Mobile Development Thread

[buckett5425]

Originally Posted by OCA REP

This short piece was in today's Montgomery Advertiser. I thought I would share it since new stadiums and the Senior Bowl were being discussed.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/arti...RTS-BRIEFS--Senior-Bowl-may-leave-Mobile

SPORTS BRIEFS: Senior Bowl may leave Mobile
September 14, 2009

The Senior Bowl lost more than $150,000 putting on this year's game in January, according to organizers who are looking at other possible host cities, in part because of uncertainty about the long-term financial viability in Mobile. In the past five years the game that showcases NFL hopefuls has made enough money to award $1.1 million in charitable donations, while accruing $1.2 million in profit, according to public tax filings by the Mobile Arts & Sports Association, which runs the game. But organizers say ticket sales and sponsorships slumped in the face of the worst recession in the game's 58-year history in Mobile. Victor Lott Jr., chairman of the association, said expenses for the game are rising, while revenue has peaked.

Definition of irony?

[Bayside]

Originally Posted by BlessedMobile

That's the house now being renovated in Fort Conde Village to become a B&B. Larry was all focused on that wrought iron fence shown in the front. Seems that someone in the 30's plastered over the original bricks and brownstone cap; you can see the light shaded plaster below the fence. He wants to return it to its original look but the city wants to keep the plaster finish. Also, on the right end of the fence is now a very large oak which looks to be about five feet tall in the photo. They even had to dig down four feet below the original foundation to put in new plumbing and air conditioning ducts. This will be a showpiece when completed. The ARB has been very reasonable and professional in their dealings with him.

Blessed - what is the building next to this one for? I thought that it was going to be a B&B.

[Bayside]

When USA builds a football stadium, it will be built on campus. Perhaps next to the Mitchell Center where the track is. I doubt very seriously that USA would build anywhere but on their own campus.

[WEMO]

How do you know this?

[Bogue]

Yeah, I was pretty specific about it being put in South Crichton, not Spring Hill.

As for how it would revitalize the area. It would:

A. require a reworking of the intersection there, creating an easier on-off method for the business district there & better connecting the two sides. At present the east side of the awkward intersection of I-65 with Springhill & Moffatt is dominated by low-rent kind of commercial properties. That section of Springhill is extremely close to Spring Hill (as the distinction has been noted previously). The interstate is what divides (starkly) a poor neighborhood from a rich one. The stadium & park area would pull the aesthetic potential that's common in Spring Hill eastward across the interstate. That it would remove some homes is a fair point, but none of them are historic and if you give those folk the option of buying their homes at a fair price I'm sure most would jump at the chance to bolt the ghetto (which it will stay for the forseeable future w/o some kind of intervention).

B. there are already a couple prep schools in the general area. This would be, w/ proper focus of gentrification, a very good location. It's convenient, has some very good schools nearby (not sure about which district they go to in public, just referencing the private ones).

C. It's on a line between 2 colleges and a large hospital. These are good for redevelopment. That it's also on the same 2 roads of which the wealthy folk are so proud (Old Shell & Springhill) increases the desirability (don't ask me why... people like to look like they're wealthy even when they're not. Mobilians in particular are susceptible to this).

I agree that it's pie-in-the-sky... just an idea.

I also understand that the city doesn't make much in the way of profit off the event. It helps the visibility of the city, though.

[Bogue]

http://www.al.com/news/press-register/metro.ssf?/base/news/1252919753258660.xml&coll=3

Interesting article about a large new building going up on USA's campus. Yet another "Shelby Hall" on an Alabama campus... This one supposed to become an "anchor building" & be "architecturally significant".... anyone have a rendering?

[nouveau_Mauvilla]

Originally Posted by Alabadrock

I'd be worried about putting it on Blakley...

As a geographer, I'd be worried about the future existence of that island. It's located at the terminus of a delta, which for those of you who don't know, are places that are constantly changing in size, shape and elevation.

It's been there for years, yes, but the future of it is ultimately unknown.

PS: I know you were just offering it as a suggestion, I just couldn't help myself

I hear you; I can definitely see how it would be unstable. Realistically, though, I don't think any of these sugestions are going to happen.

