City Population Estimates Released: Jax Rank Drops
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/906337462_NUDGp-M.jpg)
The fall of Florida's real estate market and the increasing popularity of urban living has caused Jacksonville to fall in the list of America's largest cities.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-jun-city-population-estimates-released-jax-rank-drops
How weird. On the news, they said we moved up in the ranking. And also, I thought we were already number 13, I thoroughly confused. But whatever the case, we wont know the results of the census until early next year. As long as our population keeps increasing, Im good.
We were 12. Given our land mass, we'll eventually overtake San Francisco but its troublesome to see that we're the slowest growing city out of the top 20, despite covering 767 square miles of land area. The only two behind us are Detroit and Memphis. Both of them had a slight decrease in population. As we move forward, we need to pay more attention to quality of life issues because the days of selling ourselves as the cheap alternative are over.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 28, 2010, 09:06:47 AM
We were 12. Given our land mass, we'll eventually overtake San Francisco but its troublesome to see that we're the slowest growing city out of the top 20, despite covering 767 square miles of land area. The only two behind us are Detroit and Memphis. Both of them had a slight decrease in population. As we move forward, we need to pay more attention to quality of life issues because the days of selling ourselves as the cheap alternative are over.
It's still good to see that we still rank above all the cities in Florida though. We still reign supreme in that aspect! :D
Only because of consolidation. Despite this, in terms of absolute numbers, Miami, Tampa and Orlando all added more people. If we were the same size as these communities, we would have probably recorded a loss right along with Memphis and Detroit. Being consolidated helps mask the fact that we're more like misplaced rust belt city than anything else.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 28, 2010, 09:06:47 AM
We were 12. Given our land mass, we'll eventually overtake San Francisco but its troublesome to see that we're the slowest growing city out of the top 20, despite covering 767 square miles of land area. The only two behind us are Detroit and Memphis. Both of them had a slight decrease in population. As we move forward, we need to pay more attention to quality of life issues because the days of selling ourselves as the cheap alternative are over.
So right and I am tired of being the cheap alternative.
Yes all well and good. But notice Atlanta is smaller than Jacksonville. It is the land mass vs population thing. Metro Atlanta makes us look like a small town.
Yeah that is the point Lake illustrated in the article. With our land mass we should be even higher.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 28, 2010, 09:06:47 AM
Given our land mass, we'll eventually overtake San Francisco but its troublesome to see that we're the slowest growing city out of the top 20
I think that has more to do with Florida's overall growth slowdown than anything specific to Jacksonville.
Metro Jacksonville has been warning about this problem for years. We are a rust belt population loser and don't even know it because of consolidation.
Check out the Plight of the Urban Core (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2008-oct-the-plight-of-the-urban-core)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6956-2000_census_tracts.jpg)
Net Urban Core Loss (1950 - 2000): -91,764
Quote from: Overstreet on June 28, 2010, 09:49:47 AM
Yes all well and good. But notice Atlanta is smaller than Jacksonville. It is the land mass vs population thing. Metro Atlanta makes us look like a small town.
Just about everybody metro makes Jacksonville look like a small town. Unfortunately, our metro, or "outskirts" if you will, are very undeveloped (for the most part) compared to the metro areas in most cities.
QuoteIt's still good to see that we still rank above all the cities in Florida though. We still reign supreme in that aspect!
Well, as others have mentioned, it's specifically because of the city-county consolidation. If Miami consolidated with Miami-Dade County, they would have 2.7 million people living in the "city." New York's numbers are geared the same way (although they are much more populated) in that up there, what we would call a "county" they call a borough of New York City, and thus, five "counties" are making up one city of population.
Besides, numbers aren't everything anyway. The "status" of being the most populated city in Florida hasn't exactly set Jacksonville on fire, eh? And considering the state of Floridian development, one could make a strong argument for slower growth being better than rampant, out of control, "Orlando/Miami/Fort Lauderdale" growth, especially if there's no plan or politics supporting intelligent urban planning.
This focus on the number one ranking entirely misses the point. Yeah, Jacksonville "beat" Miami on a technicality, but if that ranking is all one can hold up...who cares? Focus on making Jacksonville the best place it can be, and stop paying attention to the numbers. Because they'll come when you focus on making Jacksonville the best place it can be.
QuoteWhy isnt the same thing happening in the other major floridian cities then?
Because they took part in the urban rediscovery of the last 20 years or so, especially in South Florida and Metro Orlando. Jacksonville sat that movement out, for the most part.
The other two cities to watch out for that are likely to trump us are Austin and Fort Worth, they're both explosively growing and aren't likely to stop anytime soon.
