Tag Archives: Birmingham

Still dreaming big dreams for Birmingham in 2021

Posted on June 9, 2014 by | Leave a comment

UPDATE: Birmingham was awarded the 2021 World Games on January 22, 2015.

rickwoodjune2014“You know, baseball isn’t an Olympic sport for 2020.”

I smirked as I said this during a chance encounter with David Brewer, executive director of the Friends of Rickwood Field, as we stood looking out at home plate in America’s oldest ballpark late Monday morning.

He laughed and said, “You know, you’re right,” as he returned to the never ending list of to-dos associated with his job, leaving me to think. I often find myself there in the historic structure on the city’s west side sitting in the general admission seats (or the first base dugout) in order to escape and think. This time, I tried to calm my mind to tackle some brainstorming but ended up dreaming big dreams. (It’s a bad habit of mine.) I thought of what it would be like to sit in the stands at Rickwood Field and Regions Field surrounded by others from around the world in 2021. It would take the International Baseball Federation successfully campaigning the International World Games Association to be added as a sport or a request of the city’s organizing committee, but there’s a chance…

IWGA logoNo, I’m not insane. Word of the city’s intention to submit a bid to host the 11th World Games in 2021 spread like wildfire on Sunday morning. People were still taking a breath from hearing of its bid to host the 2016 Democratic National Convention on Friday. These are noticeably bold moves in the midst of evidence of the city’s long-sought renaissance finally taking shape. I brought up during a quick exchange via Twitter that the potential resulting benefits and impact sound similar to those previously floated by a certain former mayor. The response: “Same thinking, but more realistic.” Hindsight is always 20/20 though and I’ve got a feeling historians will look at both situations as examples of the city taking a risk.

That said, this current proposal is a little easier to swallow for folks and easier to celebrate if successful (especially since it would be during Birmingham’s 150th birthday, but I digress). While the World Games started as a way to focus more on the athletes and less on keeping score among nations, they have come to be as significant in meaning to the host city as a successful Olympic bid without nearly the same level of expense.

Why? Here it is, courtesy of the bid packet:

In fact, the Rules of The World Games stipulate that the games must be staged at existing venues, or at venues that have been planned and built regardless of the bid for TWG.

This means that while the multi-purpose facility (a.k.a. the Dome) is probably going to happen, it’s not affecting this bid one way or the other. That can be also read as it doesn’t necessarily mean facilities can’t be renovated or modernized in order to accommodate events. This suddenly makes things like seeing a City Council agenda item for a feasibility study of Legion Field earlier this year more understandable (especially when coupled with the mayor’s comments during this year’s State of the City address).

This is a city that needs an excuse to light a fire under itself to get something accomplished. It also needs reassurances from outsiders. This would seem to accomplish both while, as said elsewhere previously, leaving the city in a better place if the bid proves unsuccessful.

The DNC bid was due last Friday, June 6 (and some have already written about its potential for success, including this piece on June 9 by Cliff Sims at Yellowhammer News and this one published on June 8 by Chuck Dean of al.com/Alabama Media Group). The World Games bid is due on July 31. Once it’s arrived in Colorado, the hard part begins. We have to keep dreaming big dreams and acting on them.

After watching this recap video from the 2013 World Games in Cali, Colombia (or photos like this one from its closing ceremonies), I’m thinking it shouldn’t be too hard to do.

BTW – it should be noted that American football was chosen as one of the invitational sports for the 2017 World Games in Wroclaw, Poland. Just saying…

André Natta is the stationmaster for bhamterminal.com.

Leave a comment

Posted in Commentary, development

Tagged , , , , ,

Regarding the City of Birmingham and Feeding the Homeless

Posted on April 2, 2014 by | Leave a comment

EDITOR’S NOTE: There has been a great deal said recently about the food truck ordinance passed late last year and how it’s affecting outreach efforts in the City of Birmingham. Matt Lacey, the senior pastor of downtown’s Church of the Reconciler,  has written this piece and shared it via social media and email. I felt it needed another, more openly accessible, place to reside. Links have been added by me where they seemed appropriate. As usual, comments are welcome and his contact information is below (though his email inbox was full as of this posting). ACN

One good way to make kind-hearted folks mad is to tell them it’s illegal for them to show that kindness.

