The Plight of the Urban Core
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6603-downtown-1.jpg)
A look at the rise and fall of the Urban Core's population with the help of pre-consolidation city limit maps and census tracts.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/914
Great article. ::) There's only one problem. Are we doing enough to tell our city that our focus of growth needs to shift back to the area that is already laid out to support higher densities? ??? I think it's time we need to stand up and be accounted for on this situation.
Let's all think, somebody!
Great thread! I always knew this, and laid it out in numerous posts and threads. If our beloved Jax still had the old city boundaries/census tracts, we'd be smaller than tallahassee and gainesville, and would have the appearance of a much larger City but with a small city population.
Our City Leaders have not changed. The City Leaders in the 1950's should have taken steps then to keep people in the inner city and old city boundaries. It appears that because nothing was done and no one took the loss of population seriously, our City went into a downslide of no return. Our recent and current City Leaders are no different than the ones in the 1950's; they seem to not care about instigating prosperity, growth, etc. in the inner city/old city boundaries; they try, but don't try hard enough.
Though Jax has a huge population because of consolidation, other Florida cities know that they are much more prosperous, larger, successful, and have a larger population (inside of the respective city boundaries and not because of consolidation); and I think that's why they don't really "push the issue" relative to Jax's population because of consolidation.
People do make a City; buildings, attractions, industries, etc. don't; and if this is true, then Jax is really lacking in the inner city and old city boundaries. Government/Leaders need to really focus more attention in these areas of the City.
Heights Unknown
Without consolidation, we would be very similar to a Hartford, Norfolk or Richmond. A small stagnant core city population with a skyline built for an urban area with a much larger population.
One thing that is striking is the decline of Downtown's population base. In 1880, a fraction of what is now today's Northbank, had 7,650 residents. Now the entire downtown area (both banks) have less than 3,000.
QuoteThese numbers also show that the Urban Core has the infrastructure in place to support twice as many residents than live there today.
I'm all for higher population density in the core, but I question the claim that the Urban Core has the infrastructure in place to support it. The claim may be accurate if the infrastructure in the core and core communities
had been maintained. After decades of neglect and fiscal allocations that favored sprawl, the infrastructure updates/upgrades necessary to support past densities are significant.
QuoteAs Jacksonville continues to deal with sprawl, congestion, limited road expansion funds and higher gas and energy costs, our focus on growth needs to shift back to the area that is already laid out to support higher densities.
Agreed! But our city councilmembers continue to "lead" based on geographic self-interest, rather than what might be right for the future and sustainability of the entire city of Jacksonville.
While there are areas that certainly need upgrades, they do have paved streets, street lights, predeveloped land, water/sewer lines, an impressive street grid/expressway network, bridges, stoplights, parks, sidewalks, etc. Densities are also at a level that make using mass transit more of a realistic posibility, thus reducing the need to spend hundreds of millions for new highways. When you look at things from a wholistic point of view, its still a cheaper investment for the community than building all of these things from scratch into virgin undeveloped and environmentally sensitive areas.
Did anyone catch the Channel 4 special on the anniversary of consolidation? They aired an original breakdown of the city and couty governments and gave great insight into the duplication of government and services in duval county. A very educational peice.
One boom missed. In Feb.- Summer of 1864, the populaiton swelled to over 25,000. But they was all Yankees and we ran them the hell out of town!! Lincolns, little birthday gift from the good folks of Florida - OLUSTEE!
Funny thing is, the town was so impressive to those Damned Yankees (which burned it down 4 times - starting with our churches) that many thousands returned to make this there home after the war. So if Jacksonville has always had the NY-NJ feel? Well Duh! Guess who came for dinner? AND STAYED?
Orlando-Tallahassee-St. Pete-Tampa-Miami-West Palm didn't have the benefit of Yankee money or industrial know how and it took them a CENTURY to catch us. We simply changed the rules... CHECK MATE!
OCKLAWAHA
DEO VINDICE!!
It's pretty amazing that this population loss has gone unnoticed by most.
Its hidden by the massive growth of our suburbs, which happen to be within city limits. If we were not consolidated, Jax would be a sunny Detroit with a beach nearby.
This is a great article. Was there another one with more recent population data? If not, anyone want to take a stab at it?
I did one for the 2010 census:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-mar-census-2010-urban-jacksonville-in-decline
Cool, thanks Lake.
I just wonder had we not consolidated, would Jacksonville have annexed more areas (more populated) outside of the traditional census tract area(s). Probably would have; I think this was addressed in another thread and someone estimated that if Jax had not consolidated, and had annexed these areas, Jacksonville's population would be a little over 300,000 people.
^Oh, there's no question they would have done that. It would have been inevitable. Most of the other major cities in Florida (and elsewhere) did that. Tampa, St. Pete, Orlando, Tallahassee, and Fort Lauderdale have all annexed large amounts of suburban/undeveloped land. Miami became semi-consolidated with Dade County and Jax opted for full consolidation with Duval. Here, we would have annexed at least the airport and a lot of the old Southside, perhaps some of the older Westside, and maybe even Arlington.
An interesting discussion would be the debate between the dynamic of one large, one-stop-shopping consolidated city/county versus the several-nearby-municipalities-competing model that comprises some SMSAs. As each smaller city fights for population and industry among it's immediate neighbors, is the net effect positive growth for everybody, or does the huge consolidated city model make more sense?
Quote from: Tacachale on March 05, 2014, 05:20:54 PM
^Oh, there's no question they would have done that. It would have been inevitable. Most of the other major cities in Florida (and elsewhere) did that. Tampa, St. Pete, Orlando, Tallahassee, and Fort Lauderdale have all annexed large amounts of suburban/undeveloped land. Miami became semi-consolidated with Dade County and Jax opted for full consolidation with Duval. Here, we would have annexed at least the airport and a lot of the old Southside, perhaps some of the older Westside, and maybe even Arlington.
Several attempts had been made to annex outlying areas in the 15-20 years prior to Consolidation and none were successful. That is one reason Consolidation was pursued.
But didn't each municipality have the right to opt-out of the consolidation like Jacksonville Beach did? Why would they fight annexation before consolidation occurred, and then just accept the consolidation when it happened?
I'm not aware of any municipalities outside of the beach communities and Baldwin being in existence when Jax consolidated with the county. Before that, several municipalities like LaVilla, Fairfield, Murray Hill, South Jacksonville, etc. had already been incrementally annexed into Jax between the 1880s and 1930s.