2010 Census: Top Ten Population Losers
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/575310384_EYbeE-M.jpg)
Think things could be better in Jacksonville? Here are ten cities that have their own problems to worry about, according to the census bureau.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-mar-2010-census-top-ten-population-losers
1. Detroit city, MI: 713,777 (-237,493)
While population loss was expected, no one imagined the drop would be this big after the city hosted the super bowl in 2006.
Chicago is a real shocker, but then again not really. They have some serious crime problems that could be running people away.
I am glad St. Louis has turned the corner. Are these numbers representative of people leaving to the suburbs or leaving the entire metros.
I haven't looked at the census numbers for metros, but it was my understanding that Pittsburgh and Cleveland's metro areas have been in the zero-growth area, Baltimore's not been much better, and Buffalo's and Detroit's metros are losing population. New Orleans of course has the outlier of a hurricane and is coming back. The other metros probably saw overall population growth.
The truth is Fl and even Jacksonville may be the preferred destination for some of those same cities.
I wouldnt think Birmingham would be on that list. It is a really nice city. Atlanta has just basically blown them away.
Quote from: Cricket on March 28, 2011, 08:54:26 AM
The truth is Fl and even Jacksonville may be the preferred destination for some of those same cities.
This is actually true. I have met NUMEROUS Ohio and Detroit transplants that currently reside here. And each one I spoke with they say they love Jacksonville and will NEVER go back to their hometowns if someone paid them. Compared to others, Jacksonville is not so bad afterall.
I will tell you what, being from the north, if any of those cities had the leadership of Jacksonville- they would be far worse. Just think of how amazing this city could be if we had some good leadership. This is why I am so happy to see such a turn around in St. Louis.
"Leadership" is one of those blame words we like to use when things are not going well. First of all, those leaders you refer to were elected by us, the people. So maybe it is we who screwed up. Secondly, no amount of vision, talent, brains, possessed by those who lead can turn around a city without money. We all want the city of Jacksonville to rise from the ashes yet mention a 1% (let's change that to a 1/4%) raise in taxes for schools, gentrification, building, whatever, and we all scream bloody murder. The solution is always to cut spending yet no one wants to say where to cut. We're all a bunch of cowards.
I'm one of the Ohio transplants. I was heavily recruited after graduating college (mostly to work in cities in the south or west) and so I got to meet a lot of people being recruited. Almost 90% of them always seemed to be from Rust Belt states and especially Michigan and Ohio. I'm from an especially poor area of Ohio (Southeast Ohio), so believe me, even with all the problems here, living in Jacksonville is like a night and day difference. Although, Jax was not my number one choice destination. I was actually shooting for Charlotte.
I wonder if you compare the pre-consolidation city limit population of Jacksonville to the 2010 numbers what the result would be.
If you have school age kids and live in St Louis you'd likely want to move to the county. Just like the St Johns county migration.
Quote from: Cricket on March 28, 2011, 11:27:44 AM
"Leadership" is one of those blame words we like to use when things are not going well. First of all, those leaders you refer to were elected by us, the people. So maybe it is we who screwed up. Secondly, no amount of vision, talent, brains, possessed by those who lead can turn around a city without money. We all want the city of Jacksonville to rise from the ashes yet mention a 1% (let's change that to a 1/4%) raise in taxes for schools, gentrification, building, whatever, and we all scream bloody murder. The solution is always to cut spending yet no one wants to say where to cut. We're all a bunch of cowards.
I agree with this a thousand times over. Problems in Jacksonville cannot solely be blamed on leadership - the citizens at large must share some of the blame. A vocal minority can do nothing to help matters when the majority continues to make their opinions known thru a combination of voting patterns and general apathy.
Nobody wants a tax increase. I understand that. But what I don't understand is that the local mindset seems to be actively anti-progress - they (and by "they" I mean your average Jacksonvillian) don't want an improved downtown, they don't want a better transit system, they don't want small independent businesses to thrive. They want popular chains, big-box retailers, and to be left alone. I and many other lifetime residents can attest to this.
Yeah, I doubt Mike Hogan will usher in a new era of greatness for Jacksonville - but it looks like he's the guy that a simple majority of voters want to be Mayor. The saying is true: people get the government they deserve.
Quote from: finehoe on March 28, 2011, 12:01:59 PM
I wonder if you compare the pre-consolidation city limit population of Jacksonville to the 2010 numbers what the result would be.