It is not even the population rank that concerns me. Our metro has wonderful suburbs with all the "everyday America" amenities available, rural areas with robust activities, a world class historic neighborhood, NFL, Industrial diversity, Military bases, beaches, a great river, cruise ships, Florida weather, a good road infrastructure and on and on. I want what we what we lack a vibrant Urban core, a school system that is great across the board not just a few shining stars and to be as connected as possible throughout all that Jacksonville has to offer.
Great points, AaroniusLives. If anything, these estimates suggest that places that have made improving their quality of life offerings are doing a better job at attracting and retaining residents.
QuoteI think that has more to do with Florida's overall growth slowdown than anything specific to Jacksonville.
Over the past year:
+3,782 Tampa (112.1 square miles)
+3,627 Jacksonville
(767 square miles)+3,539 Orlando (93.5 square miles)
+1,940 Miami (35.68 square miles)
I know absolute growth isn't everything but when economically struggling places 15% of your size (or less) are still packing in more or just as much people, there should be some concern. The overall growth slowdown has impacted just about every region of the country outside of Texas. Seriously, if we took away the curtain of consolidation, our city would show population loss. That's something that is not happening across the majority of the country.
Quote from: reednavy on June 28, 2010, 10:43:24 AM
The other two cities to watch out for that are likely to trump us are Austin and Fort Worth, they're both explosively growing and aren't likely to stop anytime soon.
Unless something drastic happens, they'll probably catch and pass us by the end of the decade.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 28, 2010, 11:16:10 AM
Unless something drastic happens, they'll probably catch and pass us by the end of the decade.
The raw numbers that they've both been growing, it could probably happen by 2015, especially Fort Worth.
Miami will continue to grow in size(sq. miles) I'm sure as they incoporate the many areas of unicoporated Miami-Dade County.
Miami's long term growth is limited because most of its suburbs are incorporated cities themselves. In fact, the city has shrunk in size since. Back in 1930 it covered 43 square miles. Now it's slightly under 36 square miles with three times as much density.
Can people get over the fact that we're consolidated? Last time I checked, there wasn't an asterisk next to Jax on this list.
Tongue (slightly) in cheek headline:
Increasing popularity of urban living has caused growth of Clay & St.Johns
Onward-
QuoteCan people get over the fact that we're consolidated? Last time I checked, there wasn't an asterisk next to Jax on this list.
Well, the city-county consolidation is important for a variety of reasons not to "get over." In the first place, it results in apples-and-oranges comparisons. When you compare the City of Jacksonville to say the City of Orlando, you're really comparing most of a county to a small section of a county. It helps to point out the consolidation regarding these comparisons because it notes the difference. If city/county consolidations were commonplace in Florida and the rest of the country, Jacksonville would leap back on the list dramatically.
I'm actually more for consolidation than not. It's stupid that a person can live in "Orlando," but in reality live in "Celebration," a part of the suburban sprawl that overall identifies as "Orlando." For example, I grew up in "Miami," but in reality I lived in a suburb of Miami.
In the next place, consolidation tends to hide inherent realities under the mass of the city-county relationship. As noted, consolidation masks the decline in the urban core's population and vitality.
Quote+3,782 Tampa (112.1 square miles)
+3,627 Jacksonville (767 square miles)
+3,539 Orlando (93.5 square miles)
+1,940 Miami (35.68 square miles)
I know absolute growth isn't everything but when economically struggling places 15% of your size (or less) are still packing in more or just as much people, there should be some concern. The overall growth slowdown has impacted just about every region of the country outside of Texas. Seriously, if we took away the curtain of consolidation, our city would show population loss. That's something that is not happening across the majority of the country.
It becomes more jarring when you break it down by population increase per square mile (rounded
up):
Tampa: 34
Jacksonville: 5Orlando: 38
Miami: 54
Again, it's not a fair comparison, as we're comparing apples and oranges here, with regards to consolidation. But leaving Jacksonville out of the mix, Tampa and Orlando had the most total population increase, but Miami has the largest jump in density.
It's one of the problems with news and data reporting nowadays in general. A number and a ranking taken out of context means little without some analysis. Because an increase of about 5 people per square mile is quite revelatory about the state of the city-county consolidation that is Jacksonville, in a way that a baseline number in a list is not.
And again, it's not really about numbers and rankings and being the biggest. In the first place, "biggest" isn't necessarily "best."
In no way has being the largest city in Florida given Jacksonville cache and status over other cities, other counties, or other regions in the state. None. Even though Miami is "smaller," there's a cultural cache to The Magic City that drive people to the city and the county.
