, development in the Cahaba River/Lake Purdy watershed has required approval from the BWWB in order to control pollution impacts from erosion, wastewater disposal, stormwater runoff, and use of toxic or hazardous substances. The watershed protection policy adopted by the BWWB includes prohibitions and controls on “key contaminating land uses,” performance standards for non-

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

point source pollution and private wastewater systems, a requirement for site development plans, identification of potential exemptions, and enforcement measures.

In conjunction with the BWWB’s policy, the City of Birmingham has also developed land use policies to protect the watershed from adverse impacts. Only low-impact development in conservation areas is allowed and vegetative buffers are required along streams.

2. The wastewater system is controlled by Jefferson County.

The Jefferson County Department of Environmental Management operates the sanitary and industrial wastewater collection and treatment facilities in the county. With 9 basins and wastewater treatment plants and 170 pumping stations, the system serves approximately 478,000 persons, including residents of the City of Birmingham.

Two of the sewer plants are located in the City of Birmingham:

• The Village Creek plant serves approximately 232,000 people, including most of the City of Birmingham. Treated effluent runs into Village Creek. The design capacity of the plant is 60 million gallons a day, which will be doubled to 120 million gallons a day.

• The Cahaba River plant serves approximately 38,200 people, mostly in the near southern suburbs of the city, and sends treated water to the Cahaba River.

3. Stormwater and drainage is the only major infrastructure system, except for local roads, for which the city government is directly responsible.

The stormwater system ranges from natural drainage ways to large multi-barreled reinforced concrete box culverts. The majority of the City’s storm sewer system drains to one of five main channels—the Cahaba River, Five Mile Creek, Shades Creek, Valley Creek or Village Creek. Valley and Village Creeks receive stormwater primarily from the urban core of the City. The Cahaba River, Five Mile Creek and Shades Creek collect water from areas that are more suburban in character.

Discharges to the City’s storm sewer system are regulated by the EPA’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which is administered by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). ADEM has issued the City a NPDES permit that regulates stormwater discharges. The conditions of the permit are enforced by the City of Birmingham’s Planning, Engineering and Permits Department. The City requires that all new construction projects meet the ADEM erosion control Best Management practices. Each set of construction plans and specifications must include Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control designs.

Within the City of Birmingham, the City’s Stormwater Management Division tests stormwater discharges periodically for the presence of pollutants of concern and to determine if pollution mitigation measures are having the desired effect on water quality.

Capital improvements generally consist of extensions of existing storm sewer systems. Maintenance is performed by the Department of Public Works. Maintenance measures range from brush removal from creek banks (regular cycle) to unclogging inlets (as needed or reported).

In order to control and mitigate pollutants from existing or potential development, especially on areas that are environmentally impaired or sensitive, the City of Birmingham relies on its Flood Mitigation/Stormwater Management Plan with regulations in zoning, subdivision controls, erosion controls, and building codes. Activities include reclamation of brownfields, floodplain property acquisition, establishment of parks, and restoration projects. As noted earlier, the BWWB Lake Purdy/Cahaba River Watershed Protection Policy is also focused on pollutant control and mitigation.

Although development regulations require that the post-development runoff rate equals the pre-development runoff rate, in general they do not focus as much on decreasing impervious surfaces or increasing permeability so that more stormwater infiltrates and is absorbed on site. Requiring that the rate of runoff not exceed pre-development conditions often results in the creation of detention ponds, which sometimes can be designed as amenities. However, this is not the same as low-impact

development that uses pervious surfaces, rain gardens and other strategies to limit the volume of stormwater runoff.

4. Utilities provide electric, gas, and telecommunications services in the city.

Electric and gas service. In general, all areas of the City of Birmingham have access to high quality electrical power suitable for industrial, commercial, business or residential applications. Electrical power is provided by the Alabama Power Company, a subsidiary of the Southern Company. Alabama Gas Company is the main supplier of natural gas within the city. These utilities are regulated by the state Public Service Commission.

Telephone, internet and network services. High Speed Internet, cellular voice and data services, landline local and long distance telephone, and cable television services are generally available throughout the Birmingham area from at least one service provider. Wired internet service is available in most locations within the city. High speed data service is available between Birmingham and most large cities by the national fiber optics network. Fiber and copper facilities along the major thoroughfares within Birmingham provide telephone and digital services to meet residential and business customer service need. AT&T/Bellsouth is the regulated provider of land line service. Mobile telephone service is available from all the major providers: AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, and Verizon, and cable or satellite TV choices include AT&T U-verse, Bright House, Charter, Comcast, DirecTV, and Time Warner.

Digital divide. National surveys indicate that internet access is increasing among minority populations and low-income populations. Data indicate that 71% of African-Americans and Latinos use the internet, compared to 83% of whites, and whites are more likely to have broadband access at home. As might be expected, internet use is lower for low-income households. Only 65% of households with incomes under $30,000 a year—which would include nearly half of households in the City of Birmingham—use the internet. Educational level also plays a role, with 45% of persons who lack a high school education using the internet.¹ The Birmingham library system has 292 computers for public use. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people who do not have direct access to a computer, especially teenagers and young adults, are increasingly acquiring smartphones that give them internet access, as well as text and apps—effectively skipping the home computer stage. Digital communication focused on smartphones is predicted to become increasingly widespread in the next five years.

C. FACILITIES AND SERVICES

1. Birmingham City Schools seek higher academic performance and stabilized enrollment.

In the school year 2011/12, Birmingham City Schools had an enrollment of 25,100 students, almost 10,000 fewer than in 2005, less than 10 years ago. In 1980, the system had about 50,000 students. The flight of families with children from Birmingham over the last decade, discussed earlier, is reflected in these numbers. Of the 51 active public schools, 11 have occupancy ratios of 50% or less, and almost all are operating at less than capacity. There are 12 vacant school buildings owned by the school system. A capital improvement program, based on a study that assumed 3% annual population growth, will result in several new schools, after which the system will have capacity for 37,364 students—plenty of room to grow from current enrollment. Declining enrollments result in declining funding as well.

A strategic plan for comprehensive curriculum, academic achievement and operational changes was put into place in 2010. The plan includes the following:

• Expanded pre-K program
• 7 career academies in 6 high schools with a total of 14 planned

  Areas: engineering, health science; architecture and design; urban educators; hospitality and tourism; business and finance; information technology; and law Preparation for industry certification tests Partnerships with companies/organizations across city

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART I | CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING BIRMINGHAM TODAY...FOR A BETTER BIRMINGHAM TOMORROW

• Every high school offers AP classes
• International Baccalaureate program at 2 schools
• Dropout Recovery Program for accelerated degrees for 17–21 year olds who have left school
• At-Risk program for students at risk of dropping out
• Summer Learning Opportunities
• Parent University
• Weekly professional development for all teachers
• Modernized technology

In addition, the school system added parent and community programs and has been collaborating with the Birmingham Education Foundation (ED), a nonprofit supported by foundation and corporate funding, to work with the school system and its stakeholders to improve public education in the city. Emerging from a community participation initiative to develop a public school improvement agenda sponsored by The Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham called Yes We Can!, ED has provided funding for career academies, has sponsored Parent Academies, and provided other support.

2. The Public Works Department maintains city property and manages solid waste.

The Department of Public Works has responsibility for maintaining city facilities and property, including landscaping, beautification, minor maintenance of right-of-way (ROW), public spaces and vacant lots, and application of herbicides and fertilizers using Integrated Pest Management (IPM). DPW is also responsible for mosquito abatement during the summer months, trash and garbage pickup, and management of the city landfills.

The seven divisions within the Public Works Department are:

• Facilities: maintenance of all city facilities

• Operations: trash and refuse collection, street cleaning, and the clearing of drainage

• Horticulture/Urban Forestry: grass mowing on city rights of way and vacant lots, and tree planting and pruning

• Code Enforcement: enforces codes and ordinances governing issues such as junk cars; dumping and trash/ debris; safety conditions in vacant buildings, etc.

• Minor Construction: demolition, constructing sidewalks, curbs and gutters

• Administration: payroll and personnel matters for the department

• Landfill: disposal of the trash, garbage and recycling

There are 1,100 employees in the Department of Public Works. The types of employees are administrative personnel, skilled laborers and unskilled laborers, refuse collectors, grass cutters, truck drivers, heavy equipment operators, guards, and landscape crew. The Department of Public Works has 2,000 vehicles in its inventory. The other equipment in the department are landscape, truck and brush, roll-off cutters, front end loaders, and rubber tire loaders. DPW equipment is used for double the average recommended life span (14–16 years instead of 7–8 years). Approximately $5 million is needed for new equipment.

The Code Inspectors and Environmental Officer within the Public Works Department enforce the City of Birmingham codes and ordinances which cover issues such as abandoned property, garbage disposal, inoperable vehicles, washing of vehicles, plumbing guidelines, junk and scrap on public ways, and the stewardship of ditches and gutters. Public Works is responsible for ensuring that vacant and abandoned properties do not become hazards or public nuisances. There are 15 Code Inspectors/Enforcers and one Environmental Officer with arrest authority.

The City does not have an operable asset management system tied to GIS with information on when city property was put in service, property conditions, maintenance schedules, and so on. Asset management systems have been found to save money in the long term.

3. The city’s two landfills are expected to have capacity for several decades.

The City of Birmingham Public Works Department collects, transports, and stores residential solid waste in the City. Residences have bi-weekly services for refuse and bi-monthly services for all other solid waste collection. The

City is divided into approximately 64 collection routes. Public Works also collects from small non-manufacturing businesses if they use less than 4 typical garbage containers per collection day. Other businesses and property owners contract with private haulers. No special restrictions are placed on transporters of waste, and they are free to travel all public streets and rights-of-way.

There are two municipally-owned landfills in the city:

• The New Georgia Landfill is located in the northern part of the City and accessible from Interstate 65 and US-31. New Georgia Landfill accepts nonhazardous waste from the city and Jefferson County with a maximum daily volume of 1,200 tons of waste. It consists of 616 acres with a municipal solid waste disposal area of 1 acres and a construction and demolition waste disposal area of 5 acres. The landfill has some infrastructure to recover methane gas.

• The Eastern Area Landfill in the eastern part of the city is accessible from Interstate 459, Interstate 59 and US-11. The landfill occupies 370 acres with a disposal area of 72 acres and accepts nonhazardous wastes up to a maximum average daily volume of 1,200 tons a day. Leachate is pumped into storage tanks and monitoring before being discharged to the sewer system

The city’s Solid Waste Master Plan was prepared assuming annual population growth of 3.5% based on a 2000 census population of 249,459. Given the decline in population during the 2000–2010 period and the fact that any population growth is likely to proceed more slowly than 3.5% per year, landfill capacity is expected to be sufficient well beyond the 20 year time horizon of this comprehensive plan, particularly if recycling increases. With the current daily 600 tons per day rate of disposal, the combined landfills have the airspace capacity to surpass the next 30 years.

4. Hazard mitigation planning focuses especially on tornado and flood hazards.

The City of Birmingham participates in the hazard mitigation planning process led by the Jefferson County Emergency Management Agency. The 2009 Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan includes the county’s Interim Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The plan contains long-term strategies for the following hazards: tornadoes, severe storms, floods, earthquakes, winter storms and freezes, droughts and heat waves, dam and levee failures, wildfires, landslides, and sinkholes.