It will be the exact thing. The actual pre-consolidated City of Jacksonville (our 32 sq mile urban core) has lost nearly 50% of the population and density it had in 1950. Percentage wise, its right there with the Detroits, Clevelands, Toledos and Buffalos. The loss has just been hidden by suburban growth in Duval County over the last 60 years. When I get time, I'll check the 2010 census tract results and provide everyone with a more accurate number.
Quote from: fsujax on March 28, 2011, 08:55:32 AM
I wouldnt think Birmingham would be on that list. It is a really nice city. Atlanta has just basically blown them away.
Metro Birmingham has seen growth, but there has been a lot of migration from the city to the suburbs.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 28, 2011, 12:26:06 PM
Quote from: finehoe on March 28, 2011, 12:01:59 PM
I wonder if you compare the pre-consolidation city limit population of Jacksonville to the 2010 numbers what the result would be.
It will be the exact thing. The actual pre-consolidated City of Jacksonville (our 32 sq mile urban core) has lost nearly 50% of the population and density it had in 1950. Percentage wise, its right there with the Detroits, Clevelands, Toledos and Buffalos. The loss has just been hidden by suburban growth in Duval County over the last 60 years. When I get time, I'll check the 2010 census tract results and provide everyone with a more accurate number.
I'd be more inclined to group it with the Birminghams (overall metro area growth, but migration from city to suburbs) than with places like Toledo or Buffalo that have seen their metro areas stagnate or decline in population. Not to dismiss the fact that the pre-consolidated city has suffered a tremendous and disheartening loss in population and density and connectivity, of course.
Quote from: Bativac on March 28, 2011, 12:13:51 PM
Nobody wants a tax increase. I understand that. But what I don't understand is that the local mindset seems to be actively anti-progress - they (and by "they" I mean your average Jacksonvillian) don't want an improved downtown, they don't want a better transit system, they don't want small independent businesses to thrive. They want popular chains, big-box retailers, and to be left alone. I and many other lifetime residents can attest to this.
I agree, but I'd also argue that if you talk to the same group of people, in many of them you will find pride in the postcard image of downtown Jacksonville as well as nostalgia for the core city that used to be, and many of the small businesses therein. (Not to mention, more pride in Jacksonville's history and heritage than you might expect.) These are sentiments that can be channeled in a useful direction, I think. To some degree, Godbold and Delaney did it. I thought Audrey could do it.
Good point. More like Detroit, Cincinnati, Birmingham and St. Louis, as far as inner city shrinking while the metro area still has overall growth, due to booming suburbs.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 28, 2011, 12:26:06 PM
Quote from: finehoe on March 28, 2011, 12:01:59 PM
I wonder if you compare the pre-consolidation city limit population of Jacksonville to the 2010 numbers what the result would be.
It will be the exact thing. The actual pre-consolidated City of Jacksonville (our 32 sq mile urban core) has lost nearly 50% of the population and density it had in 1950. Percentage wise, its right there with the Detroits, Clevelands, Toledos and Buffalos. The loss has just been hidden by suburban growth in Duval County over the last 60 years. When I get time, I'll check the 2010 census tract results and provide everyone with a more accurate number.
At the same time, Consolidation is the reason oururban core has lost 50% of its population. I remember they posted pictures from that huge parade they had downtown right after the consolidation. They were celebrating but little did they know it was going to be downtown's great demise.
Quote from: duvaldude08 on March 28, 2011, 12:38:35 PM
At the same time, Consolidation is the reason oururban core has lost 50% of its population. I remember they posted pictures from that huge parade they had downtown right after the consolidation. They were celebrating but little did they know it was going to be downtown's great demise.
I'm not sure you can pin the loss of urban core population solely (or even primarily) on consolidation...if that were the case, cities that didn't consolidate like Baltimore, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Detroit wouldn't show population loss....fact is, there are a multitude of reasons why cities have lost population since 1950...all consolidation did in Jacksonville was mask the issue.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-28/americas-shrinking-cities
Sounds familiar!
A few weekends ago, PBS had two half hour documentaries called Making Sense of Place. The first focused on Cleveland and the second on Portland. The series was very well done, talked a lot about the investment made in Cleveland to bring back the downtown and the eventual failure due to urban flight and economic downturn.