Over the past couple of days here in Birmingham you may have heard reports in the media about the City of Birmingham threatening to arrest people for passing out food to the homeless in public parks and other gathering places.

The Mayor and City Council have said that they didn’t intent to create this type of environment by passing the food truck ordinance last year. Let me take some time to debunk that right away. This text is taken from page 9 of the aforementioned ordinance passed by the City Council:

“No person or business entity, including religious or charitable organization, shall operate a mobile food vehicle and/or pushcart upon the public rights-of-way within the city without a permit.”

Why would someone think to include religious and charitable organizations in the ordinance? More than likely they were attempting to bury legislation similar to other cities such as Raleigh, NC and others who have cracked down on public feedings in parks. In short: I think they knew what they were doing when they passed it.

To the issue of feeding at public parks: do churches, organizations, and volunteers need to have a conversation about the effectiveness of public feedings and the need for more permanent and ongoing help for the homeless? Absolutely. Is simply feeding at parks the best way to offer care for the homeless? Well, one could argue that you could do a lot more to offer more comprehensive care.

Organizations like ours-Church of the Reconciler-and the Firehouse Shelter, One Roof, and many others, frequently preach the need for more comprehensive services above and beyond just feeding the homeless. And there is certainly a lot to talk about. But is threatening to arrest people for feeding in public places a way to open up and have that conversation? Absolutely not.

Simply put: I’m not a public policy expert or a politician, but this isn’t going over well for the City of Birmingham. There are better ways to address this issue and have this conversation.

Mayor Bell, who in full disclosure was gracious enough to address one of our fundraising events several years ago, said that this is an effort to consolidate and organize services for the homeless through One Roof. That sounds really good, and One Roof does a great job of coordinating all these efforts currently.

Case in point: when police told Bridge Builders Ministries that they couldn’t serve the homeless outdoors any longer, we had a conversation with their leaders and opened our doors to create a more coordinated effort.

But if the Mayor and the City (and State of Alabama for that matter) are serious about this, it’s time they start providing more resources to care for those on the streets. Simply put: it’s time for Birmingham to stop talking and start doing.

I would like to issue an invitation to the Mayor and City Council members: come down to one of our organizations where, day after day, we offer care to those who need it most, rather than just bury something in an ordinance somewhere. Come and visit with those who suffer with mental illness and tell them, as we do, that there is little to no help we can offer because the State of Alabama lacks the resources (and will) to adequately address the issue. Come and argue, which I do on a weekly basis, with the drug dealers who prey on our population and help keep them in the cycle of addiction.

If we are going to talk about the need for more comprehensive help for the homeless, it’s probably best to not intimidate those attempting to do something about it, even those who might be well-intentioned but need to be more educated.

If the City wants to talk about the homeless in Birmingham, and ways they can help with the community my door is always open, as it has been.

Maybe this is the spark this City needs to starting talking about the issue of homelessness and poverty, which we have only treated with Band-Aids in the past, when in reality it needs comprehensive, holistic, and preventative care.

Rev. Matt Lacey
Senior Pastor, Church of the Reconciler
matt@churchofthereconciler.com
facebook.com/churchofthereconciler

Leave a comment

Posted in Commentary, guest

Tagged , , , , ,

More things to think about regardless of the I-20/59 conclusion

Posted on July 25, 2013 by | 7 comments

parkingunder2059Yesterday I decided to point to a specific city that’s actually tackled an inner-city interstate replacement and use it to ask a lot of questions about our situation here in Birmingham. I think talking through the answers will go a long way towards how ALDOT chooses to respond to critics of their current alternative to their original proposal to replace the existing decking as it exists.