The major hazard mitigation issues in the City of Birmingham are the ongoing floodplain program in the Village Creek and Valley Creek floodplains and the program to include construction of “safe rooms” in the rebuilding of Pratt City after the 2011 tornadoes, as well as other areas in the city’s “tornado alley.”

5. Public safety departments are modernizing their systems.

Police. A recent comparison of overall crime risk in major US cities based on an analysis of FBI data over the 2003-2009 period placed Birmingham as tied for third place with Orlando, FL.¹ The index is constructed so that an index of 100 is the average crime risk for American cities, meaning Birmingham, with an index of 380 in this period, had more than three times the risk of crime overall than the average city. The majority of crime in all of these cities is property crime. In an analysis of 2010 city crime rates by the Congressional Quarterly, Birmingham was listed as number 10, with St. Louis in the top spot.² Crime rates in Birmingham have been declining in recent years, with murders and robberies down about 40% and, as in every community, crime is a bigger problem in some parts of the city than others.

The Police Department is closer to full strength in 2012 than it has been in many years with 840 officers on the street and 60 in the police academy. A new precinct building is under construction at Five Points West for the West Precinct, one of four. The command staff has a monthly CompStat meeting to understand data and identify hot spots, and patrols meet weekly. Because of technology deficits, many staff still need to keep statistics by hand.

The Department does not have a strategic plan at present, but expects to prepare one, along with a manpower study

and a beat study. The community policing program has three elements: engage the community, make partnerships, and engage the media. The Community Services Division provides a civilian crime prevention officer in each precinct and 18 school resources officers. The civilian officers work with mentally disabled persons, among others, and a special program, Project SAFE (Stopping Abuse in the Family Environment), provides anger management and group counseling for domestic abusers.

Police department priorities include:

• New headquarters building downtown. The current facility has one unusable floor, inadequate support for technology for a full laboratory, and need for better physical security in the parking lot.

• New municipal jail. The current jail in Southside was built by inmates many years ago and is in poor condition. Discussions about solutions have included a regional jail, a state jail authority, or privatization.

• Improvements to precinct buildings. The East and South precincts have unfinished buildings and the North building needs rehabilitation.

• Creation of a fifth precinct for the downtown area. The precincts are very large geographically. If Birmingham’s West precinct were a city, it would be the sixth largest city in population in the state.

• Studies and a strategic plan needed. The department needs a beat study based on population changes, a manpower study, and an overall strategic plan.

• Technology and data. Police officers have laptops, but direct reporting is not possible. Collecting data is still very labor intensive. Federal grants have been obtained for some upgrades to records management. Computer aided dispatch is being installed in 2012.

• Vehicle shortage. The City does not have a vehicle rotation policy, so police run vehicles around the clock and sometimes have to wait at a shift change for the car. The department plans to start a small take-home program for officers who live in Birmingham, starting with five cars.

Fire. The Fire Department has 31 stations, with a 32nd to be built in Oxmoor Valley, and the Pratt City station damaged by the 2011 tornado. There is some overlap in service areas. There are approximately 200–250 calls per month per truck, and the average response time is 4 minutes. Fire stations are important community anchors and the department’s goal is to make every fire station a safe place for the surrounding community. Firemen attend all neighborhood association meetings and the associations help support the fire stations. The department’s Citizens Fire Academy trains citizens to assist in fire emergencies. The department pursues every grant possibility and is usually successful. Because of the many older, deteriorated buildings, as well as vacant and blighted properties in the city, there are many fires in Birmingham. Ensley, the West End, and some parts of East Birmingham have the most fires. There are two hazardous materials unit, including one that is available to the entire region.

Department priorities include:

• Newer vehicles and apparatus
• Additional manpower
• Facility improvements
• Enhanced training opportunities.

Emergency Medical Services. The Fire Department is the only emergency service provider in the city, though private ambulances do transfers. Rescue units arrive within 6 minutes, with most arriving within 4 minutes. All Fire Department personnel have basic EMT training and there are about 170 paramedics. Additional paramedics would make it possible to have two full paramedics for each call.

6. Birmingham’s Library System is doing more with less.

The Birmingham Public Library System, established in 1886, consists of 19 branch libraries and the central library in a total of 368,000 square feet of space. Its mission is “to provide the highest quality library service to the community for life-long learning, cultural enrichment and enjoyment.” The system serves the city and region with books, DVDs, audio books, music, downloadable audio books and ebooks, over 2,000 programs within the libraries and nearly 300 programs presented outside the library, 292

public computers and computer training, meeting space for community groups, and numerous programs for children and youth. The library collections include manuscripts and rare books of local, regional and national importance. In 2010 the library system served 1.9 million visitors, making it the most visited “tour attraction,” according to the Birmingham Business Journal. In 2012, the central children’s library was identified as one of the 10 best in the country. In addition to funding from the city, the library system receives some support from the Friends of the Birmingham Library, a citizens’ group. Another support organization, the Birmingham Library Foundation, is being revived.

Birmingham’s libraries are very important community anchors. They welcome people of all ages and walks of life and connect people to their community and to the world. While the number of registered users and the number of circulated materials have been increasing, staffing and funding have decreased in recent years as part of the City’s financial tightening. The acquisitions budget is now slightly over 5% of the system’s budget, less than half the 12% regarded as the standard. The repair and maintenance budget declined by over 60% between 2009 and 2012, library buildings are suffering from deferred maintenance, and the Central Library needs more space, putting some special collections at risk. Renovation or replacement of the Central Library is a priority. The library system has a 2011–2016 strategic plan which includes focus areas on strengthening fundraising from outside sources (including grants), partnerships, and community support; planning for physical improvements; and other major improvements.

7. The City of Birmingham owns and supports cultural institutions of regional importance.

Unlike many cities, Birmingham owns a number of cultural institutions and venues and provides varying amounts of operational and capital funding. In addition to the Botanical Gardens and the Zoo, which are owned by the City but managed by nonprofit organizations, the City owns the Birmingham Museum of Art, the Civil Rights Institute and Museum, Arlington House, Sloss Furnaces Museum, the Southern Museum of Flight, and Boutwell Auditorium.

Birmingham Museum of Art. Founded in 1951, the Birmingham Museum of Art is regarded as one of the finest art museums in the Southeast. Located in the civic center of downtown Birmingham with a building of 150,000 square feet and a sculpture garden of 30,000 square feet, the museum has over 24,000 art objects from around the world and many historic periods. Admission is free, approximately 100,000 visitors come to the museum each year, and it operates programs for children, youth and adults, including programs with the city and county school systems. The museum is governed by a city-appointed Museum Board and museum staff are employees of the city. In FY 2011, approximately $3.1 million in city funding supported the museum, which also has an associated nonprofit, the Birmingham Museum of Art Foundation. The museum would like to expand to accommodate growing collections.

The Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. Located in the historic Fourth Avenue Business District across the street from Kelly Ingram Park and the 16th Street Baptist Church, the institute is a large interpretive museum and research center that tells the stories of the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. The institute has been open since 1992 and continues to successfully focus on its core mission of promoting “civil and human rights worldwide through education.”¹ This is done through both a self-guided walking tour of its permanent and temporary exhibits as well as a comprehensive, resource-rich, education program. The museum is an affiliate in the Smithsonian Affiliations program.

Arlington House. Built in 1845, Arlington House is the only antebellum mansion in the City of Birmingham and operates as a decorative arts museum. The property is owned and maintained by the city, while the interior furnishings and collections are cared for by the Arlington Historical Association. There is an annual Christmas open house and the house is available for private functions.

Sloss Furnaces. The Sloss Furnaces iron manufacturing complex, dating originally from 1881, is a National Historical Landmark operating as an educational museum and metal arts community. The site escaped demolition

in the 1970s when Birmingham voters approved bond funding to stabilize and refurbish the site to become a museum. The complex is owned by the city, which in FY 2011 expended approximately $580,000 for staff and operations. The Sloss Furnaces Foundations is an associated nonprofit. As of 2012, the city has contributed $4.2 million towards construction of a visitor’s center with a total cost of $5.8 million.

Southern Museum of Flight. The Southern Museum of Flight, located near the airport, is a civil aviation museum started by the Birmingham Aero Club. Soon after the construction of the present facility in 1983, the City agreed to take ownership of the property and provide operational funding. The museum operates as a nonprofit and accepts donations. In FY 2011, the City provided approximately $580,000 in funding.

Boutwell Auditorium. Formerly Birmingham Municipal Auditorium, Boutwell is a downtown entertainment venue with 6,000 seats built in the 1920s that needs upgrading. Although its features are outdated, local entertainment promoters say it plays an important role as a mid-size venue. A 2008 report estimated a need for $4 million worth of improvements, leading some to call for demolition and discussion that the art museum next door could expand to the site. As of 2012, the City plans to renovate and update the auditorium.

In addition to the cultural institutions which the City owns, it also provides contributions and financial support for other institutions. For example, the City is ultimately anticpated to provide $2 million out of the $5 million expected cost for a new children’s museum at the McWane Science Center.

7. Fiscal Issues

The biggest generators of revenue for the City of Birmingham are sales, business, and occupational taxes. Alabama has one of the lowest property taxes in the country. The City expects that the catalyst projects of 2011–2012, including CrossPlex, the hotel and entertainment center at the convention center, and the new Regions Field baseball stadium will all help bring visitors and produce revenue for

the City. The capital budget is mainly derived from bond finance projects. Downtown is a Tax Increment Financing District in which downtown public improvements are financed on the basis of increased tax revenues expected from downtown development. The City receives no state aid. Federal funds for transportation projects are funneled through the Alabama Department of Transportation. The City is an entitlement community for Community Development Block Grant and HOME funds, programs which have been declining steadily since 1980, and it can receive other federal funds for specific programs if it is successful in competitive grant rounds.

In the budget process, all departments submit their wish lists for additional staff and for capital improvements. The budget office makes projections and the Mayor, Chief of Staff and Chief of Operations work with the budget office to create a budget. Capital budget decisions are based on availability of debt service and come from the Mayor, with input from the City Council and the public.

8. 21st-Century Birmingham: Planning for a New Future

As this comprehensive plan is being written, at the start of the second decade of the 21st century, the City of Birmingham is making significant progress in the long transition from industrial powerhouse of the South to a competitive New Economy city known for an increasingly vibrant, live-work-study-play downtown; beautiful parks and emerging greenways; historic resources; and new expressions of Southern culture, whether in food or music. This chapter identified four key areas as the foundation for the future: the power of place; the power of people and partnerships; opportunities and prosperity from the Next Economy; and establishment of a record of performance. In all of these areas, the City of Birmingham has much to build on, but it also faces many obstacles and difficulties. This plan focuses especially on goals and strategies for removing the obstacles and mitigating the difficulties:

[page 110 could not be transcribed: google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite: incomplete response (finish_reason=error); google/gemini-3-flash-preview: incomplete response (finish_reason=error)]

• The power of place. As in many cities, downtown is being transformed with an influx

[page 111 could not be transcribed: google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite: incomplete response (finish_reason=error); google/gemini-3-flash-preview: incomplete response (finish_reason=error)]

Part II

Green Systems

Chapter 4

Natural Resources and Environmental Constraints

Chapter 5

Open Space, Parks and Recreation

Chapter 6

Sustainability and Green Practices

Chapter 4

Natural Resources and Environmental Constraints

⬚ figure

PERSONAL VISION STATEMENTS

“I want to live in a city that cares about air quality and the environment.”

