Birmingham’s sprawl problem
In recent years, Birmingham has struggled mightily with issues of public transit and other issues related to urban livability. Perhaps most telling about the state of the metro area is the population change in the central city and county (Jefferson) over the past 30 years or so. Between 1980 and 2000, Birmingham and Jefferson County’s population actually fell, by 14.6% and 1.4% respectively.
This can be easily chalked up to poor leadership, race issues, or both, and many do so. But is the situation really that simple? Perhaps Birmingham’s rapid suburbanization is to blame. The Birmingham MSA actually added three counties (Bibb, Chilton and Walker) between 2000 and 2009, and grew in population mostly because of this fact. (Jefferson County actually lost population between 2000 and 2008, falling from about 662,000 to 659,000.) To be sure, pretty much every metro in the country has seen significant suburban growth during this period, even those that have declined overall. As the growth pole of a traditionally rural state, however, Birmingham may have been positioned for more rapid suburbanization than most. Has this been the case? Is Birmingham’s rapid sprawl a major, or even the main source of its problems?
This report from 2002 on measuring sprawl places the Birmingham MSA relatively high on the list of most sprawling metros, but at number 23 out of 83 metros studied, it’s certainly not the worst. However, breaking down the sprawl index created by the authors of the study should shed more light on Birmingham’s situation in particular.
The study combines many economic, socioeconomic, housing and travel/land use variables in a principal components analysis to separate out each particular contributing factor to sprawl. They end up with components for residential density, street connectivity, mix of land uses and overall centeredness of the metro (the strength of its center and subcenters). Birmingham fares relatively well on the centeredness factor and, to a lesser extent, the street connectivity factor. Its ranking is dragged down by low scores on the residential density and land use mix factors.
Indeed, a look at the density numbers for the Birmingham area compared to some similarly sized metros confirms its relatively low residential density.
| MSA | Population density (persons per square mile) |
| Birmingham, AL | 289.1 |
| Knoxville, TN | 280.6 |
| Jacksonville, FL | 417.6 |
| Oklahoma City, OK | 255.1 |
| Louisville, KY | 495.0 |
| Columbia, SC | 368.7 |
| Richmond, VA | 338.4 |
This might help to explain Birmingham’s struggles with providing public transit. Its very low residential density makes efficient and effective transit service very difficult. Its relatively high score on the centeredness factor in the study may be somewhat misleading as well. The low residential density has likely put a high percentage of residents so far away from the central city that regular interaction with it is not an option. The Birmingham MSA likely includes a number of subcenters detected by the study’s methodology that have very large service areas. The separation of land uses would corroborate this as well, as the average subcenter would have a larger than average concentration of commercial, industrial and other non-residential land uses, to compensate for the strict separation of residential land uses, and would thus likely serve a larger area.
Density is not all that matters, but is probably the most important factor. To bring this into focus, consider that a metro with a very dense center and low density outlying areas isn’t necessarily sprawling. The concept of weighted density, which weights densities of sub-areas within a larger area based on the percentage of population they contain, can be used to illustrate this.
| Weighted density (persons per square mile) | Central city vacancy rate | |
| Birmingham | 1,666 | 11.7% |
| Knoxville, TN | 1,151 | 9.8% |
| Jacksonville, FL | 2,242 | 7.9% |
| Oklahoma City | 2,561 | 10.4% |
| Louisville | 2,888 | 8.1% |
| Columbia, SC | 1,660 | 8.4% |
| Richmond, VA | 2,327 | 8.4% |
| Atlanta | 1,873 | 10.0% |
At about 1,666 persons per square mi, the Birmingham MSA’s weighted density is very low. Larger MSA’s do tend to have higher weighted densities, but Birmingham’s is low compared even to MSAs of a similar size.
Interestingly, Birmingham’s weighted density is only a little lower than Atlanta’s. However, one might consider Atlanta a bit more successful on the livability front (its awful traffic notwithstanding). Atlanta central city has a much higher median household income than Birmingham; the gap between it and median income for the MSA is also smaller. This results in a larger residential and commercial tax base. The vacancy rate for Birmingham’s central city further illustrates the disinvestment that has occurred. At 11.7%, it is higher than any of its counterparts in the Southeast. Political initiatives that would help the central city in Birmingham have little support. Atlanta’s public transit agency has a little sway, though not much, in the state legislature. Birmingham’s, of course, has none.
All is not necessarily lost for the Birmingham area, though. Its strong center and subcenters should be considered something to build on; attracting jobs to subcenters throughout the area to bring them closer to residents is a possibility. This would also allow for a more viable and effective transportation strategy, including better mass transit, linking these centers. Discussions and studies getting underway regarding the future of U.S. 280 through Jefferson and Shelby counties are good opportunities to start moving in this direction.
Continuing to invest in the knowledge and high-tech economies in Birmingham and Alabama as a whole will also likely help the central city. Such industries often favor inner-city locations and can occupy spaces left vacant by industrial land uses that have long since departed. This will make the inner city more attractive and attract more skilled and educated residents who often favor a more urban type of living.
Good leadership will be needed to make legitimate efforts to pursue these objectives. That, of course, is another matter entirely.