Now, I drive by the BJCC and Uptown every day. As a result, I’ve had several other questions on my mind in recent weeks as it relates to I-20/59 and ALDOT’s proposed changes. I’m sure someone’s going to get to these at some point, but I wanted to go ahead and get these thoughts out there too just to see what bubbles up from readers:

Where do the cars currently parking under the interstate go? A lot of cars will be looking for new places to park as a result of the currently proposed configuration and the closing of 9th Ave. N. A survey of spaces located between 18th and 23rd Sts. N. underneath the interstate and along 9th suggests at least 625 (and as many as 660) vehicles will need to figure out where to go (special thanks to the RPCGB for helping to gather this info so quickly) once this project begins to move forward. This, provided new development continues to occur adjacent to the BJCC begs a follow-up question:

Where do we build a new parking lot (or do we even need to build a new one)? Before we jump on the “we need to build a new deck” bandwagon, it may help to pause and look at the bigger picture. This may be the spark needed to implement an expanded shuttle service downtown. It may even encourage folks to use the existing service provided by the BJCTA. The idea of enabling commuters and visitors to park in one of the lots located along Morris Avenue or any of the existing parking decks maintained by the Birmingham Parking Authority is intriguing. On-street parking options are plentiful, but not sufficient for those visiting the museum or the BJCC and unable to check their meters continuously throughout the day. A shuttle only works is if you can get folks out of their current need of having to park as close to their location as possible. It’s something possible to accomplish if you made it a more logical (read – cheaper) option to park in the decks than on the streets (the way many cities approach managing their parking situations to free up on-street spaces for shorter visits to stores).

Is it time for directional signage citywide? We seem to like tackling the creation of gateways for the city; the recent tree planting at the 31st St. N. exit suggests the corporate community is willing to help the city put its best foot forward as we see increased visitors not just this year, but arguably over the next five as we continue to commemorate milestones in the civil rights movement. Wayfinding, however, has been an issue the powers that be have been discussing for a long time. The Medical District is the most recent section of Birmingham to attempt to tackle it. Individual sites and attractions have tried as well as they tire of waiting for a comprehensive solution to surface.

If we accept that the ramps will go away regardless of what happens, we can also admit it will provide an excuse for visitors and locals alike to explore not just greater downtown, but the entire city (if only because it’s now a possible “accident” waiting to happen). It’s a chance to make sure all are aware of the options and experiences available to them. It could also make it easier for folks to navigate an already insane grid system.

Speaking of the grid…

Is it time to wave “bye-bye!” to the one-way streets downtown? One of the reasons often given for the existence of one-way streets in Birmingham’s city center is because of the ability to get into and out of downtown as quickly as possible via the surrounding highways. The elimination of the ramps providing access to these thoroughfares could be the impetus to finally carry out a major recommendation of the 2004 City Center Master Plan – converting many one-way streets back to two-way. It’d probably be most helpful along those streets most affected by the proposed interstate changes – thoroughfares like 5th Ave. N., 18th St., 22nd St. and Richard Arrington, Jr. Blvd. As many hope to see more restaurants and stores move downtown to serve the estimated 80,000+ that venture in every day, it sure would be nice to make them more visible from multiple directions. It could even encourage more foot traffic – thanks to increased “eyes on the road” for peace of mind.

These are questions not necessarily considered when looking at the situation on its surface, but they will be ones where answers are more critical to the period of during and after construction of whatever happens. Ironically, the very thing the proposal aims to get to pass through the city quickly – the car – is the one thing that will lead to significant decisions to be made about how downtown will continue to adapt and change as it enjoys a national and international close-up.

7 Comments

Posted in Commentary, development

Tagged , , ,

Fort Washington Way – a look at how one city actually handled their Interstate issue

Posted on July 23, 2013 by | Leave a comment

bridgeoveri71Yes, there’s recently been a significant amount of focus on proposed plans for I-20/59. Diehards have been aware of the topic since last summer when the initial plan was presented at a public hearing only to be sent back (at the request of city and county officials – but more on that later). While much of the recent conversation has looked at cities currently going through similar effort, I thought it’d make some sense to look at one example where the battle’s been fought and the resolution is still a work in progress. Enter a rebuilt Fort Washington Way (FWW) in Cincinnati, Ohio – a creative approach to handling the passage of I-71 and U.S. 50 through the city adjacent to the waterfront.