“Keep Birmingham beautiful, especially the water ways.”

Front image: www.aothemagazine.com/?p=38

findings

Red Mountain Park and Ruffner Mountain Nature Preserve are significant natural areas that provide access to nature and environmental services (such as reduction in urban heat island effects, air pollution, and nonpoint source pollution of water) in an otherwise urban environment.

The city has had success in flood mitigation through flood buyouts along Village, Valley and Shades Creeks in conjunction with FEMA, Corps of Engineers and state agencies and continued flood mitigation planning.

With the exception of engineering design standards for streets, the only regulations for steep slopes are those that require geotechnical engineers’ affidavits for construction on parts of the north face of Red Mountain.

Segments of the Cahaba River, Valley Creek, Village Creek, Shades Creek and Camp Branch Creek exceed Total Maximum Daily Load allowances for various pollutants.

Water quality monitoring is performed by the City’s Stormwater Management Division.

Birmingham does not consistently meet EPA ozone standards, which reflects impacts on public health due to air pollution, and constrains industrial expansion and recruitment and federal transportation funding.

There are numerous local and regional private organizations involved in parks development, open space preservation and environmental stewardship.

Almost all of the land in the city limits that is adjacent to or near the Cahaba River, Little Cahaba River, and Lake Purdy is owned by the Birmingham Water Works Board to protect water supply resources.

Quality of life, which includes environmental quality, is an increasingly important criterion in private sector economic investment decisions.

challenges

Reducing vehicle emissions through increased transit use will require regional partnerships/cooperation.

Increased walking and bicycling can help reduce vehicle emissions, but extensive improvements are needed in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to support these alternative travel modes.

Many sources of air pollution are not located in the city or subject to City control.

Threats to Birmingham’s water quality are not all located in the city or subject to City influence.

The potential development of land in the Cahaba area poses risks to the Cahaba River, a drinking-water source. Most of this land is outside the city limits.

A. What the Community Said

From the outset of this plan’s community involvement process, participants have held up the city’s natural environment and green infrastructure as vital parts of the city.

Attendees at the various forums ranked Birmingham’s parks, landscape and topography as its best asset, receiving twice as many votes as any other category. Participants also indicated that pollution, clean air and other environmental issues were among the city’s top challenges. Among the “Top Five Priorities” from table discussions, walking/biking routes and parks, beautification and addressing pollution were all noted.

During the Communities of Interest workshop on Green Systems and Sustainability, attendees identified issues that brought them to the meeting and table discussions provided a set of priorities. Several of those dealt with the environmental concerns addressed in this chapter.

Issues

• Water quality and stormwater management
• Air quality
• Interconnected green infrastructure network
• Green the city, more trees
• Sprawl
• Using the city’s green amenities to attract investment

Priorities

• Improve air quality
• Improve water quality
• Protect biodiversity and wildlife habitat
• Increase public awareness on green systems and sustainability
• Promote alternative, clean energy sources
• Protect and increase citywide tree canopy
• Clean up and re-use brownfields
• Build greenways with destinations

⬚ figure

TCI Ensleyworks is the one of the largest brownfields in the Birmingham area.

B. Topography, Geology and Landscape Character

Since its early history Birmingham capitalized easily on its natural assets but struggled with their long-term stewardship. Birmingham’s geology offered tremendous economic opportunity during the industrial boom of the late 1800s. The three main components of iron and steel production—coal, iron ore and limestone—were readily available from Jones Valley, which also provided a convenient landscape for settlement. Railroad, mining and iron production facilities exploded across the landscape and Birmingham grew rapidly and densely.

Of its major topographic features, the city is most closely associated with Red Mountain, which rises to just over 1,000 feet above sea level—about 400 feet above downtown Birmingham directly to the north. Shades Mountain, further to the south, is the tallest formation in Birmingham, peaking at about 1,150 feet above sea level.

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART II | CHAPTER 4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

The city developed along the relatively flat Jones Valley between Red and Sand mountains. This provided a logical path for the railroads that were laid through the middle of the valley. As communities took shape along the railroad, the mountains limited development to the north and south. Birmingham grew as a dense urban grid that diminished as it extended toward the neighboring ridges, particularly the steeper and more challenging Red Mountain. Urban villages developed further east and west along the valley including areas like Woodlawn and East Lake, Bessemer and Ensley.

Today, mining and manufacturing remain but represent a much smaller part of Birmingham’s economy. Its readily harvestable geologic resources have been greatly depleted. Vacant mines and foundries dot the landscape. But these remnants of the area’s industrial heritage are seeing a second life as regional parks (Ruffner Mountain Nature Center, Red Mountain Park and Vulcan Park), greenways, and historic landmarks (Sloss Furnaces). However, there is continued mining northwest and west of the city along the Mulberry Fork of the Black Warrior River.

HYDROLOGY

The northern and western portions of the city lie within the Black Warrior-Tombigbee River Basin while the areas south and east of Red Mountain are in the Alabama River Basin. Through each basin numerous tributaries flow and form watersheds including: Village Creek, Valley Creek, Shades Creek, Five Mile Creek, and the Cahaba River.

Streams

The early communities of Birmingham were relatively far from the Black Warrior and Cahaba Rivers, to the northwest and southeast respectively. But Jones Valley is traversed by the smaller Village Creek and Valley Creek. Like Red Mountain to the south, Village Creek limited northern expansion early on. It served as the city’s early water supply until it was too contaminated to provide clean water.

After decades of development and industrial and other forms of pollution, efforts by the City, UAB, the grassroots Village Creek Society, area residents and others, including

FIGURE 4.1: WATER AND WATERSHEDS

⬚ figure

[page 117 could not be transcribed: google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite: incomplete response (finish_reason=error); google/gemini-3-flash-preview: incomplete response (finish_reason=error)]

the construction of a Jefferson County peak-flow treatment facility that began operation in 2003

Lakes

The Birmingham Water Works Board built the Lake Purdy Dam on the Little Cahaba River in 1929 soon after Village Creek became too polluted to serve as a water supply. The reservoir, near the headwaters of the Cahaba River, is owned by the Birmingham Water Works Board (BWWB) and encompasses 990 acres. In 2008 the BWWB adopted a policy requiring Board approval for development in the Cahaba River watershed to manage possible pollution in order to protect the water supply. That policy includes prohibitions on certain contaminating uses and activities; performance requirements for nonpoint source pollutants; and enforcement measures. As a temporary measure the City created the Holding Zone District to limit development in the Lake Purdy/Cahaba River area. This zoning classification was applied to properties in the immediate vicinity of Lake Purdy, most of which is owned by the BWWB.

Bayview Lake was built on Village Creek in 1910 as a water supply reservoir for coal mining activities and for the Ensley Iron Works. Receiving flow from Village Creek, it too became polluted from untreated industrial and sanitary wastewater. After the closing of the Thomas and Ensley Works and installation of secondary treatment facilities required by the Clean Water Act of 1972, water quality in the lake improved to the extent that it is now used for recreational purposes.

⬚ figure

Lake Purdy (Photo: 280 Living, Chris Mason)

Floodplains

Floodplains occur in several areas throughout the city and are associated with Birmingham’s major streams—Village, Valley, Shades and Five Mile creeks—and the Cahaba River. Localized flooding in other low lying areas also occurs. Urban development along Birmingham area streams resulted in increased flood elevations during heavy rainfalls. As previously described, the City, with state and federal support, has acquired a significant number of properties impacted by past flooding, particularly along Village Creek. And, following the County-EPA consent decree, the Freshwater Land Trust has also acquired property and conservation easements within area floodplains.

Floods are of relatively short duration, usually less than ten hours. Maximum flood stage is typically reached within two to four hours of an intense rainfall event. Past events have seen flood waters rise at three feet per hour with significant velocities experienced in some parts of the city. The most destructive flooding has occurred along Village Creek, which led to the mitigation and buyout programs along that corridor. Area floodplains have historically flooded but due to the intensive flood events that occurred between 1995 and 2003, the City increased efforts to mitigate flood damage and improve stormwater-management programs.

There are three flooding segments typically regulated to protect against flood damage: The floodway, the flood fringe, and the floodplain. The floodplain is the area deemed to have a 1% chance of flooding every year (the “100-year” flood). This creates a 26% chance of flooding during a typical 30-year home mortgage. The floodway is the area that must be kept clear immediately adjacent to the stream because it functions as the natural conduit for flood

⬚ figure

Flooding on Tallapoosa Street during Tropical Storm Lee in September 2011 (Photo: Birmingham News, Hal Yeager)

waters. The flood fringe is an area between the floodway and the floodplain boundary, where development is allowed as long as it meets certain criteria. The floodplain includes both the floodway and the flood fringe.

The City joined the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1981 and the Community Rating System, a voluntary program to establish floodplain management programs to exceed NFIP requirements, in 1993. Development within Birmingham’s 100-year floodplains is controlled through a Flood Plain Ordinance and is reviewed and permitted by floodplain management staff housed within the Planning, Engineering and Permits (PEP) Department. The ordinance requires residential buildings be located above the 100-year base flood elevation and non-residential buildings must be elevated or flood-proofed. Through its floodplain management efforts, the city is rated Class 6, which provides a 20% reduction in flood insurance premiums for property owners.

Stormwater Management and Water Quality

As described above, the city has historically experienced challenges to maintaining water quality in area waterways. However, in the past 20 years, the City intensified its efforts to better manage stormwater and water quality. The City developed its first Phase 1 NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) MS4 Program application in 1992 and then joined a multi-jurisdictional stormwater program. The City of Birmingham withdrew from the most recent version of the multi-jurisdictional program in 2008 to improve program accountability and organizational coordination, and to lower program costs. Following its withdrawal, the City contracted with a private firm to assist city staff in its stormwater-management program.

The Birmingham stormwater-management program involves preparation and maintenance of a comprehensive stormwater management plan, compliance activities, stormwater monitoring and related functions. Currently, the City manages stormwater and water quality through several program strategies:

• preventive measures
• property protection
• emergency services
• structural projects
• natural resource protection
• public education programs

Because Birmingham’s waterways flow through multiple jurisdictions, the City cannot fully protect its water resources. In addition to the stormwater management activities the City performs, it must work in partnership with other local governments to meet its water quality objectives.

DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS IN BIRMINGHAM’S 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

There are approximately 5,700 parcels, altogether about 5,000 acres, located within the city’s 100-year floodplains.

• Today, about 2,100 acres of that land is owned by the City, county, state and federal governments; the Freshwater Land Trust; Airport Authority; and utility companies.
• An estimated 4,800 parcels—just over 2,900 acres—are privately owned.
• There are over 3,900 residentially-zoned, privately-owned properties in the city’s 100-year floodplains. Over 800 of those properties are vacant and undeveloped.
• 230 properties, totaling 186 acres, are zoned for business or institutional uses and over 60% of those properties are developed.
• More than half of the privately owned land in the 100-year floodplain—about 1,500 acres—is zoned for industrial or manufacturing use. SOURCE: CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, GIS DATA.

AIR QUALITY

Similar to its historical water quality issues, Birmingham is not entirely in control of its air quality. Air quality in the city is affected by point and nonpoint sources both inside and outside the City’s jurisdiction. A major focus to improve air quality in the region has been and continues to be to decrease vehicle emissions through congestion-mitigation activities, including consideration of high-occupancy vehicle lanes on major arteries and regional transit system improvements. Chapter 12, pp. 12.34–12.42, contains a discussion of transit and active transportation opportunities.

