Jacksonville's Parks Ranked 44th of 50 in the Nation

[JFman00]

Jacksonville's parks per the Trust for Public Land

Jacksonville ranked 34/40 last year

Interesting that the biggest "parks" inside 295 are almost entirely inaccessible mitigation parcels.

[hound dog]

"The rating system, ParkScore, is based on more than a year's worth of data from cities and parks departments around the country. The scores are a composite of five factors: median park size, acreage as a percent of city area, percent of residents living within a 10-minute walk of a park, park system spending per resident, and the number of playgrounds per 10,000 residents."

Close to 70% of Jacksonville residents do not live within a 10 minute walk to a park.

2 Reasons:
-Jacksonville is designed for car distance, not foot distance.
-Prime areas of natural beauty in urban and suburban settings are snapped up for private residences.

Unlike the No. 1 park system of Minneapolis, where every lake, pond, stream, and river is bounded by parkland for public access, Jacksonville's development pattern shuts out the public from the water, because riverfront real estate is so in demand.  So, even in relatively parks-rich neighborhoods like San Marco or Riverside, river access for the public is restricted to dead-end streets at the water, or narrow strips of city right-of-way like Riverfront Park.  There are virtually no ameneties in that one, and the public demand for river access is so overwhelming that the park gets really beat up.

Jacksonville also tends to establish parks in areas that are otherwise unused or unusable to developers (flood plains etc).  So parks have been largely afterthoughts, with some notable exceptions in the oldest neighborhoods (Riverside, Memorial, Klutho, Edgewood, Fishweir, and Boone Parks).

So, even though 80% of Jacksonville's high income folks aren't living within a 10 minute walk to a park, many of them live in park-like surroundings. Private parks, if you will.

[JFman00]

Pretty solid analysis.

1) Do you think that the current situation is should be changed?
2) If so, is meaningful change along TPL metrics possible?

[simms3]

What's funny is that "in demand" waterfront living in NE FL produces a questionable track record of home prices and subsequent assessments for city coffers.  One can snag an 8,000 SF top quality mansion on 2 acres in Ortega or Avondale for under $2M ($4M at height of bubble).  Under a million in southern parts of the metro, maybe $2-3M in San Marco/San Jose and of course a whopping $5M on 200 oceanfront feet on PV Blvd or A1A, which is SJC anyway.

I don't really think that riverfront living is in as much demand as it used to be.  Aside from a relatively few truly wealthy people, most riverfront residents simply aren't "that" rich and it often shows in the maintenance of their homes.  Having that much house and that much land is a financial burden and energy sucker, and most in Jax struggle to pay their property taxes, even if the home is assessed at under a million bucks (many if not most are), not to mention the low millage rate and homestead exemption.  Plus, let's face it, being able to afford riverfront in Jax means very little nowadays when a 1,200 SF 2BR selling for $1,200psf in HK in Manhattan can set you back just as much, not to mention higher taxes (or a $2.5M 1,900 SF home just sold here right smack in the Tenderloin ghetto...that's $1316psf to live in a ghetto that makes NW Jax look peaceful).

The only real in demand waterfront nowadays seems to be oceanfront.  The bulk of the higher residential values and the general citizen wealth is along the coast.  Jacksonville as a city needs to offer something different.  It needs to make public access and public parkspace, preferably waterfront, a priority.  Focus on new money and younger families, couples and singles.  The "rich" in NE FL need to do as the rich do in other cities and subsidize more parks and quality of life ingredients...Jacksonville taxes, of which they contribute very little in the grand scheme of things, will not cover any of this.

It should never allow a wall of highrises as happens down in SoFla and it needs to find a way to wean itself of all of this private landowner paradigm of "land-rich" riverfront residents who refuse to get off the septic (though JEA does mismanage the hell out of sewer and should not be in charge of that!) and who really don't contribute a material share of the tax burden.  I say the real value creation is in the $200K-$600K homes off the water in areas with park potential, and mixed-use infill potential.  Bumping that many houses up from that value range by a mere $100K could do a lot more for city coffers than the "limited supply" theory has worked out for riverfront home values.  LoL

Plus, making the city more attractive for the middle to upper middle class workers, i.e. the $600K bungalow or 2nd floor apartment in Avondale vs the $1.5M mansion on the river certainly can't hurt the interests of those who have stakes in the local business community.  What's good for the middle class/upwardly mobile, AND the poor, AND of course the nurses, teachers, social workers, etc is definitely good for the bottom line of local businessmen!