I’ve had the opportunity to drive FWW through Cincinnati often over the last 10 years. My most recent chance was late last month on the way back from a trip to upstate New York for a wedding. I’d watched its development play out online via Planetizen (an insane resource for planning and urban issues geeks) – though the older archives aren’t accessible anymore. Luckily, the folks at Urban Cincy did an incredible four-part series (1, 2, 3, 4) three years ago chronicling some of the foresight in this compromised solution up north. Cincinnati-Transit.net does an excellent job providing historical context for both the original FWW and the one used by area commuters today. I’d always wanted a photo of how they treated the narrower roadways over the road, as pictured above, meaning it was time to make a longer pit stop.

Getting better acquainted with the project has me wondering if we’re leaving out a few questions as we continue to talk about it. I’ll warn you I’m basing my thoughts and observations on the idea of sinking the interstate. The same questions apply if the road is shifted, albeit with a much broader range of results available. I’ll also point out the nonexistence of sexy, immediate solutions – as proven via this story about parking filed in 2009 – but it’s something to remember regardless of what happens.

Is it possible to complete the project in phases? The redevelopment of FWW in Cincinnati was part of a much broader redevelopment plan for the city’s waterfront. The same opportunity exists with the sinking proposal as it could allow for expansion of both the BJCC and the Birmingham Museum of Art either immediately adjacent to their current locations or close by. Our transit center is already destined for the southern edge of the city’s central business district, but it doesn’t mean we couldn’t be thinking about future needs as we continue a public conversation about it. The rebuilt road would simply be the first phase, with the access roads still possible along either side enabling a civic boulevard the likes of which we still need psychologically here in Birmingham. The current phase underway in Cincinnati includes a wide-ranging engagement of the public, making sure their ideas are considered and heard as officials determine exactly what goes on top of the roadway. I’m not as familiar with the situation surrounding air rights over I-20/59 (FWW is actually both I-71 and U.S. 50, something that enabled Cincinnati to maintain their air rights), so there’s still a question in my mind about what’s currently possible and what can be persuaded into being. It’s also important to point out that the city of Cincinnati was – and still is – considered the lead agency on the project.

Have we publicly discussed how the city may be able to “fill the gap” cost-wise? We know the alternatives will cost more money. We know there are a vast majority of people who want to see the alternatives seriously considered. We haven’t publicly floated any ideas about how to “fill the gap” between the cost ALDOT is willing to cover and the actual cost of any alternative built – at least not recently.

The additional license fees and taxes proposed and implemented by the Langford administration are still being collected. Maybe they can be used as a funding source? Is there a way to expand the tax increment financing (TIF) district already in place downtown, enabling some of the increased monies potentially available from recapitalization to go towards an alternative proposal’s construction? Maybe we look to the parking authority as a funding source (though that’s the subject for another piece – and a whole new cans of worms)? If we find out we can do whatever we want on the lids covering the sunken roadway, could we attempt to treat it as another Railroad Park – could we raise the money to fill the gap? A possible last minute issue in Cincinnati in 2000 resulted in demonstrating just what the business community and the city would be willing to contribute if it really wants to see this type of development occur, with funding sources more easily identifiable later on as residential development moved forward.

Do we know the whole story or just the most recent chapter? Something of significance is remembering the original proposal from ALDOT. When they held their first public hearing last July (the one that allows them to correctly claim four such meetings in the process), their plan consisted of shutting down traffic similar to what they’ve been doing for the stretch of road between Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport and the I-459 interchange and simply replacing the decking. The reason we’re looking at the current unpopular plan is because both the city (with representatives from the mayor’s office in attendance at the public hearing after the request was made earlier that day) and the county asked for ALDOT to come up with something else – in part because there were many upset with the idea of simply repairing and retaining the status quo. Yes, existing proposals for sinking the road already existed, but for various reasons, they weren’t talked about as much as they needed to be at that time. We’re making up for lost time now, but we need to be sure we know everything, including recognizing the neighborhoods originally destroyed and affected by its initial construction. The recent debacle meeting at ALDOT headquarters with the city makes many of us wary and unsure – and with great reason…

As we move forward, it may help to look for answers to these questions and others. It could be the difference between getting what we want and getting what we need. After all, there’s no better way to show how much you believe in the importance of the project than by caring enough to ask the right questions.