In addition to vehicle emissions and industrial activities, buildings contribute to air quality issues. Burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas, and the use of various building materials and cleaning products affect both

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART II | CHAPTER 4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

⬚ figure

CommuteSmart is a ridematching, carpool and vanpool service operated through the Birmingham Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to reduce vehicle emissions.

indoor and outdoor air quality. The production of energy necessary to operate buildings (lighting, heating, cooling, etc.) is a significant contributor to air quality problems but can be managed through better building systems designs to increase energy efficiency. Likewise, aircraft engines produce emissions that affect air quality. Therefore air quality around airports may be impacted by aircraft engines. Aircraft engine emissions produce nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of sulfur (SOx), unburned or partially combusted hydrocarbons (also known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particulates, and other trace compounds.

EPA is adopting emission standards for aircraft gas turbine engines that should improve air quality. The final rule contains standards and related provisions that were previously adopted by International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Specifically, EPA is adopting two new tiers of more stringent emission standards for oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Also, FAA is phasing out leaded gas by 2018 which will help improve air quality and protect airport neighbors from airborne lead.

Pollutants in the air also can contribute to poor water quality, adding to the importance of addressing the city’s air quality. The source of contamination to Valley and Opossum Creeks in Birmingham, both on ADEM’s list of 303(d) impaired streams, were classified as being due to air quality.

HABITATS AND BIODIVERSITY

Birmingham is located within the Ridge and Valley ecoregion and is a geographic transition point that supports significant, unique biodiversity, notably on the Cahaba River and Turkey Creek.

The Ridge and Valley ecoregion, also referred to as “the foothills of the Appalachians,” is characterized by rugged terrain with sandstone ridges and limestone valleys. Trees typical to the region include white, northern red, black, and chestnut oak, and loblolly, shortleaf, and Virginia pine. The region supports several amphibian and reptiles “of Coastal Plain affinity that are not known to occur elsewhere above the Fall Line” according to Alabama’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). Significant wildlife in the region includes the Southern Hognose Snake, Coldwater Darter, Goldline Darter, and Coosa Creekshell.¹ The Cahaba Lily is found only in Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina.

Alabama’s CWCS was prepared by the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources under a federally-funded State Wildlife Grant. According to the CWCS, the top concern for wildlife in the Cahaba River in the Birmingham area is water quality degradation from sedimentation and nutrient enrichment. Water quality problems stem from development in the upper watershed and agricultural and silvicultural practices. These same problems, plus the presence of abandoned surface mines threaten species along the Black Warrior River. Along the Black Warrior, the areas in most critical need for conservation action include the Locust Fork drainage area—encompassing most of the City of Birmingham—where there is a high number of imperiled species. The CWCS recommends implementation of the River Basin Management Plans and restoration of habitat and streams by ADEM, US Forest Service (USFS), Alabama Forestry Commission (AFC), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Clean Water Partnership, local governments and other partners.²

4.9

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART II | CHAPTER 4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

HIGHLAND RIM

CUMBERLAND PLATEAU

ALABAMA VALLEY AND RIDGE

PIEDMONT UPLAND

EAST GULF COASTAL PLAIN

⬚ figure

Physiographic regions of Alabama. Map by Department of Geography, University of Alabama

4.10

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART II | CHAPTER 4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

Threatened and Endangered Species

In Jefferson County there are several endangered and threatened species and plants and animals, some of which, for example, the watercress darter, are known to occur within the city. In fact, the watercress darter is believed to occur naturally only in the Jefferson County area. A few of these rare species are believed to occur naturally in Jefferson, Blount and Bibb Counties only.

URBAN FOREST

The “urban forest” includes all the trees in and around urban areas—street trees and trees on public and private property. The large trees characteristic of Birmingham’s early neighborhoods are an important part of their sense of place. However, other parts of the community, particularly in more recently developed neighborhoods and business areas, have little tree cover. Planting and maintaining trees in the urban environment has a variety of benefits:

• improving the public realm and community aesthetics
• increasing property values
• providing shade and reduced energy costs
• enhancing walkability
• enhanced flood mitigation
• preserving wildlife habitat
• reduction in greenhouse gas pollution (CO2)
• oxygen production

According to the 2004 study “State of the Forest in the Cities of Jefferson County” carried out by the Jefferson County SWMA, the urban forests of the Birmingham metro area, including portions of the Cahaba River watershed in Shelby and St. Clair Counties, provided $248 million annually in air pollution and stormwater reduction. The report suggested that the presence of trees, and therefore the ground in which they are planted, allow stormwater to be absorbed into the ground while impervious parking areas, rooftops, and roadways funnel stormwater more rapidly to area streams. The stormwater monetary savings were based on the cost that would be required for detention ponds and other stormwater controls that would otherwise be required in the absence of such forested areas.⁴

⬚ figure Birmingham’s Five Points South neighborhood has a healthy urban tree canopy (Photo: Robert Francis)

The City has adopted tree ordinance (Ordinance No. 90-88). but the City has drafted an ordinance that would replace or amend existing policies and standards for the preservation of the city’s tree canopy, particularly trees within public rights-of-way and easements. The ordinance establishes a Tree Commission to guide the development and administration of future policies and recommendations; specifies standards for tree planting and maintenance; establishes management authority for tree planting, removal and maintenance under the City’s Urban Forester and those concerned with public safety; and promotes public education on the importance and value of urban forests. The draft amended ordinance is under internal review as of summer 2013.

Invasive Plants

Invasive plant species are typically non-native and proliferate in hospitable environments. In these circumstances they can out-compete native plants and disrupt ecosystems. Among those that are of particular concern in the Birmingham area are privet and kudzu. Other invasive plants in the area include heavenly bamboo, English ivy, Oregon grape/Beale’s barberry, Japanese honeysuckle, mimosa, Amur honeysuckle, Bradford pear, and leatherleaf mahonia.

⁴ Birmingham Environmental News #212, “Tree Study: Trees Worth $248 Million a Year in Birmingham Metro,” http://www.bamanews.com/BEN-1-3-04.html.

4.11

TABLE 4.1: ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA

* Known to or believed to occur only in Jefferson County.
** Known to or believed to occur only in Jefferson and Blount counties.
*** Known to or believed to occur only in Jefferson, Blount and Bibb counties.

SOURCE: US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ONLINE SYSTEM

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

Above: Coldwater Darter, Etheostoma ditrema (Photo: Outdoor Alabama). The Cahaba Lily (left) is found only in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. One of the two largest remaining stands of the plant is in the Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge in West Blocton.

CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Numerous nonprofit organizations and initiatives are working to improve conservation of sensitive environmental areas and restore environmental health both locally and throughout the region.

Alabama Clean Fuels Coalition is an affiliation of businesses, governmental and utilities representatives whose mission is to advance the use of alternative fuels in Alabama, particularly in the Birmingham metropolitan area, in order to improve air quality.

Alabama Environmental Council (AEC) is a statewide nonprofit organization located in Birmingham that focuses on environmental stewardship through community education and advocacy. The AEC also operates a recycling center in Downtown Birmingham, which accepts recyclable materials not served by the City recycling program.

Alabama Partners for Clean Air (APCA) is an affiliation of public, private and nonprofit organizations promoting voluntary programs to improve air quality in the Birmingham metropolitan area to improve public health, achieve and maintain compliance with national clean air standards, and to support economic growth consistent with air quality goals.

Black Warrior Riverkeeper is a citizen-based nonprofit organization that focuses on the improvement and protection of water quality, habitat, recreation and public health associated with the Black Warrior River and its watershed. The Riverkeeper monitors the river, reports contamination problems, and provides public education programs on water quality.

Cahaba River Society (CRS) is also a citizen-based nonprofit organization that focuses on protection of water quality of the Cahaba River. CRS works with developers, local governments and ADEM to encourage development policies, low impact and best management practices, and other public and private actions to safeguard the Cahaba River as a drinking water supply for the region and as a uniquely important plant and animal habitat.

Cawaco Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Council, named after the three rivers—the Cahaba, Warrior and Coosa Rivers—that flow through the five counties it serves, is part of a nationwide program under the US Department of Agriculture. The RC&D works with local governments and community groups to protect and take advantage of their natural resources, directing federal, state and local resources to accomplish locally determined resource goals.

Conservation Alabama is a non-partisan, statewide environmental lobby centered in Birmingham. The organization works with local governments and state officials to develop policies and programs that protect the environment in ways that benefit the state economy and the quality of life of its citizens. Conservation Alabama, as a member of the Jefferson County Health Action Partnership, recently worked with AARP and other agencies to promote Complete Streets legislation in the state as well as similar policies at the local level.

Freshwater Land Trust (FWLT) is a private, nonprofit land trust originally created as the Black Warrior Cahaba River Land Trust under the consent decree established between Jefferson County and the EPA. Initially, the land trust was funded wholly by Jefferson County, but once the County had fulfilled its obligation under the consent decree, the Freshwater Land Trust sought funding through public and private sources. FWLT is part of the JCHD Health Action Partnership and with funding from a Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) grant obtained from the Centers for Disease Control, facilitated the development of the countywide Red Rock Ridge and Valley Trail System

⬚ figure

Coal mining along the Black Warrior River in Walker County (Photo: Black Warrior Riverkeeper)

⬚ figure

View of the city from atop Ruffner Mountain (Photo: The Trust for Public Land)

Plan. The FWLT continues land and conservation easement acquisitions to protect water quality while also pursuing strategies to implement the greenway plan. FWLT, since its inception, has acquired approximately 4,500 acres of land in the City of Birmingham and throughout Jefferson County.

Ruffner Mountain Nature Center, founded in 1977, is a public nonprofit nature preserve in the midst of Birmingham’s otherwise urban environment. Today it encompasses over 1,000 acres of undeveloped land, including formerly mined sites, along a Red Mountain ridge ten minutes east of downtown. Ruffner is not only a nature preserve, but a recreational amenity of tremendous size, recently joined by Red Mountain Park in southwest Birmingham.

The Southern Environmental Center (SEC) is an environmental education facility on the campus of Birmingham Southern College. The SEC, in addition to its on-campus activities, provides community education programs and works with community organizations through its EcoScape program.

Other conservation and environmental organizations active in the Birmingham area include:

• Alabama Rivers Alliance
• Auntie Litter, Inc.
• Birmingham Audubon Society
• Cahaba Group of the Sierra Club
• Cahaba Riverkeeper
• Five Mile Creek Greenway Partnership
• Greater Birmingham Alliance to Stop Pollution (GASP)
• Interfaith Environmental Initiative of Alabama
• Keep Birmingham Beautiful Commission
• The Nature Conservancy of Alabama
• Save Our Unique Rivers, Community and Environment (SOURCE)
• Southern Environmental Law Center
• Village Creek Society

Conservation and Environmental Programs

ECOSCAPE PROGRAM

This program was created by the Southern Environmental Center at Birmingham Southern College in 1996 combines organic gardening, environmental education, local art, and neighborhood revitalization to convert vacant sites into outdoor learning sites.