Very interestingly, the planners took nearby suburbs to downtown as models of what could be done to revitalize. Highly recommend this series if WJCT repeats it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSEGDL96zo0
One thing I think is interesting about Ohio cities is that Columbus is still growing despite being in the same region with arguably less assets as far as transportation and accessiblity compared to Cleveland and Cincy. I mean both Cleveland and Cincinatti have larger airports and are next to important inland waterways (Lake Erie and the Ohio River), and Columbus has no passenger rail period. Makes you wonder what is different about Columbus compared to other rust belt cities. It just makes you why there is such a difference in prosperity.
Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on March 28, 2011, 04:12:49 PM
One thing I think is interesting about Ohio cities is that Columbus is still growing despite being in the same region with arguably less assets as far as transportation and accessiblity compared to Cleveland and Cincy. I mean both Cleveland and Cincinatti have larger airports and are next to important inland waterways (Lake Erie and the Ohio River), and Columbus has no passenger rail period. Makes you wonder what is different about Columbus compared to other rust belt cities. It just makes you why there is such a difference in prosperity.
Part of it, I think, is that Columbus has a larger land area that the other Ohio cities and has space for suburban-type communities. As with Jacksonville, you can have flight from the inner city and still stay within the city limits, masking core city population decline. I don't think that's the case with Cincinnati and Cleveland. Incidentally, I don't think metro Cincinnati is declining in population, just the city itself. I do think Cleveland's metro was declining, and not just the city itself, last I checked.
Also, I'm sure OSU is a big driver of Columbus' economy and an asset to entice residency within the city limits.
This is a really good map showing population gains and losses.
http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map
Although this is not the case for Detroit, looking at Chicago there were huge population gains in the core of the city and the losses came from surrounding neighborhoods, mostly on the south and west sides.
Looking at Jacksonville; Springfield is down about 20%, Riverside down about 7%, Durkeeville down 22%.
The pre-consolidated city of Jacksonville looks like Cleveland.
What?!! About time every metro isn't a gleaming utopia of brilliance compared to Jax in every facet (like some MJers believe). We are actually sticking to the topic, and calling a spade a spade! Now that's what I call progress on MJ!
These figures should be considered alongside state population growth (and loss). Florida is a big gainer in population vs NYs loss. Jacksonville is the cheapest place of the FL east coast.
There are many things that could change for the better in Jax, but i've no regret in relocating here from NYC. A nd thats as an artist who makes a living here.
Alright, Hil... Lets see some of the work.
You have a website?
Quote from: hillary supporter on March 28, 2011, 07:38:17 PM
There are many things that could change for the better in Jax, but i've no regret in relocating here from NYC.
You're preaching to the choir.
Quote from: Lunican on March 28, 2011, 06:41:32 PM
This is a really good map showing population gains and losses.
http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map
Although this is not the case for Detroit, looking at Chicago there were huge population gains in the core of the city and the losses came from surrounding neighborhoods, mostly on the south and west sides.
Looking at Jacksonville; Springfield is down about 20%, Riverside down about 7%, Durkeeville down 22%.
The pre-consolidated city of Jacksonville looks like Cleveland.
Nice find. This is what I wanted to tally up since our urban core census tracts are essentially the same border as the old preconsolidated census tracts. The 2010 urban core population is 104,047. That's down from a 1950 high of 204,517. So in 60 years, urban Jacksonville has lost over half of its population and density. This information is worthy of its own front page article with maps.
IMO alot of people get confused between 'urban Jax' and 'DT Jax'. There's a BIG difference. There's nothing suburban or rural about the corner of Avenue B & 45th St. To me, residential doesn't always equal suburban.
Quote from: Lunican on March 28, 2011, 06:41:32 PM
This is a really good map showing population gains and losses.
http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map
Although this is not the case for Detroit, looking at Chicago there were huge population gains in the core of the city and the losses came from surrounding neighborhoods, mostly on the south and west sides.
Looking at Jacksonville; Springfield is down about 20%, Riverside down about 7%, Durkeeville down 22%.
yes and the downtown/southbank tracts are up 37-52%
Quote from: thelakelander on March 28, 2011, 08:48:54 PM
Nice find. This is what I wanted to tally up since our urban core census tracts are essentially the same border as the old preconsolidated census tracts. The 2010 urban core population is 104,047. That's down from a 1950 high of 204,517. So in 60 years, urban Jacksonville has lost over half of its population and density. This information is worthy of its own front page article with maps.
Does anyone keep data handy that shows the change for 1960, '70, '80, '90, & '00 to show how that core loss has possibly slowed down?
It's interesting to see the population loss extending well outside the pre-consolidated core, and even beyond the beltway, with tracts in Arlington, the Westside, and Orange Park losing. Weird, too, how practically every riverfront tract outside of downtown has lost population, all the way down to Mandarin (which only held out with a 0.7% gain).