Anyone know of any updates on contamination by chance? Hope they're still cleaning it up. Gota have our manatees happy and healthy.

[Bayside]

Originally Posted by WEMO

How do you know this?

For the same reason the Mitchell Center and Stanky Field is on campus and not elsewhere. The university owns plenty of property on its own campus. The best collegiate gameday atmosphere is at an on campus stadium. The students live on campus. Why should they drive across town for a home game? Alumni like to go back to campus on gameday to visit. It is a huge investment and the stadium will remain where it is constructed for many decades to come. The best way to protect that investment will be to have it on its own campus where it controls the neighborhood.

[Port_of_Bama]

I know someone who works in SGA at USA and this person told me that there wasn`t any future plans about a stadium right now . When the time comes it would be on campus and University bldvd would be the road leading to it.

The City of Mobile came up with an idea of a new stadium as of recently not USA but USA may pitch in for a new one.So it may be off campus if the city foots most of the bill and if USA does it would be at south. USA has no problem getting the money for a new staduim it just wasn`t as important as building the other stuff USA is and will build soon.

All from my SGA source

So it may be off campus if the city foots most of the bill and if USA does it would be at south. USA has no problem getting the money for a new staduim it just wasn`t as important as building the other stuff USA is and will build soon.



Shelby Hall rendering :http://www.southalabama.edu/


The new Engineering building is going to look nice saw the renderings on campus . South is growing at a rapid rate from like 8 K to well over 14 K in the past 2 or 3 years. So the need for dorms are more important to me than a new engineering building. South has 900 out of town students living in motels and there is barely any room for parking.The school is growng much faster than its developing.

[buckett5425]

Originally Posted by Bogue

Yeah, I was pretty specific about it being put in South Crichton, not Spring Hill.

As for how it would revitalize the area. It would:

A. require a reworking of the intersection there, creating an easier on-off method for the business district there & better connecting the two sides. At present the east side of the awkward intersection of I-65 with Springhill & Moffatt is dominated by low-rent kind of commercial properties. That section of Springhill is extremely close to Spring Hill (as the distinction has been noted previously). The interstate is what divides (starkly) a poor neighborhood from a rich one. The stadium & park area would pull the aesthetic potential that's common in Spring Hill eastward across the interstate. That it would remove some homes is a fair point, but none of them are historic and if you give those folk the option of buying their homes at a fair price I'm sure most would jump at the chance to bolt the ghetto (which it will stay for the forseeable future w/o some kind of intervention).

B. there are already a couple prep schools in the general area. This would be, w/ proper focus of gentrification, a very good location. It's convenient, has some very good schools nearby (not sure about which district they go to in public, just referencing the private ones).

C. It's on a line between 2 colleges and a large hospital. These are good for redevelopment. That it's also on the same 2 roads of which the wealthy folk are so proud (Old Shell & Springhill) increases the desirability (don't ask me why... people like to look like they're wealthy even when they're not. Mobilians in particular are susceptible to this).

I agree that it's pie-in-the-sky... just an idea.

I also understand that the city doesn't make much in the way of profit off the event. It helps the visibility of the city, though.

Bogue,

I recommend you read Jane Jacobs' Death and Life of Great American Cities. To put it bluntly, everything you suggest will not work in the way you intend it to. By opening up that area to outside development by trying to "un-slum" the area as Jacobs refers to it, you will simply only be "slum-shifting." The people that live there will have to go somewhere, and chances are that they wont improve the area the move too. Also, the jobs created there will not be for them, but for outsiders who will commute to the area. There are many other, and better ways, to improve an impoverished area(that i wont go into here) but I just wanted to let you be aware, that building a stadium, or any other huge public project wouldn't really be helping the real issue, which is, why is South Crichton impoverished?