RED ROCK RIDGE AND VALLEY TRAIL SYSTEM

This proposed countywide trail system emerged from the Our One Mile planning process and is now being prepared for implementation by the Freshwater Land Trust, affiliated nonprofits and local governments. In 2012 the City and FWLT, with support from the Cities of Homewood, Fairfield and Midfield and other government and nonprofit agencies, received a TIGER grant to construct 33.6 miles of the plan’s on- and off-road bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

RED MOUNTAIN PARK

This 1,100 acre park was established through the creation of the Red Mountain Greenway and Recreational Area Commission by the state legislature in 2007. While portions of the park had been opened for special events, the park more recently opened to the general public. Located in southwest Birmingham on former mining territory that stretches from Homewood to Bessemer, this major park includes a complex of over 10 miles of trails and is an industrial archaeological site. Park operations, since its inception, have been ambitious and diverse, running the gamut from documenting oral histories of mining camp residents to incorporating zip line routes through the park. The park and related initiatives are discussed further in Chapter 5, pp. 5.5 and 5.20.

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Altogether, the city’s parks, urban forests, greenways, floodplains and streams and other natural and open space areas form its “green infrastructure” while its utilities, roads and public facilities are considered the city’s “grey infrastructure.” In the same way that water and sanitary sewer lines provide essential functions to the community,

⬚ figure

Red Mountain Park Plan

green infrastructure elements support stormwater management, air quality and other services essential to the community. To perform effectively, both types of infrastructure must be planned, maintained and enhanced as interconnected systems, rather than collections of isolated facilities.

Green infrastructure systems are living, breathing networks of land, water, plants and animals that give cities character, make them healthier, and improve quality of life—all of which are critical not only to the well-being of residents and ecosystems, but also to the city’s economy and its ability to retain and attract residents and investment. The essential functions served by green infrastructure elements go largely unnoticed by the community-at-large though they may be appreciated for their aesthetic values. For example, residents may enjoy the water features at Avondale or East Lake Parks but few recognize that these quality-of-life amenities also are part of the city’s stormwater management system. Ironically, such well-designed facilities disguise their functional value while a detention basin within a contemporary development portrays itself clearly as serving a necessary function, though often lacking in aesthetic value.

According to recent research, including a 2007 EPA study, green infrastructure approaches to stormwater management in development projects are cost-effective and can be less expensive than conventional grey infrastructure systems. Cost savings typically occur in equipment and installation, long-term operations and maintenance, and replacement.¹

Compared to built systems, green infrastructure increases cost-effectiveness by improving:²

• water quality of municipal drinking water supplies that can lower water treatment costs
• water quality predictability that can reduce long-term capital costs
• longevity of water quality investments
• development benefits through increased demand and pricing for “green” properties
• flood control and groundwater recharge

⬚ figure

Kickoff meeting for the countywide greenway planning process (Photo: Freshwater Land Trust)

C. Recommendations

goal 1

A comprehensive green infrastructure system provides access to and preserves natural areas and environmentally sensitive areas.

POLICIES

• Support creation of an interconnected green infrastructure network that includes natural areas for passive recreation, stormwater management, and wildlife habitat.
• Consider incentives for conservation and enhancement of natural and urban forests.

STRATEGIES

A. Enhance Birmingham’s urban forest.

Birmingham’s urban forest includes trees located within public rights-of-way and on City and private property. As a part of the city’s green infrastructure, trees serve both qualitative and quantitative functions: reducing urban heat islands, supporting stormwater management and air quality, reducing energy use, and improving community appearance and property values.

ACTIONS

1. Amend Tree Ordinance. Multiple City departments, land owners and utility companies affect the amount and condition of trees within public rights-of-way and easements and on City property. Internal actions by City departments should be consistent with the city’s overall urban forestry policy and improvements in coordination, where needed, will help assure that all such actions further these goals. Coordinating departmental policies to assure proper treatment of the urban forest can be facilitated by adoption and implementation of the amended tree ordinance that is consistent with the needs for public safety as it relates to utility lines and is under review, as of September 2013.

2. Plant more trees. The City should set an annual target for planting/replanting of trees on City property and public rights-of-way. Prior to developing an Urban Forestry Plan as recommended below, the City should seek to plant 800-1,000 trees each year, including street trees and trees in parks and on other City properties. Over the last several years, the City has planted between 500-600 trees annually. Due to special funding allocations, tree-planting programs in the early 2000s resulted in the City’s planting almost 2,000 trees in each of the two years those programs were implemented.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE URBAN FOREST

⬚ figure

According to the University of Washington’s Center for Urban Horticulture, trees in cities provide multiple economic benefits. In residential areas, a 25-foot tree can reduce cooling costs by 8 to 12%. City centers are subject to the urban heat island effect due to the amount of buildings and paving, but increased tree canopy can reduce temperatures by as much as 10° F, which results in lower temperatures in area buildings.* These temperature reductions also can reduce air pollution, representing additional economic savings. Urban designer and walkability guru Dan Burden estimates that a single street tree generates over $90,000 in direct benefits—fewer vehicular and pedestrian accidents, cleaner air, improved business, less crime, and stormwater management among others—over its lifespan, not including aesthetic or other subjective benefits.**

* Center for Urban Horticulture, University of Washington, “Urban Forest Values, Economic Benefits of Trees in Cities,” http://www.treebenefits.terrasum-mit.com/Documents/Business/EconBens-FS3.pdf.

** Glatting Jackson Kercher and Anglin, “22 Benefits of Urban Street Trees,” http://www.walkable.org/assets/downloads/22%20Benefits%20of%20Urban%20Street%20Trees.pdf.

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART II | CHAPTER 4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

CITYgreen

CITYgreen is a computer program used by landscape architects, planners, engineers and others to analyze green infrastructure elements, such as the urban tree canopy. An extension to mapping software ArcGIS, which the City already uses, CITYgreen helps cities understand the monetary value that green infrastructure components contribute to stormwater management, air quality, and water quality, all based on local conditions.*

• American Society of Landscape Architects “American Forest CITYgreen,” http://www.asla.org/ContentDetail.aspx?id=14874

This incremental tree planting should be focused on strategic locations, such as major corridors and gateways, and Strategic Opportunity Areas defined in this plan, particularly any of these locations where there is a high level of pedestrian activity or where such activity is meant to be increased. Residential neighborhoods should also be included. Once a citywide urban forestry plan has been prepared, tree-planting goals and priority locations should be adapted to the strategies in that plan.

Whenever streetscape work is planned, planting of street trees should be considered standard operating procedure unless there is inadequate right-of-way width or other constraints. Such an operating policy should also include green infrastructure improvements.

With the planting of trees in public rights-of-way, on public lands and in easements, the City must also commit to their long-term maintenance.

3. Prepare an Urban Forestry Plan.

Preparation of a citywide urban forestry plan should include the following components to help the City’s Urban Forestry Division best maintain the city tree population and do so in a cost-effective manner:

• Tree inventory, analysis and mapping
• Tree risk reduction/emergency storm response plan
• Recommendations for the tree commission
• Public relations and education strategies
• Cost/benefit analysis of urban forest management

The plan should be based upon a thorough inventory and analysis. It is important to know species as well as numbers of trees because different species have varying life expectancies and maintenance needs. Using GIS-based mapping and software allows city staff to create work reports, schedule tree maintenance and planting tasks, and track costs.

In addition to species, number and location, the inventory should also collect information on tree health conditions; proximity to utility lines, traffic signs and signals; sidewalk and other hardscape damage; and insect and disease problems. These inventories are generally conducted by Certified Arborists or similarly trained professionals.

The plan should establish percentage-based targets for growth of the city’s tree canopy, including specific goals for the city overall and for residential areas, business districts, parks and natural areas. For example, the plan might set a target to increase the tree canopy in business districts by 10% within five years or to increase the canopy citywide by 5% in a similar timeframe.

In setting these targets the plan must account for maintenance of the growing urban tree canopy. More ambitious tree planting goals will require a greater financial commitment by the City over the long term to maintain the health of trees.

4. Engage the public around the importance of the urban forest for quality of life.

Trees in the urban environment serve multiple purposes of which residents may be unaware. Community workshops should be organized through the Birmingham Tree Commission and potential partners such as the Botanical Gardens or Southern Environmental Center to convey information to residents on the safety benefits of healthy urban forests and green infrastructure services they provide. Other public education programs include press releases, brochures and mailers to residents regarding tree planting and maintenance activities in their area.

4.17

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART II | CHAPTER 4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

B. Implement priority portions of the Red Rock Ridge and Valley Trail System (RRRVTS).

Implementation of those segments of the Red Rock Plan within the city limits will help provide physical connections between other elements of Birmingham’s green infrastructure network, such as existing and planned parks. Among the trails and greenway projects identified in the countywide plan, several proposed major greenway routes traverse the city, of which most follow Birmingham’s primary stream corridors—Village Creek, Five Mile Creek, Valley Creek and Shades Creek. Each then provides an opportunity to preserve or restore the associated floodplains to a more natural condition, enhancing the city’s green infrastructure while simultaneously providing attractive, safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists to move about the city. Interconnected greenways and natural corridors, particularly along streams, also provide important habitats and travel routes for area wildlife.

Because the proposed trail system is countywide, restoration of streams and their associated floodplains—as part of the process to develop greenways along them—offers the chance to improve portions of Birmingham-area streams inside and outside the city limits. As has been the case with the Health Action Partnership, a regional partnership of adjoining governments and public and nonprofit organizations will lend a competitive advantage to the overall effort in attracting funding.

⬚ figure

Conceptual plan for a segment of the Village Creek trail corridor at Arkadelphia Road by the Auburn University Center for Architecture and Urban Studies

ACTIONS

1. Initiate priority projects for green infrastructure improvements.

Developing the trail system both at the countywide level and within the city is a substantial undertaking that will take many years. Priorities may be based on green infrastructure benefits, recreation and mobility or a combination of these factors.

The Village and Valley Creek greenways should be considered high priorities due to their value to the city’s green infrastructure, particularly stormwater management, as well as other benefits that trails along the corridors would provide. These streams flow through the most urbanized portions of the city. While earlier buyout programs helped acquire land, some developed properties remain in the floodplains along these streams that are susceptible to damage caused by flooding in the future. Greenway development would further the flood mitigation efforts already begun with past buyout programs. Special consideration should be given to segments of those greenway routes that would allow pedestrians and bicyclists to access employment centers from surrounding neighborhoods.

Stream restoration should be included as part of these efforts, particularly along Village and Valley Creeks, where contamination and the stigma associated with it are both a detriment to the quality of life in surrounding neighborhoods.

⬚ figure

In 2011 the Saw Mill River in Downtown Yonkers was “daylighted” after being buried for 90 years. The restoration project not only had environmental benefits but also has spurred revitalization in the surrounding downtown area. Source: www.scenichudson.org

2. Develop partnerships and funding. The City should continue and expand on partnerships with the Freshwater Land Trust, the Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham and other Health Action Partnership members; corporations that own facilities and land along the routes; and others to develop these projects.

The 2012 application for federal funding for greenway segments along Village and Shades Creeks is a great example of the City’s partnering with adjacent municipalities and private and nonprofit organizations, to further city and regional objectives. In addition to federal transportation funding, greenway projects along Village and Valley Creeks may also be eligible for FEMA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and similar flood-mitigation funding sources.

C. Audit and amend development regulations, as needed, to promote environmental goals.

Many of Birmingham’s conservation and environmental goals are or can be addressed through its development regulations. These primarily include the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, and engineering design guidelines. The subdivision regulations were amended in 2011 but several aspects of these requirements could be improved to better support the development goals of this plan. Over the past two decades, the zoning ordinance, which has significant impact on land development and conservation, has been amended only incrementally and is due for a comprehensive update.