Quote from: tufsu1 on March 28, 2011, 10:04:16 PM
Quote from: Lunican on March 28, 2011, 06:41:32 PM
This is a really good map showing population gains and losses.
http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map
Although this is not the case for Detroit, looking at Chicago there were huge population gains in the core of the city and the losses came from surrounding neighborhoods, mostly on the south and west sides.
Looking at Jacksonville; Springfield is down about 20%, Riverside down about 7%, Durkeeville down 22%.
yes and the downtown/southbank tracts are up 37-52%
Does the track with the 52% include the Parks at Cathedral complex? If not, that growth must be at the Duval County jail.
Quote from: rainfrog on March 29, 2011, 12:37:59 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on March 28, 2011, 08:48:54 PM
Nice find. This is what I wanted to tally up since our urban core census tracts are essentially the same border as the old preconsolidated census tracts. The 2010 urban core population is 104,047. That's down from a 1950 high of 204,517. So in 60 years, urban Jacksonville has lost over half of its population and density. This information is worthy of its own front page article with maps.
Does anyone keep data handy that shows the change for 1960, '70, '80, '90, & '00 to show how that core loss has possibly slowed down?
This would probably involve a trip up the public library's special collections department to check records between 1960 and 1990. However, we did add up the 2000 urban core numbers a few years back:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2008-oct-the-plight-of-the-urban-core
1950 population: 204,517
1960 population: 201,031
2000 population: 112,753
2010 population: 104,047
QuoteIt's interesting to see the population loss extending well outside the pre-consolidated core, and even beyond the beltway, with tracts in Arlington, the Westside, and Orange Park losing. Weird, too, how practically every riverfront tract outside of downtown has lost population, all the way down to Mandarin (which only held out with a 0.7% gain).
Unless we change our growth patterns, this will continue. All of the suburbs within the beltway are between 50 and 20 years old now, the newness has worn off and the Gate Parkways of yesteryear (ex. Baymeadows, University, Blanding, Normandy, Edgewood, etc.) are in decline.
Another interesting thing to look at will be the census tracts along streetcar, BRT and LRT lines that have been constructed in other cities during the last 10-15 years. It should be a strong statistical link to mass transit's impact on land use compared to the urban core census tracts of cities who have not invested in reliable mass transit over the same period.
Great posts and great thread.
I've had two follow-up questions given the facts laid out. One is covered in Lake's prior post: What can be learned re: some possible remediation stemming from fixed transit lines in other cities? Second is a question regarding vacant lots / land: Are lot vacancies in urban core Jacksonville as severe as in other cities being referenced herein (Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo)? If so, could steps being taken in those cities serve to help here as well (Detroit's urban gardens, Buffalo's urban tree planting, etc.).
^Just what I expected. Lots of growth in urban core census districts around new streetcar and LRT lines in Memphis, Tampa, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Houston. Even in a place like Buffalo, the most stable areas (a few actually have moderate growth) are centered along their LRT line. One going against the grain is Pittsburgh. It appears that there is little link between fixed mass transit corridors and census tract results. There, it appears most areas along their LRT and BRT lines are losing population, while areas without those investments (are doing better off...probably because of their proximity to the University of Pittsburgh.
As for as the difference between urban Jax's physical environment and those of cities like Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo go, they have much more agressive demolition plan of vacant structures than we do. Thus, they have huge parts of neighborhoods that have been completely taken out. Most of our urban core neighborhoods are still intact. For a visual reference, imagine the present state of Brooklyn, LaVilla and Sugar Hill (ex. blocks of empty land where houses once stood). That's basically what you have scattered all of the depressed areas of those cities.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 29, 2011, 05:54:40 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on March 28, 2011, 10:04:16 PM
Quote from: Lunican on March 28, 2011, 06:41:32 PM
This is a really good map showing population gains and losses.
http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map
Although this is not the case for Detroit, looking at Chicago there were huge population gains in the core of the city and the losses came from surrounding neighborhoods, mostly on the south and west sides.
Looking at Jacksonville; Springfield is down about 20%, Riverside down about 7%, Durkeeville down 22%.
yes and the downtown/southbank tracts are up 37-52%
Does the track with the 52% include the Parks at Cathedral complex? If not, that growth must be at the Duval County jail.
nope...that tract appears to be just north of the Parks and includes the southern end of Springfield....the tract with the Parks in it went up 51%