Leave a comment

Posted in development

Tagged , , , ,

How are other cities handling food trucks?

Posted on July 16, 2012 by | 3 comments

This year’s Birmingham Magazine Best of Bham readers poll allowed participants to vote for the Best Food Truck. An online petition launched last week to show support for area food trucks has continues to grow; the new target is 1,500 signatures with more than 1,160 already collected. If there’s any doubt in your mind right now, get over of it:

Food trucks are here to stay; the question is how they’ll be handled.

The recent issue of food truck regulations has found me looking around online for the past few days to see if we’re alone on this issue. The findings – not even close to being alone. Food truck regulation is apparently a big issue in several cities right now. This week for example, Portland, ME and Chicago, IL will attempt to pass new ordinances aimed at making both sides agreeable, with neither side necessarily declaring victory so far.

A couple of things took place last week providing insight into how crazy the food truck issue is in several cities right now. It should help those involved come up with a good solution for all.

The first event happened on July 9 as Chick-Fil-A rolled out their new food truck at Farragut Square in Washington, DC. According to a post on “All We Can Eat,” The Washington Post’s food blog, the truck had been planned for some time (it was supposed to debut in April and was seen in May and June around town) and underwent a design change before its apparently successful relaunch on the streets of the Nation’s Capitol. Incidentally, one of the reasons cited by Chick-Fil-A for introducing the truck in the piece is their lack of physical locations in metro DC (one actually – on a college campus). The ability to gauge interest in eventually opening brick and mortar establishments was what the head of DC’s Small Business Administration pointed out in a recent interview.

By the way, DC Mayor Vincent Gray introduced a new ordinance in January that would among other things allow food trucks to stay parked in one spot instead of needing to be “hailed” like a cab in order to conduct business. It would also dictate the hours they would be allowed to operate in the District.

Thursday, July 12, saw a the spotlight focused on food trucks… in Chicago. Our friends at Gapers Block were one of several media outlets writing about the first ever Chicago Food Truck Day. The event was organized in advance of the upcoming July 19 hearing involving that city’s new food truck ordinance that would among other things finally allow operators to cook on board. The Chicago Tribune reports they’d also have to install GPS devices to allow the city to track them, making it easier to enforce a two-hour parking limit at any one location while being able to operate 24 hours a day.

Chicago’s municipal legislation has been stalled out for at least a year according to most reports and it’s not come without its share of debate, including an interactive debate presentation over on The Huffington Post. It should calm folks looking at Birmingham’s current situation and the discussions surrounding a rewrite of local laws to accommodate the growing industry that others are tackling it as well.

Specifying distances is not necessarily new – Chicago is asking for a 200 ft. distance from the front door of brick and mortar restaurants; incidentally, Portland, Maine’s asking them to be 65 feet away after hours while actually being more restrictive during the day in their proposed ordinance (scheduled for a vote later on today – Monday, July 16).

There have also been some successes so far. Boston (as usual) has found a way to make it hip and cool, even creating a page on their website letting people know which trucks are out and where they’re located as well as a streamlined page for applying for the requisite permits. This while they’ve instituted a lottery system as part of their process. The folks in Memphis are talking about how successful their ordinance (PDF) has been – becoming a lucrative opportunity for several operators shortly after its passage last spring.

Hey, at least we’re not in Clearwater, FL, where they have no intention of adapting their ordinances to accommodate food trucks any time soon. Those willing to talk about the negative long term effects may want to look at what problems developed in Raleigh, NC some ten months after their battle over their food truck ordinance (PDF) – none.