ACTIONS

1. Audit development regulations. A thorough review of the City’s development regulations, particularly the zoning ordinance, should be performed to identify regulatory obstacles to environmentally friendly development. Regulations should allow best practices that advance environmental goals.

This audit should include a review of parking, subdivision design and engineering standards. Low-impact design (LID) strategies and similar site design

⬚ figure

Chicago’s Green Alley Program retrofits alleys with pervious pavers to allow stormwater infiltration. (Photo: EPA, David Leopold)

methods could be allowed particularly on sites whose development will affect environmental features and natural systems.

Environmental impacts of development on steep slopes are addressed currently through engineering standards. Existing requirements can be supplemented to consider incentives for the use of low impact design and green infrastructure systems. Density limitations may also be appropriate on hillsides and ridge tops above a certain threshold, which may vary based on soil conditions.

Low-impact and green-infrastructure design techniques that could be encouraged include:

• Use of green roofs and rain harvesting
• Pervious surfaces for parking and vehicular use areas
• Shared parking and reduced minimum parking requirements
• “Skinny” streets (narrow streets where wider rights of way are not needed to accommodate traffic) and other alternative street designs to reduce impervious surfaces
• Retention, planting and/or replanting of trees
• Use of low-maintenance, native species of plants in required landscaping
• Use of bioswales (vegetated depressions for drainage) as an alternative to curb and gutter systems
• Use of parking lot landscaping for stormwater management
• Regional Retention Systems where appropriate
• Riparian buffers along streams

These design features can be valuable in new developments as well as retrofits in existing neighborhoods and business areas by improving stormwater drainage and reducing flooding. Increased tree and other vegetative cover and decreased impervious cover can reduce urban heat islands and ultimately improve cooling costs. Likewise, rain harvesting and water-efficient landscaping lowers water consumption and associated utility costs.

Birmingham’s subdivision regulations require a minimum pavement width for new streets based on their classification. (Because there is no officially adopted master street plan, classification decisions are based on regional planning commission classifications.) However, this does not account for the actual lane assembly and can unnecessarily raise impervious surface cover and travel speeds. For example, collector streets are required to have a minimum pavement width of 37 feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. While this is appropriate for three-lane segments, in two-lane segments the resulting lane width would be over 17 feet, about five feet wider than desirable. Basing pavement width on lane assembly and design speed, rather than tying it solely to street classification, would be more precise and allow decreases in impervious surfaces

⬚ figure

Seattle’s Street Edge Alternatives (SEA) program encourages the use of low-impact design techniques, including bioswales, narrower street widths, structural grass, flush curbs and other features. After two years of monitoring, the 2001 pilot street project had reduced the total volume of stormwater leaving the street by 99%. The redesign also reduced pavement costs by 49%. (More information: Seattle Public Utilities, Street Edge Alternatives http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/GreenStormwaterInfrastructure/NaturalDrainageProjects/StreetEdgeAlternatives/)

⬚ figure

FLOODING CONTROL USING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Episcopal High School in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was troubled by ongoing flooding on the campus due to an obsolete drainage system. The gym flooded during severe rains and the quad was typically muddy. The cost to replace and upgrade the drainage system was estimated at $500,000. Instead of re-piping the drainage system, the school opted for a more natural, green infrastructure design that included bioswales and a rain garden. The project cost $110,000 for design and construction representing, a considerable savings compared to the conventional design. (Further information: American Society of Landscape Architects, Stormwater Case Studies, http://www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Advocacy/Federal_Government_Affairs/Stormwater_Case_Studies/Stormwater%20Case%20459%20Episcopal%20High%20School%20Stormwater%20Rain%20Garden,%20Baton%20Rouge,%20LA.pdf.)

Photo: Brown+Danos landdesign

where fewer lanes are required. This can lessen costs of street construction and eventually the costs to the City for maintenance and repaving. Keeping lane widths to the minimum necessary also calms travel speeds making streets safer for pedestrians and motorists alike. This issue is pertinent to other street classifications as well.

The subdivision regulations require standard curb and gutter in all but estate, agricultural and manufacturing districts. This prohibits the use of bioswales in all but the least dense residential developments. While use of bioswales—a low impact device for managing stormwater—is not appropriate in all land use contexts, the City should not only allow but encourage them, subject to appropriate design standards, in more types of residential development. In residential contexts, allowances should be made for “green streets,” which

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART II | CHAPTER 4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

combine the use of natural drainage elements, such as bioswales and rain gardens, at the roadside with narrow street widths to reduce overall impervious surface cover. Flush curbs and structural grass can be used to accommodate access for emergency vehicles. Similarly, bioswales and other green infrastructure and low-impact development techniques should be more strongly recommended for use in flood prone areas.

Changing the City’s parking regulations can also aid in stormwater management. Parking is a major contributor in the amount of impervious surfaces associated with development. While most cities maintain minimum parking requirements for uses, more recently several cities have transitioned to maximum parking standards to mitigate the negative impacts that excessive parking ratios engender. Others have reduced their minimum parking requirements and/or require that overflow parking be provided with pervious paving. Parking requirements can also be improved by allowing reductions for shared parking among multiple uses with parking demands at different times of the day and throughout the week. Different types of pervious paving are available today and should be permitted to meet City parking standards where suitable to the use and context.

2. Consider incentives for the use of conservation developments.

Conservation developments or conservation subdivisions are an advantageous tool in achieving the city’s green infrastructure goals through private development. Conservation development provisions allow developers to forego area and dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance, such as minimum lot size or lot width, when environmental features are preserved within a permanent open space.

These types of development (and redevelopment) are of particular benefit where steep slopes, tree canopy, wetlands, floodplains, historic features or other elements are to be conserved. These protected spaces can serve stormwater or other environmental functions while also providing amenity space for the development—whether in the form of a community garden, playground or a combination of open space uses. These protected spaces can provide connections to adjacent elements in the city’s green infrastructure network.

Conservation design is facilitated by zoning regulations through “density-averaging” or density bonuses. The design process begins with identification of the open space(s) to be protected. Preferably, the open space will contain both environmentally sensitive land and otherwise developable land. This assures its usefulness as an amenity and prevents it from being merely remnant land that goes unused and unmaintained.

In density-averaging, a maximum amount of development available to the site is determined based on zoning limitations. The developed portion of the site is clustered more densely together than would be allowed under normal zoning requirements in order to create the open-space amenity and achieve the available density. Incentives such as density bonuses can be awarded to further encourage this approach. Density bonuses can be offered in return for higher percentages of usable open space, land dedication, or other desired development features.

The design and uses of the open space must be constrained to ensure the space functions properly as a green infrastructure element and provides some usable open space for residents or workers. Provisions are also required to ensure proper ownership and maintenance of the open space.

Many times developers can achieve greater efficiency in the way that streets, water, sewer and other utilities are laid out due to clustering, conservation developments can be a “win-win” for the community and the developer. Consider incentives for the use of conservation developments would provide an

⬚ figure

Through density averaging, conservation subdivisions preserve green infrastructure elements and create usable open space, without reducing development capacity.

economically and environmentally attractive alternative to the conventional method of mass grading and clear cutting difficult sites.

3. Establish zoning provisions to allow for compact housing.

There may be opportunities for cluster housing and cottage subdivisions in redevelopment and infill projects in existing communities. Similar to conservation developments, cluster housing and cottage subdivisions represent more compact housing development when usable, common open space is provided for residents, taking the place of individual front- or rear-yard setbacks. Cottage subdivision regulations were adopted early by cities in Washington state but also in Southern cities like Nashville and Auburn. In addition to modifying normal zoning requirements for yard setbacks, these provisions waive street frontage requirements, which are normally mandated for all single-family dwellings.

Just as in conservation subdivisions, the common open space around which cluster housing is developed can serve green infrastructure purposes. The compact nature of these developments also contributes to walkability while retaining the scale and character of conventional single-family detached housing. Because land area and costs per dwelling are lower, they can be built affordably.

COTTAGE SUBDIVISIONS

The Cottage Company in the State of Washington has worked with municipalities to incorporate provisions in their zoning regulations to allow for these types of cluster housing.

⬚ figure

Photo: Union Studio Architects, www.unionstudioarch.com

⬚ figure

The cottages of Cliff Road are a local, historic example of compact design that would not normally be allowed under City regulations today.

goal 2

Reinvestment in existing communities conserves resources and sensitive environments.

POLICIES

• Consider incentives for reinvestment in existing communities, rather than “greenfields,” for new commercial, residential and institutional development.
• Consider incentives for development patterns and site-design methods that help protect water quality, sensitive environmental features or wildlife habitat.

STRATEGIES

A. Convert selected brownfields to usable open space.

Birmingham contains many “brownfields,” former industrial and commercial sites that are contaminated or believed to be contaminated. But the city’s brownfields can be returned to productive use in a variety of ways. Remediation not only allows the property to be put back into a productive use, but it also can remove a stigma that depresses property values in the surrounding area.

Appropriate reuse of brownfields can include new industrial, commercial or residential reuses as well as usable open spaces. In remediating any contamination and

transforming these sites to open space use, they can also be (re)integrated into the overall green infrastructure system. For recommendations on the types of income-producing uses appropriate for brownfield redevelopment, refer to Chapters 9 (pp. 9.9, 9.13) and 10 (pp. 10.24–10.25).

ACTIONS

1. Identify brownfield sites for open space use.

Depending on their location, context, size and other factors, brownfield sites or portions of them may be adaptively reused as parks or other types of publicly accessible, usable open spaces. A Phase 1 assessment should be conducted to determine the scope of any contamination, cleanup costs and strategies for remediation and reuse.

Brownfields can also be allowed to return to a more natural state. These are referred to as “urban wilds” and, even with little or no remediation, they can serve as part of the green infrastructure system. Urban wilds are not open to the public and may not be a desirable end use for most brownfields. But they can serve as an interim option until funding, demand or other factors align to remediate and adaptively reuse a site.

2. Acquire and remediate selected sites.

Upon determining desirable sites for conversion to open space uses, acquisition may be required. Because of the potential exposure to the landowner for remediation costs and liability, the City may be able to acquire the land more easily and pursue EPA funds for assessment and cleanup activities.

Remediation, which can involve excavation of contaminated soil, replacing it with clean soil, and capping of the site, can be costly, despite the possibility of assistance through government programs and grants. Because of these costs, brownfields may lie dormant for some time.

Phytoremediation is a slow but lower-cost process—using plants to clean toxic soils, groundwater, surface water and sediment—that can be used during this dormant period. This remedial process has been employed locally, including at Sloss Furnaces, and across the country on sites both large and small. In Chicago, former gas station sites were cleaned through phytoremediation for reuse as pocket parks.

Phytoremediation is most effective on sites with moderate amounts of pollution but has been used successfully to address a range of contaminants, including those in landfills, wood-treating facilities, military bases, fuel-storage sites, sewage treatment plants and mining sites. According to the US EPA:

Phytoremediation can occur even if the chemicals are not taken into the plant by the roots. For example, chemicals can stick or sorb to plant roots. Or they can be changed into less harmful chemicals by bugs or microbes that live near plant roots...Plants grown for phytoremediation also can help keep harmful chemicals from moving from a polluted site to other areas. The plants limit the

PHYTOREMEDIATION

In phytoremediation, plants remove a variety of contaminants from brownfield sites, including heavy metals, radionuclides, chlorinated solvents, petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs, pesticides and others. Plant types must be selected for local conditions and for the types of contaminants to be removed. Plants typically used to remove arsenic, for example are Chinese brake fern, sunflower and highland bent grass. Lead removal uses blue sheep fescue, Indian mustard, wheat and ragweed.¹

Plants should be harvested, the soil retested and the planting cycle continued until the soil contaminants decline to an appropriate level. Some plants are “hyperaccumulators” and must be disposed of as hazardous waste when harvested. A small bioremediation project was implemented north of the railroad tracks to Morris Avenue between 15th and 16th streets.