And size isn't everything. My current city of Washington DC isn't the biggest in the nation. The metro region isn't the largest (although it's quite large and populated.) But it's a much more pleasant place to live than say...Los Angeles. It's certainly greener and prettier than New York. And right now, it's just as unbearably hot as Jacksonville! Asheville in North Carolina is a small city in the mountains. And it's awesome. Because they focused on being the best they could be, that city is a pleasant place to visit and I suspect, live.
Having said all that, it would be interesting to see an overall county comparison as well, for a more accurate picture of what's going on. Meaning that we know that Miami the city has grown in population, but has Miami the county? And what's the increase/decrease rate per square mile?
Here you go:
Florida's Top 10 Counties
1. Miami-Dade County
2009: 2,500,625
2000: 2,253,362
2008-2009: +21,880
2000-2009: +247,263
2. Broward County
2009: 1,766,476
2000: 1,623,018
2008-2009: +13,214
2000-2009: +143,458
3. Palm Beach County
2009: 1,279,950
2000: 1,131,184
2008-2009: +10,205
2000-2009: +148,776
4. Hillsborough County
2009: 1,195,317
2000: 998,948
2008-2009: +15,199
2000-2009: +196,369
5. Orange County
2009: 1,086,480
2000: 896,344
2008-2009: +10,743
2000-2009: +190,136
6. Pinellas County
2009: 909,013
2000: 921,482
2008-2009: -1,045
2000-2009: -12,484
7. Duval County
2009: 857,040
2000: 778,879
2008-2009: +3,924
2000-2009: +78,161
8. Lee County
2009: 586,908
2000: 440,888
2008-2009: -1,801
2000-2009: +146,020
9. Polk County
2008: 583,403
2000: 483,924
2008-2009: +3,121
2000-2009: +99,479
10. Brevard County
2008: 536,357
2000: 476,230
2008-2009: +43
2000-2009: +60,127
Source: http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.html
Quote from: AaroniusLives on June 28, 2010, 01:32:22 PM
QuoteCan people get over the fact that we're consolidated? Last time I checked, there wasn't an asterisk next to Jax on this list.
In the next place, consolidation tends to hide inherent realities under the mass of the city-county relationship. As noted, consolidation masks the decline in the urban core's population and vitality.
Quote+3,782 Tampa (112.1 square miles)
+3,627 Jacksonville (767 square miles)
+3,539 Orlando (93.5 square miles)
+1,940 Miami (35.68 square miles)
It becomes more jarring when you break it down by population increase per square mile (rounded up):
Tampa: 34
Jacksonville: 5
Orlando: 38
Miami: 54
Again, it's not a fair comparison, as we're comparing apples and oranges here, with regards to consolidation. But leaving Jacksonville out of the mix, Tampa and Orlando had the most total population increase, but Miami has the largest jump in density.
It's one of the problems with news and data reporting nowadays in general. A number and a ranking taken out of context means little without some analysis.
And size isn't everything.
Much of the Consolidated Duval land area is and will remain undeveloped.Same with Miami/Dade County and Ft.lauderdale/Broward County ...the western halves of those counties preserved rural Everglades, a huge area.Is the 'glades land area factored in Miami & Lauderdale analysis??.
A key driver for some prospective new residents is desire to flee from very real growth related issues and the profile of "Duval" as 'largest' has stemmed interest in some circles.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 28, 2010, 12:39:13 PM
Miami's long term growth is limited because most of its suburbs are incorporated cities themselves. In fact, the city has shrunk in size since. Back in 1930 it covered 43 square miles. Now it's slightly under 36 square miles with three times as much density.
I'm sure they can incorporate parts of the county that are unincorporated, it'd be a smart move IMO.
QuoteMuch of the Consolidated Duval land area is and will remain undeveloped.Same with Miami/Dade County and Ft.lauderdale/Broward County ...the western halves of those counties preserved rural Everglades, a huge area.Is the 'glades land area factored in Miami & Lauderdale analysis??.
I'm sure the preserved area isn't factored into the county or city-county consolidation analysis per square mile. In that instance, much more of Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach County would be off the square mile map. They would be even denser. When we're talking about the cities, however, Miami and Fort Lauderdale (and West Palm Beach) are all eastern, and have no Everglades land to speak of.
QuoteQuoteMiami's long term growth is limited because most of its suburbs are incorporated cities themselves. In fact, the city has shrunk in size since. Back in 1930 it covered 43 square miles. Now it's slightly under 36 square miles with three times as much density.
