Design Review Committee disapproves replacement "Sign"
Preserve Jazz Festival announces sabbatical for 2015
Yes, 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.
There have been 
Reading into the Alabama Media Group plans (a lot)
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:
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 Alabama Media Group, Birmingham, future, journalism, opinion, present, proposal, suggestion