[BlessedMobile]

Originally Posted by buckett5425

Bogue,

I recommend you read Jane Jacobs' Death and Life of Great American Cities. To put it bluntly, everything you suggest will not work in the way you intend it to. By opening up that area to outside development by trying to "un-slum" the area as Jacobs refers to it, you will simply only be "slum-shifting." The people that live there will have to go somewhere, and chances are that they wont improve the area the move too. Also, the jobs created there will not be for them, but for outsiders who will commute to the area. There are many other, and better ways, to improve an impoverished area(that i wont go into here) but I just wanted to let you be aware, that building a stadium, or any other huge public project wouldn't really be helping the real issue, which is, why is South Crichton impoverished?

Buckett goes to the head of his class!

[BlessedMobile]

Originally Posted by Bayside

Blessed - what is the building next to this one for? I thought that it was going to be a B&B.

The already renovated building to the left is an office building with about a 3K s/f new building which joins the back of the historic building. There will be 6-7 offices in the total building. One of the larger tenants is a Norwegian shipping company. The B&B has a small expansion off of the back which gives the building a "U" shape and a nice courtyard.

[BlessedMobile]

Originally Posted by Bogue

Yeah, I was pretty specific about it being put in South Crichton, not Spring Hill.

As for how it would revitalize the area. It would:

A. require a reworking of the intersection there, creating an easier on-off method for the business district there & better connecting the two sides. At present the east side of the awkward intersection of I-65 with Springhill & Moffatt is dominated by low-rent kind of commercial properties. That section of Springhill is extremely close to Spring Hill (as the distinction has been noted previously). The interstate is what divides (starkly) a poor neighborhood from a rich one. The stadium & park area would pull the aesthetic potential that's common in Spring Hill eastward across the interstate. That it would remove some homes is a fair point, but none of them are historic and if you give those folk the option of buying their homes at a fair price I'm sure most would jump at the chance to bolt the ghetto (which it will stay for the forseeable future w/o some kind of intervention).

B. there are already a couple prep schools in the general area. This would be, w/ proper focus of gentrification, a very good location. It's convenient, has some very good schools nearby (not sure about which district they go to in public, just referencing the private ones).

C. It's on a line between 2 colleges and a large hospital. These are good for redevelopment. That it's also on the same 2 roads of which the wealthy folk are so proud (Old Shell & Springhill) increases the desirability (don't ask me why... people like to look like they're wealthy even when they're not. Mobilians in particular are susceptible to this).

I agree that it's pie-in-the-sky... just an idea.

I also understand that the city doesn't make much in the way of profit off the event. It helps the visibility of the city, though.

Bogue....one of us has absolutely no understanding of society or business. If it's me then I must be getting to old...if it's you then we would want to excuse your youthful fancy. I respect your opinion.

[Bogue]

Sorry, bucket, I thought this was about development, not social engineering. Gentrification has its negative consequences (negatives that are, IMO, more than made up for in its positive aspects), no doubt, but perhaps you may want to check out a different venue for discussions on the underlying causes of poverty? While I'm sure that your author makes a good point, there are numerous voices on this issue including many which do not agree. While it's true that the people which live in an area would need to go somewhere, it's on those individuals to shape the neighborhoods in which they choose to settle. I'm of the mind that, while there are additional societal pressures placed on certain groups, each community (and each person within that community) bears an overwhelming share of responsibility for how it is maintained. Heaping the fault for the failure of a community on outside impactors is rarely correct. We can, essentially, control everything to do with our fates within the socio-economic framework in which we currently live. There are so many encouragements built into the system (more layers of which are added every year) that blame for the failure of a community now resides almost solely upon the people who live there. I'm all for these encouragements, and large public works projects are a proven staple in this arsenal. A place does not fail b/c of the race of the people living there, their economic status, or any cultural reality. It fails b/c the people who live there let it. Sure, there are exceptions when there is a wholesale economic shift or major recession (like Flint, Michigan or a handful of places in the Rust Belt), but those stories are not as common as people are made to believe.

Blessed, while I generally enjoy your opinions, I don't think it was remotely necessary to make the personal attack on me. I've always thought better of you. Attacking my intelligence was completely uncalled for, rude, & came completely out of left field. I think you owe me an apology. BTW, tacking "I respect your opinion" onto the end of a personal attack doesn't make it any less so. It only makes it sound sarcastic.