I'm sure they can incorporate parts of the county that are unincorporated, it'd be a smart move IMO.
Actually, there's not a great deal of unincorporated communities left in Miami-Dade County, and most would rather not be consolidated into the City of Miami. If anything, that stretch of the world is anti-consolidation.
The county and city numbers factor in everything within their specific borders. Thus, the Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach statistics also include the Everglades, meaning their denser than numbers suggest. The city of Miami's numbers don't include the glades because they aren't within the city's 35 square mile municipal limits.
Quote from: stephendare on June 28, 2010, 10:12:03 AM
On what grounds? Why isnt the same thing happening in the other major floridian cities then?
It is...check the stats big guy!
Our growth is similar (proportional) to that of Miami, Orlando, and Tampa Bay...since 2000...
Miami/Dade County - grew 11%
Broward County - 9%
Hillsborough County - grew 20%
Pinellas County - lost 1%
Orange County - grew 21%
Duval County - grew 10%
and from 2008 - 2009
Miami/Dade County - grew 0.8%
Broward County - grew 0.7%
Hillsborough County - grew 1.2%
Pinellas County - lost 0.1%
Orange County - grew 0.9%
Duval County - grew 0.5%
look up
tufsu1, that was helpful. Can you do it for all the counties in the list?
no...let me try and explain this again
Orange County (Orlando) and Hillsborough County (Tampa) each grew by 20% over the last 9 years....but only about 1% between 2008-2009
Duval County (Jacksonville) grew by 10% over the last 10 years....but only about 0.5% between 2008-2009
which means our slowdown was proportional to theirs.
I'm not the one who doesn't seem to understand math
ok...well I'm also not one who tends to delete my own posts, so no worries there...since apprently I don't understand this, please explain....
Tampa and Orlando grew at an annual rate of about 2.4% from 2000-2008 and then about 1% from 2008-2009...represents about a 58% slowdown
Jacksonville grew at annual rate of 1.2% from 2000-2008 and then about 0.5% from 2008-2009...representing about a 58% slowdown
So how is our slowdown more pronounced than theirs?
QuoteOur growth is similar (proportional) to that of Miami, Orlando, and Tampa Bay...since 2000...
Miami/Dade County - grew 11%
Broward County - 9%
Hillsborough County - grew 20%
Pinellas County - lost 1%
Orange County - grew 21%
Duval County - grew 10%
and from 2008 - 2009
Miami/Dade County - grew 0.8%
Broward County - grew 0.7%
Hillsborough County - grew 1.2%
Pinellas County - lost 0.1%
Orange County - grew 0.9%
Duval County - grew 0.5%
Well, to be fair, I think stephendare does understand math. Duval's growth rate and slowdown is similar and proportional to Miami-Dade's and Broward's. The slowdown is also applicable and comparable.
However, Duval grew nowhere
near as fast as either Hillsborough or Orange. And the drop-off in growth is not nearly as dramatic, nor is it comparable. They grew at 20% and are still growing at 1%? Wow.
I'm surprised you didn't include the rest of the counties in the mix.
How about central city growth rates? I suspect that urban Jax (the actual city) is continuing to lose residents and those numbers are being hidden and overlooked by suburban growth in the rest of the county/city. By the same token, I suspect that the cities of Tampa, Miami and Orlando may be growing at a faster rate than their core counties.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 28, 2010, 04:11:58 PM
How about central city growth rates? I suspect that urban Jax (the actual city) is continuing to lose residents and those numbers are being hidden and overlooked by suburban growth in the rest of the county/city. By the same token, I suspect that the cities of Tampa, Miami and Orlando may be growing at a faster rate than their core counties.
Good point.
actually I'm not sure that is the case....suburban growth has practically halted almost everywhere in Florida....while it might not be our urban core expanding, but areas like Southside/Tinseltown are still infill (empty areas surrounded by development).
As some have already noted, if we get our house in order, growth would take care of itself. This "growth for the sake of growth" is old school. If you are going to move your company or yourself, you want to move where there are great amenities and quality of life, such as schools and education, easy transit, diverse and quality things to do, great climate and natural environments, character of place, etc. We have much of this but have also mismanaged much. I would say we rate at best a "C" in exploiting our assets. Until we do better, I expect us to languish against the cities we wish to compare ourselves to otherwise.
One day, perhaps, a new citizen regime will move in and take us to the promised land. Some of those citizens are here now, but we lack the full number. Unfortunately, we are on a treadmill in which many of these visionaries give up on us and go elsewhere to contribute where they can make more of a difference or find what they already envision exists.
