Jump to content

Demolition of the 1917 Birmingham News building


Dystopos

Recommended Posts

It appears the issue is not dead. A post on BhamTerminal indicates that the Design Review Committee has not been presented with (nor approved) demolition of the Birmingham News building. I'm frankly a bit confused because I thought they DID vote to approve demolition, but I'm glad to see this isn't going down without a fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply
It appears the issue is not dead. A post on BhamTerminal indicates that the Design Review Committee has not been presented with (nor approved) demolition of the Birmingham News building. I'm frankly a bit confused because I thought they DID vote to approve demolition, but I'm glad to see this isn't going down without a fight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Now I'm convince that something is really wrong with some of the members on the Birmingham Design Review Committee. These folks just said to The Birmingham Weekly that they didn't know nor understand what they voted 5-2 upon on May 11. So now they told the Birmingham Department of Planning, Engineering, & Permits not to issue a permit to commence with demolition of the 1917 Birmingham News building. This after 3 members said they didn't know what they had the power to give the go-ahead with the demolition. Now they want to set aside an actual meeting dedicated to the vote of the demolition or preservation of the building.

Now it is back and forth battle between the BRDC and the Birmingham P,E, &P through the City Attorney over whether or not the vote can be validated or reneged and properly voted upon.

This is pure madness I tell you, madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone familiar with the Design Review Committee could hardly be surprised at the madness.

A couple of points regarding the above discussion: The Birmingham News Company is a privately-owned company, not a publicly chartered corporation. Its duty to the public interest is a matter for its owner to decide.

I have heard complaints from a couple of sources about the News' unwillingness to report on -- or to publish letters regarding -- its request to demolish the structure.

The most optimistic position I can cook up in my head is that Hanson is proving a point about his property rights and setting himself up to become a hero by announcing a last-second change in plans. I'd give that about a 0.05% chance.

But it can't hurt for people to remind him what an idiotic move it would be to get rid of that building in exchange for 11 parking spaces (my own interpretation of the effect on the proposed parking lot plan if the 1917 building were preserved and the additions to it demolished and made into parking with the same level of landscaping proposed.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
spoken like a true american.

anyone whose posts are as intelligent as yours knows that any private entity that wields such might in the realm of public discourse is similarly (but of course not exclusively) beholden to a public constituency. lawyers can demonstrate otherwise; but try running that legalistic, pure-profit philosophy past ethicists and opinion-makers (editorial boards, anyone?)

i hadn't thought of that deus ex scenario you describe for a last-minute hanson change of heart. then again, i am a spectator. i'd welcome a reversal, regardless of motive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...

:( I have to say I'm shocked and saddened by this demolition. I was just marveling at the building when I was last in downtown Birmingham back in the spring. It's a terrible loss and shows a complete lack of sensitivity to history and beauty.

If that had been in Atlanta today, there are people who would have practically killed to save it (and convert to condos... :-) ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:( I have to say I'm shocked and saddened by this demolition. I was just marveling at the building when I was last in downtown Birmingham back in the spring. It's a terrible loss and shows a complete lack of sensitivity to history and beauty.

If that had been in Atlanta today, there are people who would have practically killed to save it (and convert to condos... :-) ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
It was the owner's decision to tear it down and provide a parking lot for employees. He was unwilling to give up control of the property and characterized the proposals he had for its re-use as infeasible.

I am not aware that anyone except the owner thought that tearing it down was a good idea. I am not aware that anyone except the owner had the authority to overrule his decision. The city's design review committee made a feeble effort, succeeding only in delaying his permit by 6 months. Under current law if he had decided to proceed without a permit, he would only have been subject to a nominal fine and some bad publicity. He controls, of course, the city's primary outlet for publicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the Birmingham News for ya! They believe that the right to be criticize is held exclusively to everyone, but themselves. They want to tell everyone else to be pro-urbanism, yet their long term plans for their properties are some of the most anti-urban I've seen for a business in the City Center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.