Thanks Port for the link to the new hall. It does look like a very nice addition to that campus, though I can agree (after seeing the way the UA's campus has exploded in growth over the years since I went there) that there are probably a lot of needs down there. I've been in the dorms there several years back visiting friends. The ones I went into (near the baseball stadium) were really run-down and in need of serious updating.

[buckett5425]

Originally Posted by Bogue

Sorry, bucket, I thought this was about development, not social engineering. Gentrification has its negative consequences (negatives that are, IMO, more than made up for in its positive aspects), no doubt, but perhaps you may want to check out a different venue for discussions on the underlying causes of poverty? While I'm sure that your author makes a good point, there are numerous voices on this issue including many which do not agree. While it's true that the people which live in an area would need to go somewhere, it's on those individuals to shape the neighborhoods in which they choose to settle. I'm of the mind that, while there are additional societal pressures placed on certain groups, each community (and each person within that community) bears an overwhelming share of responsibility for how it is maintained. Heaping the fault for the failure of a community on outside impactors is rarely correct. We can, essentially, control everything to do with our fates within the socio-economic framework in which we currently live. There are so many encouragements built into the system (more layers of which are added every year) that blame for the failure of a community now resides almost solely upon the people who live there. I'm all for these encouragements, and large public works projects are a proven staple in this arsenal. A place does not fail b/c of the race of the people living there, their economic status, or any cultural reality. It fails b/c the people who live there let it. Sure, there are exceptions when there is a wholesale economic shift or major recession (like Flint, Michigan or a handful of places in the Rust Belt), but those stories are not as common as people are made to believe.

Blessed, while I generally enjoy your opinions, I don't think it was remotely necessary to make the personal attack on me. I've always thought better of you. Attacking my intelligence was completely uncalled for, rude, & came completely out of left field. I think you owe me an apology. BTW, tacking "I respect your opinion" onto the end of a personal attack doesn't make it any less so. It only makes it sound sarcastic.

Thanks Port for the link to the new hall. It does look like a very nice addition to that campus, though I can agree (after seeing the way the UA's campus has exploded in growth over the years since I went there) that there are probably a lot of needs down there. I've been in the dorms there several years back visiting friends. The ones I went into (near the baseball stadium) were really run-down and in need of serious updating.

Sorry Bogue, but the point i was trying to make had nothing to do with social engineering, it was purely an opinion related to development. As for the question i posed at the end of my statement, "Why is South Crichton impoverished?" I knew that was a question that should, and will not be answered on this forum, i was simply making a point. We could go into the positives and negative of gentrification, but again, that would rely heavily on a sociological perspective.

I will pose this question to you. I am a developer who has the means and technology to buy the entire city of mobile to use for some specific economic engine. I will be buying your entire neighborhood and now it is your WHOLE neighborhoods job to leave, and attempt to make a better life. Is that is a gross exaggeration, yes, but explain to me how that is a good idea for the City of Mobile.

If you want a development to be relevant, it must be sustainable. I am not using the word sustainable from the modern day perspective of "green." I am using the term in the economic and demographics of the region.

If you want to talk about building a huge gleaming stadium, thats great. But there are much bigger issues behind your ideas, then "pure development." If you want to call it social engineering and refuse to discuss it because this is a "development" forum, then i respect that. The majority of well read and informed individuals share my opinion. The people that share yours think building an eight lane loop around mobile is a good idea. But, like i said earlier, i wanted you to be aware that you are wrong and your position is ignorant and it will never, ever, make the city of Mobile a truly better place, as we all would like to see it.

I really encourage you to read the Jane Jacobs book, as I feel it can really help you either reinforce your existing ideas, or help form better ones.