Time will tell what happens here. There appears to be folks willing to work together and a community that’s willing to support whatever decision is reached. With several cities going through the same situation right now, hopefully it will calm folks down while also giving everyone an idea of what’s working and what’s not.

3 Comments

Posted in Birmingham, Commentary

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Making tracks towards the future on Southside

Posted on June 8, 2012 by | 1 comment

1st Avenue Cut, May 16, 2012.A drive along 1st Avenue South heading east contains a significant yet subtle development for those able to stop and take a look. You’ll notice the absence of rails and ties both in the area known as the 1st Avenue Cut between 20th & 24th Sts. and between 28th and 32nd Sts.

A quick look at Birmingham’s GIS map shows most of the property in question being held by CSX. If you can’t tell, I started getting that nagging feeling again (you may have seen what happened earlier this week when that starts), and for some pretty good reasons.

The parcels in question have been identified on several occasions as essential for the “Plan A” expansion of Railroad Park. This would eventually connect the existing park between 14th and 18th Streets South and the property sitting on the northwest corner of 1st Ave. S. and 18th St. that served as the focus of “Prize 2 the Future” contest to Sloss Furnaces.

The native New Yorker who reads way too many online publications from there every morning remembered the transportation company had already agreed in principal to donate the property necessary to complete the city’s High Line back in late 2011. They donated the property developed as the first segment of the park back in 2005. They also have a history of donating property across the country to recreational projects and those that focus on alternative transportation solutions. Attempts were made to hear the reason for the track removal from CSX via email last week; there has still not been a response.

It doesn’t hurt that by removing the track they’ve enabled the city to be able to claim that this project is shovel-ready for development as part of the Jones Valley Corridor. It’s considered an integral part of the Red Rock Ridge and Valley Trail System unveiled earlier this year by the Freshwater Land Trust.

This becomes significant when you realize they’re going to announce what projects across the country have been awarded TIGER grants pretty soon – even sooner than some may realize. A bid was submitted for this round to help “jump start” some area projects; it’s the second attempt to secure these federal funds to assist with the greenway initiative.

There’s also the amount of activity currently taking place close to 32nd St. and 1st Ave. S to consider. We’re anxiously awaiting more information about the upcoming groundbreaking for Sloss’ new visitors center, a project many years in the making. Those who driving by IMS‘ properties close to Sloss’ entrance notice Appleseed Workshop signs up and a significant transformation underway to make this section of town resemble the master plan the company unveiled a couple of years ago for the Sloss Business District.

When you consider the demand for the monies awarded is far exceeding the supply, the cumulative effect of all of these things happening at once suddenly gives you hope for our chances of being awarded funds. Even if it’s not awarded, there’s been a shift in momentum for this area of the city – one that’s sure to pick up steam. It’s a perfect opportunity to focus on the concept of accentuating the city positive I talked about on here a couple of years ago.

Nice, isn’t it.

André Natta is the station master for bhamterminal.com.

1 Comment

Posted in development, regional

Tagged , , , , ,

Reading into the Alabama Media Group plans (a lot)

Posted on June 6, 2012 by | 6 comments

The old and new Birmingham News headquarters. Bob Farley/f8photo.There’s been something nagging at me for a while now about the impending changes scheduled for the three Advance Publications titles based in Alabama (including Birmingham’s newspaper of record). You may have heard something about it.

It finally clicked in my head late last night, essentially changing the focus of what I thought had been a pretty solid piece about my thoughts regarding the reduction of The Birmingham News‘ print schedule. I’ll apologize if what follows seems a bit dry. I promise if you follow along, the potential outcomes (even if currently unlikely) become very interesting.

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around exactly what these changes would mean locally – and not just from the perspective of layoffs and the resulting competition. I kept trying to figure out some other potential results of the shift in focus. The News will still be the go to source for legal notices; their maintaining a print schedule allows them to meet the requirements for the state’s revised legal notices law; it passed back in March (after being introduced in February) and was explained (for the benefit of Alabama Press Association members) in a video later on during the session. The new rules took effect on June 1. By the way, the revised law does not seem to be easily interpreted for online-only publications at this time. Final passage appears to be a compromise for those organizations looking to go online only and those still wanting the notices to appear in the paper.