⬚ figure

(Photo: Ideonexus.com)

⬚ figure

Phytoremediation is not new to Birmingham. Above is a phytoremediation demonstration project at Sloss Furnaces. Recently a bioremediation project was performed along the railroad near Morris Avenue. (Photo: www.choosepeace.info)

amount of chemicals that can be carried away by the wind or by rain that soaks into the soil or flows off the site.¹

goal 3

The City makes every effort to consistently meet clean air standards.

POLICIES

• Support the development of cost-effective multi-modal transportation systems that reduce vehicle emissions.
• Encourage use of clean fuels and emissions testing.
• Emphasize recruitment of clean industry.
• Consider incentives for industries to reduce emissions over time.
• Promote the use of cost-effective energy efficient design, materials and equipment in existing and private development.

STRATEGIES

The City must pursue multiple strategies to improve regional air quality, which inherently will require collaboration with federal, state and local governments, the business community and other interested stakeholders. Transportation-related initiatives include: reduced vehicle emissions by managing annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT), encouraging transit and active transportation, and advancing use of clean fuels and emissions testing for personal vehicles. Other important initiatives to improve air quality involve promoting energy efficiency in the built environment and consideration of incentives that encourage reducing emissions related to industries.

A. Implement priority portions of the Red Rock Ridge and Valley Trail System.

Increasing pedestrian and bicycle options through development of the countywide trails system will support transit use and reduce dependency on personal vehicles, which will lead to reductions in vehicular emissions that pollute the air. Federal grants are available for these types of projects, for instance through MAP-21, which requires local matching funds. The City received a TIGER grant in 2012 that will help initiate several portions of the trail system.

ACTION

1. Develop a priority list for unfunded segments of the Trail System and seek funding according to the list.

Priority ranking should take into account criteria such as connections between neighborhoods and destinations such as parks and commercial districts; stormwater management and flood mitigation opportunities; and enhancement of urban villages and associated strategic opportunity areas discussed in Chapter 7 (p. 7.8).

B. Use clean fuels and encourage voluntary vehicle emissions testing.

ACTIONS

1. Expand use of clean fuels

In 2007, the City of Birmingham began the transition to a “green” fleet, installing biodiesel refueling stations to run its diesel vehicles on B20 blend fuels. Since then E-85 ethanol fueled vehicles were introduced. These efforts led to reduced vehicle emissions that promise better air quality in the region.

Birmingham and other area cities, in collaboration with Alagasco and Energen, have also been converting parts of their fleets to run on compressed natural gas (CNG), and are supporting the development of CNG fuel stations in the region. By continuing these initiatives, Birmingham and other cities and corporations can help to create the demand necessary to attract private investment in alternative fueling stations, which will ultimately make it easier for consumers to move to alternative fuels and reduce their air-quality impacts.

2. Encourage periodic voluntary vehicle emissions testing

Personal vehicle use contributes significantly to Birmingham’s air quality conditions, but multiple strategies can be used to reduce the negative impacts of vehicle emissions. As described in Chapter 12, increased use of alternative modes of travel (transit, ridesharing, walking and biking) can reduce the vehicle miles traveled in the region and therefore the overall amount of VOCs, NOx and other pollutants in the air. Secondly, vehicle emissions testing lets car owners know the degree to which their vehicles are contributing to air quality problems. Tests can identify maintenance issues or repairs needed for the vehicle to produce fewer pollutants.

Over 30 states currently require or have required periodic vehicle emissions tests, generally in counties or metro areas with air quality concerns. Testing is required either annually or biennially. More recently, states are loosening requirements for or are exempting hybrid vehicles and newer-model cars with increased fuel efficiency. Washington state, for example, recently exempted 2009 and later model vehicles. Average test costs are $10 to $20. Centralized testing programs, where motorists travel to a single facility operated by a public or non-profit agency, are generally more cost-effective, while decentralized programs tend to be more convenient for motorists.¹ Decentralized programs allow motorists to have their vehicles inspected by private automotive repair businesses.

Voluntary emissions testing has been conducted by the Birmingham Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and APCA in the past. Resuming these activities could be supplemented by public awareness and education programs. The City can also support the passage of state legislation to require periodic testing for applicable metro areas. This could include a sunset provision tied to air-quality improvements and/or to the percentage of newer, cleaner-burning cars in use.

⬚ figure

Vehicle emissions testing helps reduce air pollution caused by personal vehicles. Photo: http://ecologywa.blogspot.com

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART II | CHAPTER 4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

goal 4

The City makes every effort to consistently meet clean water standards.

POLICIES

• Encourage the Birmingham Water Works Board to protect water-supply sources located outside the city.
• Consider incentives for development that protects the city’s water resources.
• Consider incentives for the protection of natural drainage in stormwater management systems where feasible.
• Consider incentives for the use of conservation and low-impact development techniques.
• Support state water quality standards and enforcement.
• Monitor drilling uses of water resources to avoid contamination or excessive use and encourage best management practices.

STRATEGIES

There are several approaches to be undertaken to continue to improve Birmingham’s water quality and, in the process, remove those segments of the Cahaba River, the Locust Fork of the Black Warrior River, Village Creek, Valley Creek and Opossum Creek from ADEM’s 303(d) list. Efforts include improved stormwater management and design practices, continued flood mitigation efforts, ongoing water-quality monitoring, stream restoration and green infrastructure retrofits, and changes to development regulations.

In addition to these strategies, the City must also continue to work with the BWWB, as well as other stakeholders, to protect Birmingham’s water supply. Because Birmingham’s water supply involves sources outside of the city limits, it is essential for the City to support regional and state efforts to assure protection of area waterways.

Due to a constrained state budget, concerns have arisen regarding the ADEM’s ability to sustain water quality monitoring and enforcement operations. Properly funding and providing policy support for this state function is essential to protecting and improving water quality within and outside the city limits.

A. Maintain updated citywide flood-mitigation and stormwater plans.

Following multiple storms and severe flooding in the early 2000s, the City prepared and adopted a citywide flood-mitigation and stormwater-management plan in 2004. The City also participated in multi-jurisdictional natural-hazard and flood-hazard mitigation planning efforts organized by Jefferson County in this same period. These efforts resulted in multiple mitigation programs, including buyout initiatives along Village Creek, Valley Creek, Five Mile Creek, Upper Shades Creek and other floodplain corridors.

ACTIONS

1. Update the 2004 Flood Mitigation/Stormwater Management Plan. Given the substantial amount of flood mitigation activities that occurred in the early 2000s, this effort should reveal a much improved picture of flood hazards in the city. A renewed flood conditions assessment will allow greater focus on remaining priorities. This plan update should be coordinated with ongoing stormwater planning and water quality monitoring, analysis and reporting conducted by the City, since the two issues are so closely related. The City should also continue to update its flood-hazard mapping.

2. Evaluate recommendations and update flood regulations. The 2004 plan included a recommendation to adopt the proposed Jefferson County floodplain regulations or to strengthen existing regulations on floodplain development within the City zoning ordinance. Notably, the recommendations in this plan echo several of the strategies described in the 2004 plan: continued land acquisition along floodplains and regulatory improvements such as encouraging low-impact development practices and conservation and cluster developments.

The following recommended changes to the floodplain regulations in the Zoning Ordinance were also included in the 2004 plan:

• Increase the flood-protection elevation for new construction from 1’-0” to 1’-6” or 2’-0” above the base flood elevation.

FLOODPLAIN TERMINOLOGY

Flood fringe—That portion of the flood plain outside the regulatory floodway.

Floodway—That portion of the floodplain which is effective in carrying flow, within which this carrying capacity must be preserved and where the flood hazard is generally highest, i.e., where water depths and velocities are the greatest. It is that area which provides for the discharge of the base flood so the cumulative increase in water surface elevation is no more than one foot.

Floodplains—Lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters, including flood-prone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. The base floodplain is used to designate the 100-year floodplain (one percent chance floodplain). The critical floodplain is defined as the 500-year floodplain (0.2 percent chance floodplain).

⬚ figure

Birmingham’s largest floodplain complex lies along Village Creek.

• Prohibit the placement of fill in the floodway and limit its development to conservation, open space, passive recreation, flood-control and utility uses.
• Require no net loss of flood-storage capacity for developments in the Special Flood Hazard Area.
• Establish maximum percentages of impervious cover in Special Flood Hazard Areas.

B. Continue water-quality monitoring and begin enforcement based on new city-wide Stormwater Ordinance.

As part of the City’s state water-quality permit requirements under the federal Clean Water Act, the City prepares an annual report on water quality issues and an annual stormwater management plan. These activities should continue and be coordinated with a regularly updated flood mitigation plan.

Hydraulic fracturing is a drilling technique used to release petroleum, natural gas and other substances for energy production. Advancements in the fracturing process—“fracking,” as it has become known popularly—over the last two decades have made it economically effective but also have made its possible environmental impacts less well understood. Critics maintain that the chemicals used in fracturing fluid can contaminate ground water and threaten drinking water supplies.

Birmingham lies along a shale gas formation eyed for fracking that stretches across north central Alabama roughly along the I-59 corridor. A concentration of natural gas wells are believed to occur in the vicinity of the Black Warrior River, one of Birmingham’s drinking water supplies. However, Coalbed Methane producers in Jefferson and Tuscaloosa Counties have had limited success producing promising well in the area, and current wells in the region are being sealed due to declining production and the outlook for future wells is limited. Even though, the City and BWWB should monitor the practice in the region (as well as in other locations) and, if necessary, support state efforts to protect drinking water sources from chemical.

ACTIONS

1. Work to remove local streams from the 303(d) list of impaired waters.

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires that each state identify those waters that do not currently support designated uses and to develop a TMDL (total maximum daily load) plan for impaired streams. Village Creek and Valley Creek are the most important city streams on the list. Different segments

of Village Creek are listed for Draft TDML plans in 2014 and 2019, and Valley Creek is listed for 2019. Urban runoff and storm sewers are among the sources of pollutants and they can be mitigated by implementation of stormwater-management programs that reduce runoff and stormwater entering the streams.

2. Work to reduce pollutant loading on City Water resources. In conformance with the City’s NPDES permit, focus water quality monitoring on the elimination of pollutants and deduction of pollutant loadings on City water resources.

C. Use green infrastructure best practices, as feasible, in City capital improvement projects, as well as consider incentives for private development.

To demonstrate the effectiveness of green infrastructure design techniques and to integrate them into the local engineering and design practices, the City should incorporate best practices in sidewalk and street improvements and create a pilot program to convert selected “gray” stormwater facilities to green systems. The pilot program can initially focus on public infrastructure, such as concrete swales and drainage facilities along streets and in City parking lots. The program can also include retrofitting drainage facilities on private property through partnerships and grants. Because green infrastructure can reduce pollutants entering local streams, the BWWB would be a logical partner for carrying out a pilot program.