[BlessedMobile]

Originally Posted by Bogue

Sorry, bucket, I thought this was about development, not social engineering. Gentrification has its negative consequences (negatives that are, IMO, more than made up for in its positive aspects), no doubt, but perhaps you may want to check out a different venue for discussions on the underlying causes of poverty? While I'm sure that your author makes a good point, there are numerous voices on this issue including many which do not agree. While it's true that the people which live in an area would need to go somewhere, it's on those individuals to shape the neighborhoods in which they choose to settle. I'm of the mind that, while there are additional societal pressures placed on certain groups, each community (and each person within that community) bears an overwhelming share of responsibility for how it is maintained. Heaping the fault for the failure of a community on outside impactors is rarely correct. We can, essentially, control everything to do with our fates within the socio-economic framework in which we currently live. There are so many encouragements built into the system (more layers of which are added every year) that blame for the failure of a community now resides almost solely upon the people who live there. I'm all for these encouragements, and large public works projects are a proven staple in this arsenal. A place does not fail b/c of the race of the people living there, their economic status, or any cultural reality. It fails b/c the people who live there let it. Sure, there are exceptions when there is a wholesale economic shift or major recession (like Flint, Michigan or a handful of places in the Rust Belt), but those stories are not as common as people are made to believe.

Blessed, while I generally enjoy your opinions, I don't think it was remotely necessary to make the personal attack on me. I've always thought better of you. Attacking my intelligence was completely uncalled for, rude, & came completely out of left field. I think you owe me an apology. BTW, tacking "I respect your opinion" onto the end of a personal attack doesn't make it any less so. It only makes it sound sarcastic.

Thanks Port for the link to the new hall. It does look like a very nice addition to that campus, though I can agree (after seeing the way the UA's campus has exploded in growth over the years since I went there) that there are probably a lot of needs down there. I've been in the dorms there several years back visiting friends. The ones I went into (near the baseball stadium) were really run-down and in need of serious updating.

Bogue..I wish you well in life. Was I being sarcastic? No, maybe I should have said "your opinion is interesting". You talk like someone with absolutely no compassion for others with your "sink or swim" approach to people. Progress is not about mowing down others for your envisioned development. You probably have plenty of intelligence; you need wisdom and discernment.

[Port_of_Bama]

Well on another note I saw a rediculous yet extremly hilarious article on the front page of the PR the otherday. Mobile is lsited as the 7TH MOST DANGEROUS AREA in the world not U.S but the world wow.

[HSVTiger]

Originally Posted by Port_of_Bama

Well on another note I saw a rediculous yet extremly hilarious article on the front page of the PR the otherday. Mobile is lsited as the 7TH MOST DANGEROUS AREA in the world not U.S but the world wow.

idiots..what is even more dangerous is there are people who will believe it.

[HSVTiger]

Originally Posted by Port_of_Bama

I know someone who works in SGA at USA and this person told me that there wasn`t any future plans about a stadium right now . When the time comes it would be on campus and University bldvd would be the road leading to it.

The City of Mobile came up with an idea of a new stadium as of recently not USA but USA may pitch in for a new one.So it may be off campus if the city foots most of the bill and if USA does it would be at south. USA has no problem getting the money for a new staduim it just wasn`t as important as building the other stuff USA is and will build soon.

All from my SGA source

So it may be off campus if the city foots most of the bill and if USA does it would be at south. USA has no problem getting the money for a new staduim it just wasn`t as important as building the other stuff USA is and will build soon.



Shelby Hall rendering :http://www.southalabama.edu/


The new Engineering building is going to look nice saw the renderings on campus . South is growing at a rapid rate from like 8 K to well over 14 K in the past 2 or 3 years. So the need for dorms are more important to me than a new engineering building. South has 900 out of town students living in motels and there is barely any room for parking.The school is growng much faster than its developing.

Have to give Shelby credit ..all the major state universities will have new big engineering buildings named after him.UAH's 200,000sq ft version.

[nimsjus]

Originally Posted by HSVTiger

idiots..what is even more dangerous is there are people who will believe it.

I saw that stat too. It is really misleading because it was broken down by homicides/people in the metro. Well, since Mobile's metro is Mobile County that looks bad. Meanwhile a place like Bham has 95 percent of its metro murders occuring in Jefferson County, it gets to dillute the homicides per person with all of the people in Shelby, Cullman, Tuscaloosa counties etc. Mobile is not a dangerous place to live. Heck I live in Columbus now and I hear about a shooting every day on the news and it is half the size of Mobile. It too gets to count okaces like Auburn/Opelika (Lee county AL) as part of its metro to make its stats look better. I just dont get it...