Between the river and the beach, PVB, Amelia Island, etc - I certainly wouldn't mind being rich in NEFL, especially if I were "done" with city life or had a family in tow or played a lot of golf.  Unfortunately, I'd hate to be a young professional in Jax (which is why I'm not in Jax).  I could care less about "riverfront" living.  There aren't parks, the level of excitement, the walkability, the engagement of young people, the nightlife etc that I desire at this stage in my life, not to mention my job description isn't even available there.  PARKS are a part of all of this of course - one of the key ingredients to any of the great cities.  Attracting the talent brings the higher level jobs, which brings more money to town and it snowballs from there.  Rich people who sit on their money and don't contribute do nothing for a city, obviously.

[Noone]

^^^Great post. And we are just two hours out from awarding a position of power to someone that will now oversee our economic access in a new 20 plus mile Authority zone that will dictate how we will promote, preserve, protect, our St. Johns River our American Heritage River a FEDERAL Initiative in our DIA zone.

[hound dog]

And this:

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/403455/steve-patterson/2013-06-05/jacksonville-buys-revolutionary-war-battle-site-land

A big park purchase for the north side.

[Tacachale]

As I said at the other thread, far and away the biggest factor in the low score appears to be due to consolidation. It's clear that the areas of highest need are in the suburbs; those areas aren't included for other cities but they are for Jacksonville.

[simms3]

^^^Really?  In this case I highly doubt that consolidation "drags" down the local park system, which is basically as sh*tty as one can get.

We have to quit blaming everything on consolidation.  It certainly doesn't help "the numbers" in these rankings that come out, but then is the city itself really strong enough to compete with others on these fronts?  Imo No.

[acme54321]

And this:

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/403455/steve-patterson/2013-06-05/jacksonville-buys-revolutionary-war-battle-site-land

A big park purchase for the north side.

Woohoo... the city bailss out yet another land speculating developer.

[fsquid]

Rich people who sit on their money and don't contribute do nothing for a city, obviously.

why do you think that is?

[Tacachale]

^^^Really?  In this case I highly doubt that consolidation "drags" down the local park system, which is basically as sh*tty as one can get.

We have to quit blaming everything on consolidation.  It certainly doesn't help "the numbers" in these rankings that come out, but then is the city itself really strong enough to compete with others on these fronts?  Imo No.

Not what I said. I said we're being judged for hundreds of square miles of suburban and rural land that aren't included for other cities, and the suburbs are clearly the areas of greatest need. I don't believe consolidation "drage down" the city park system, in fact it's made it easier to make large preservation purchases, something a county government simply wouldn't do.

[JFman00]

Even if you look just inside 295, I don't think the results would improve all that much, especially if mitigation parcels aren't included.

[Tacachale]

^Of course, but that's still a lot more suburban area than many or most of those other cities are dealing with.

[JFman00]

^Of course, but that's still a lot more suburban area than many or most of those other cities are dealing with.

I guess I'm unclear on what you're defining as "city". Outside of downtown, I'd guess that even the "urban" neighborhoods are significantly lower density than downtown-adjacent neighborhoods in other cities. IIRC the density of "urban" Jacksonville is closer to that of the suburban collar county I grew up in than other cities proper when I ran the numbers. Even comparing the maps the urban park system of Jax is sorely lacking.

[Tacachale]

^Of course, but that's still a lot more suburban area than many or most of those other cities are dealing with.

I guess I'm unclear on what you're defining as "city". Outside of downtown, I'd guess that even the "urban" neighborhoods are significantly lower density than downtown-adjacent neighborhoods in other cities. IIRC the density of "urban" Jacksonville is closer to that of the suburban collar county I grew up in than other cities proper when I ran the numbers. Even comparing the maps the urban park system of Jax is sorely lacking.

I wish we weren't having the same conversation in two threads. Perhaps someone can combine them.

I'm sure there are plenty of ways to parse it. If you look at this map that covers roughly the pre-consolidated Old City, it's plain to see the "Park Score" would be substantially higher than when over 800 square miles of additional suburban and rural areas are included:



Even if you extended it out to the 60 square miles around urban core (roughly the size of Minneapolis), it would be a totally different picture than the 874 square miles that make up Jacksonville. Also, in these metrics, our huge amounts of preserve land (much of which is accessible) and the beach don't factor in much.

I'm not arguing that everything's hunky dory with our urban park system and nothing needs to be improved. But this isn't remotely a fair comparison.