The program should execute multiple demonstration projects each year that may range in size and complexity from bioretention in city parks to green roof conversions on City buildings. The floodplain manager with assistance of planning, engineering and public works personnel should identify retrofit projects in locations where there are known flooding or drainage problems.

The Cawaco Resource Conservation and Development Council provides funds annually through its challenge grant program to municipalities and nonprofit organizations for community improvement projects that incorporate LID and green infrastructure programs.

ACTIONS 1. Create a green infrastructure program as part of the City’s street and sidewalk improvement plans. The infrastructure bond approved by voters in 2012 will include street improvement plans. Street and sidewalk improvements should be designed to include best practices in stormwater management, such as bumpouts with rain gardens and bioswales, where appropriate, to promote natural drainage. (See Chapter 13 for more information.)

2. Incorporate green infrastructure best practices in implementation of the 2012 TIGER grant and implementation of the Red Rock Ridge and Valley Trail System.

3. Create incentives to promote green infrastructure (low-impact) development for Private Development. Economic Development Department and Stormwater Management Division work in partnership with the development community to establish offset credits by ordinance to promote economic development that helps to improve water quality in Birmingham.

D. Getting Started

Chapter 5

Open Space, Parks and Recreation

⬚ figure

PERSONAL VISION STATEMENTS

“An accessible city connected by green spaces.”

“Well appointed parks with activities for all ages.”

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART II | CHAPTER 5 OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART II | CHAPTER 5 OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION

findings

Most residents are within a five to ten minute walk or bicycle ride to a public park.

City parks are maintained by the Public Works Department rather than the Parks and Recreation Department.

Private organizations have partnered with the City to provide and maintain high-quality parks facilities.

Three major parks—Railroad Park downtown (opened in 2010 and developed in partnership with the Railroad Park Foundation), Red Mountain Park, and Ruffner Mountain Nature Center—provide Birmingham with a wealth of park opportunities.

Recreation centers are unevenly distributed throughout the city relative to neighborhoods and population densities. However, some unserved areas have access to privately operated recreation facilities.

City investments in the park and recreation system include major improvements to three city parks and the development of a minor-league baseball stadium downtown.

Quality of life, which includes access to parks, nature and recreational amenities, is an increasingly important consideration in private sector economic investment decisions.

challenges

City-owned parks are unevenly maintained.

City-owned parks are not consistently programmed or equipped to maximize their use by neighborhood residents.

Declining neighborhood populations affect use and programming in some city parks and recreation areas.

Access to Red Mountain Park, Ruffner Mountain Nature Preserve and some city parks is limited due to their locations at the edges of the city, inadequate pedestrian access, industrial and transportation barriers, surrounding development and other factors.

The Parks and Recreation Department has limited funding for park improvements, maintenance and new park development. Park-system management is divided between the Parks Board and the city administration. The board sets policy and directs staff activities, but the city controls funding for operations and capital expenditures.

5.3

A. What the Community Said

VISIONING FORUM

The city’s parks, landscape and topography—its green infrastructure—was ranked by far as Birmingham’s greatest asset. The condition of parks and the need for more of them was also mentioned as a citywide challenge. Table discussions at the forum identified bike/walking paths and parks as a priority for the community.

GREEN SYSTEMS AND SUSTAINABILITY WORKSHOP

During the Communities of Interest workshop on Green Systems and Sustainability, attendees identified issues that brought them to the meeting and table discussions provided a set of priorities. Several of those dealt with city parks and open space:

Issues

• Variety of parks and recreation facilities
• Recreational access to the Cahaba River
• Using the city’s green amenities to attract investment

Table Priorities

• Improve and link parks
• Improve connectivity
• Increase public awareness on green systems and sustainability
• Build greenways with destinations

B. Parks and Open Space System

Birmingham has a significant inventory of parks and open spaces, all of which are an important component of the city’s green infrastructure network. In addition to traditionally developed civic and neighborhood parks, the parks and open space system has expanded over time to include a wide variety of open space amenities. These include former mining land allowed to return to nature as preserves and hiking areas, historically flooded properties reclaimed for greenways, and special parks such as the Botanical Gardens, Vulcan Park and Railroad Park.

A comprehensive park system for the city was formulated in the 1925 Olmsted Parks Plan. Unfortunately, much of the plan would go unrealized for decades. But, with the more recent conversion of formerly developed floodplains to parks and greenways, elements of the Olmsted Plan are finally coming to fruition.

THE OLMSTED PLAN

In 1925 the Birmingham Parks and Recreation Authority published the Olmsted Brothers’ A Park System for Birmingham. The countywide plan recommended numerous park expansion and park construction projects, acquisition of strategic lands to protect the domestic water supply, and preservation of floodplains, natural drainage systems and ridge tops. Following the development of the plan, several individual parks were created, though the more ambitious goals of the plan went largely unachieved. But after damaging flood events in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the sustainability of development within the floodplains of Village Creek and other streams ultimately came into question, proving the advice of the Olmsted Plan sound.

Birmingham and nearby cities began to acquire flood-damaged lands to create new parks, open spaces and recreational trails. In recent years there has been increased recognition of the visionary plan by multiple government and non-government entities. Today, organizations such as the Freshwater Land Trust are working on new initiatives inspired by the principles of the Olmsted Brothers’ plan.

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART II | CHAPTER 5 OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION

⬚ figure

The Olmsted Brothers’ “A Parks System for Birmingham,” 1925

COAL MINES TO ZIP LINES

Other innovative parks have resulted from the reclamation and reuse of former mining lands for open space. Vulcan Park opened on Red Mountain atop former mines. The park is home to the Vulcan statue and a mining history museum. Adjacent to the park is the mile-long Vulcan Trail developed along a former rail line that served the mining operations.

In 1977 Ruffner Mountain Nature Preserve began on a site originally less than 30 acres along the ridgeline of Red Mountain east of Downtown Birmingham. Today the preserve extends over 1,000 acres and includes an environmental education center and hiking trails that traverse mining areas that have been allowed to return to a natural condition.

More recently, Red Mountain Park was created when USS Realty sold the park property to the Red Mountain Greenway and Recreational Area Commission. The subsidiary of US Steel sold the site “at a greatly reduced price, and also made a $1 million contribution” to assist in the creation of the park.¹ Like Vulcan Park and Ruffner Mountain, Red Mountain Park spreads across a 1,100-acre former mining site. The park opened to the public in 2012 and features mining interpretive elements and recreational activities like hiking and zip line tours.

Red Mountain Park began zip line tours in April 2012 (Photo: Red Mountain Park)

5.5

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM PARKS SYSTEM

The city parks system is made up of district, neighborhood, and vest pocket parks; recreational facilities and sports complexes; and unique parks and open spaces that serve the region. The City of Birmingham Parks Board, whose members are appointed by the Birmingham City Council, is responsible for operating the city parks system. The Parks Board provides direction to the Parks and Recreation Department and establishes park policies. The City Council has a Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Committee that makes recommendations to the full Council on park-related matters.

The Parks Board holds 124 individual properties, which comprise more than 2,000 acres throughout the city. The department oversees some 100 parks and recreation facilities throughout the city. Maintenance is provided by the Public Works Department.

Supplementing these parks, and also representing elements within the city’s green infrastructure system, are parks and recreational facilities maintained by the Board of Education and Housing Authority.

District, Neighborhood and Pocket Parks and Greenways

For management purposes, the city classifies its municipal parks based on their size and types of facilities offered. Recently, the city has made special allocations for major improvements to three neighborhood and district parks—Avondale, Cooper Green and Crestwood parks.

⬚ figure

Renovated Avondale Park re-opened in October 2011.

Greenwood Park will soon be the newest addition to the city’s slate of district, neighborhood and pocket parks. Located on 34 acres of floodplain acquired with federal FEMA grants in east Birmingham, the park will include engineered wetlands, an educational walking trail, a playground and other facilities. The park is part of the larger Village Creek Greenway initiative and is being supported largely through the assistance of McWane Inc. as part of a court settlement with the US EPA regarding pollution of Village Creek by way of nearby Avondale Creek.

DISTRICT PARKS

District or community parks are relatively large, ranging in size from 15 to over 100 acres, and serve multiple neighborhoods. They typically include sports facilities and may also include community centers, pools and passive recreation areas. District parks are often located along major streets and near junior or senior high schools. These include:

• Avondale Park
• Bradford Park
• Cooper Green Park
• East Lake Park
• Ensley Park
• Fountain Heights Park
• George Ward Park
• M.E. Wiggins Park
• North Birmingham Park
• Roosevelt City Park

⬚ figure

WC Patton Park is a 30-acre park serving the East Birmingham and Kingston neighborhoods, but the immediate neighborhood is industrial. (Photo: Andre Natta)

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART II | CHAPTER 5 OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION

Responding to emerging national trends and local interest, the City opened its first dog park in 2009, Green Springs Dog Park. The 2.7-acre, fenced, off-leash area for dogs is located at George Ward Park in south-central Birmingham. Dog parks have typically developed in denser cities, where many dog owners live in condominiums, apartments or other residential areas without private yards, but the trend has grown, and less-dense communities have also shown interest in these facilities. Soon after Green Springs Dog Park opened in Birmingham, a similar park opened in Hoover.

NEIGHBORHOOD AND POCKET PARKS

Neighborhood parks make up the bulk of the municipal parks system. They vary in size from five to fifteen acres. They generally serve the recreational needs of individual neighborhoods and include parks that serve business districts. Neighborhood parks typically include playgrounds, passive recreation areas, multi-use fields and tennis or basketball courts and are often located near elementary schools. Some neighborhood parks include community centers and swimming pools.

Pocket parks are the smallest parks in the system, usually less than two acres in size. These parks supplement rather than substitute for neighborhood parks. They generally consist of small passive recreational spaces, such as picnic and seating areas, and playgrounds. Many pocket parks resulted from the conversion of vacant lots in opportune locations, several of which are located on land leased to the city by private property owners.

GREENWAYS

Birmingham’s greenways are linear open spaces that sometimes offer pedestrian and bicycle facilities and connect parks, schools, nature preserves, historic sites and other destinations. Greenways are connective tissue within the green infrastructure system and range from naturalistic trails (Vulcan Trail Park) to landscaped urban boulevards such as 20th Street (Birmingham Green), Norwood Boulevard, Highland Avenue, and Bush Boulevard. Others, such as Shades Creek Park and Altamont Park are not improved for specific recreational uses but nonetheless play roles as part of the city’s green infrastructure system, supporting stormwater management and providing natural open space in otherwise urban environments.

⬚ figure

Highland Avenue’s landscaped boulevard links three neighborhood parks and the Highland Golf Course.

Special and Regional Parks

In addition to the city’s more traditional parks and recreation facilities, the parks system includes several “special parks” and regional parks, many of which were created through partnerships with community organizations, private foundations and other groups.

SPECIAL PARKS

Special parks typically serve a singular, unique function, including athletic facilities, golf course, and historic or cultural sites. In several cases, these sites are owned by the City but are managed by an independent organization. These include:

• Arlington House
• Birmingham CrossPlex
• Don Hawkins Park
• Highland Golf Course
• Huffman Park
• Inglenook Park
• Kelly Ingram Park
• Lawson Field
• Linn Park
• Lowery Park

⬚ figure

The popularity of the new Railroad Park has stirred the community’s hopes for the future of the city. (Photo: Mark, Almond, Birmingham News)

5.7