The new media organization will also be able to maintain its full APA active membership since it will meet their criteria:

…bona-fide newspapers of general circulation that are issued daily, weekly, semi-weekly or tri-weekly in Alabama…Bona-fide newspapers are those which have held a second-class mailing permit for one year and are published for the dissemination of news of general interest,” according to APA bylaws. Active membership is a voting membership. Dues are determined by paid circulation, as shown on the annually published postal statement of ownership.

What The News will not be is a daily newspaper. You may be laughing right now saying, “Of course not, silly André. They’ll only be printing three days a week.” Funny you should bring that up; current FCC regulations define a daily newspaper as any publication printing four or more days a week. Yeah, that was a nice tidbit of information to learn. This becomes important since it means that the new Alabama Media Group could be allowed to be bought by a local television station down the road and not be in violation of current rules prohibiting a daily newspaper and a local television station having the same owner – rules that are currently scheduled to be kept in place when they’re up for review.

It becomes even better when you think of it in another way – this new organization could buy or launch a television station of its own if it wanted to and not have to worry about FCC regulations. Those broadcast geeks reading – the exemption being considered only applies as a blanket approach to the top 20 designated market areas, or DMAs, in the country; we’re #40. Considering the possibilities that exist now thanks to the available digital television spectrum, it wouldn’t be too far-fetched of an idea. While the antennas may need to remain atop Red Mountain, the studio wouldn’t, leading to a creative spin on the efforts undertaken in Michigan earlier this year – one making the stories and information available as more than just another digital voice. It’s probably why I don’t see them using any of their existing properties if they don’t stay in the building on 22nd St. & 4th Ave. N. and probably going to Southside.

This all only makes sense to me because I’ve heard several people refer to The Birmingham News in recent months as a multimedia company – one that could turn to streaming or digital video and audio to augment its print and online written product. If it wasn’t already in their minds before –  “You’re welcome.”

It wouldn’t quite be a return to the days of the media powerhouses of more than thirty years ago and the fear of lack of diversity of voices associated with it. This is partially because of things like WordPress and Twitter making sites like this one possible. It still wouldn’t lessen the blow of print reduction though and it wouldn’t necessarily guarantee it was reaching more people – things I still believe are possible unfortunately – at least in the short term.

It is something that could potentially diversify revenue streams – since at the end of the day, journalists have to eat. Even if none of it comes to be, you’ve now been given a glimpse into the mind of one of the folks trying to figure out how this new age of journalism will work.

There’s one last side note I’d like the folks up in my hometown to consider as they prepare to have their teams in Alabama and New Orleans undertake this new approach. The Newhouse Foundation is an extremely valuable part of the journalism ecosystem – particularly in the northeastern United States. The philanthropic organization provides scholarships to those studying journalism and is a major supporter of Syracuse’s school of public communications. While it is not part of the company per se, it would be nice for it to consider stepping outside of its unwritten rules (as it has on other occasions for extremely worthwhile causes) and making contributions to efforts that ensure the passage of information from journalists to those who starve for it. It’s not like there’s currently enough adequate Internet coverage.

Perhaps a significant gift to our city’s financially strapped library system would be a great place to start. This would help provide venues for Internet access to those who don’t have it at home and space for community gatherings with all of those “one man bands” that are about to be unleashed into these communities.

I’m constantly told I’m an optimistic person when it comes to the future of Birmingham. That optimism can only be spread if it is easier to share the information needed to have critical discussions about what’s going on in the city. As much as I’m not a big fan of the changes and worry about the future employment of people who I respect dearly, I’m also watching (and hoping) to see if one of those voices responsible for shaping that conversation can survive and endure as we move forward.

André Natta is the station master for bhamterminal.com.

Photo: The old and new Birmingham News headquarters, 2009. Bob Farley/f8photo.

6 Comments

Posted in Commentary, media

Tagged , , , , , , ,