Quote from: stjr on June 28, 2010, 05:07:28 PM
As some have already noted, if we get our house in order, growth would take care of itself. This "growth for the sake of growth" is old school. If you are going to move your company or yourself, you want to move where there are great amenities and quality of life, such as schools and education, easy transit, diverse and quality things to do, great climate and natural environments, character of place, etc. We have much of this but have also mismanaged much. I would say we rate at best a "C" in exploiting our assets. Until we do better, I expect us to languish against the cities we wish to compare ourselves to otherwise.
One day, perhaps, a new citizen regime will move in and take us to the promised land. Some of those citizens are here now, but we lack the full number. Unfortunately, we are on a treadmill in which many of these visionaries give up on us and go elsewhere to contribute where they can make more of a difference or find what they already envision exists.
once again stjr...we agree!
Quotebut areas like Southside/Tinseltown are still infill (empty areas surrounded by development).
I'd qualify Tinseltown as suburban growth. While the Southside has had some leapfrog development, most of the JTB corridor has developed over the last 20 years or so, inching development closer to the Davis property. With that said, I believe there should be great concern about our urban core not being able to take advantage of a national trend. It shows that we're lacking something locally.
I agree with Stjr's post as well. However, I do believe there is a problem if the urban core is not growing (which it isn't) in spite of a nationwide growth development pattern. There is nothing special about places like the Tinseltown area that will make them attractive and sustainable long term.
QuoteAs some have already noted, if we get our house in order, growth would take care of itself. This "growth for the sake of growth" is old school. If you are going to move your company or yourself, you want to move where there are great amenities and quality of life, such as schools and education, easy transit, diverse and quality things to do, great climate and natural environments, character of place, etc. We have much of this but have also mismanaged much. I would say we rate at best a "C" in exploiting our assets. Until we do better, I expect us to languish against the cities we wish to compare ourselves to otherwise.
Moreover, you can see the effects of "growth for the sake of growth" all over both the urban core and the surrounding city-county areas of Jacksonville. Jacksonville has always struck me as an entirely over-built city. It always feels like it's missing people, that it's britches are too big for the actual population of the city. Minneapolis has the same feel: huge highways, malls and skyscrapers without actual people. This is not a 'dis on Jacksonville. It's merely an opinion. It just feels like they built Jacksonville for more people than are actually living there. So, in the future, Jacksonville should build for the right size of Jacksonville. Here's a great idea: don't expand your office capacity until you're at 100% occupancy!
As for the "why" people migrate from one city to the next, that really depends upon the person or familial unit. I suspect that many people move to a city because of the schools/amenities/quality of life, and I also suspect that "cheap" trumps some of those qualifications. To put this another way, there are many folks who fall down when I tell them my cost of living in DC. Despite all the awesome "quality of life" aspects, it's just too damned expensive for them to consider.
QuoteOne day, perhaps, a new citizen regime will move in and take us to the promised land. Some of those citizens are here now, but we lack the full number. Unfortunately, we are on a treadmill in which many of these visionaries give up on us and go elsewhere to contribute where they can make more of a difference or find what they already envision exists.
That's sadly true. I got fed up with even the relatively progressive South Florida and merely moved to a place that was more my speed. However, periodically a leader comes along and shows how it can be done. For example, Manny Diaz, the mayor of Miami from 2001-2009, is more responsible than anybody for utterly transforming Miami. The Miami I left behind was a corporate-by-day/wasteland-by-night 1980s/1990s paradigm for Florida. The Miami he governed was open, urban and attracted life to the core (and enhanced efforts underway in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach as well.) He was the right man for the right time. During his ascent there, I was already in Atlanta...where a Manny Diaz was and is sorely needed.
QuoteHowever, I do believe there is a problem if the urban core is not growing (which it isn't) in spite of a nationwide growth development pattern.
Probably the most tragic thing that happened in Jacksonville over the last decade was in not jumping on the urban boom. That that fabric wasn't built means that Jacksonville is starting from Square One, where other cities have moved ahead in the game.
Do no more posts from stephen dare mean that he discovered he was wrong and tufsu1 was right? Tufsu1's math is correct.
Quote from: AaroniusLives on June 28, 2010, 03:45:53 PM
QuoteOur growth is similar (proportional) to that of Miami, Orlando, and Tampa Bay...since 2000...
Miami/Dade County - grew 11%
Broward County - 9%
Hillsborough County - grew 20%
Pinellas County - lost 1%
Orange County - grew 21%
Duval County - grew 10%
and from 2008 - 2009
Miami/Dade County - grew 0.8%
Broward County - grew 0.7%
Hillsborough County - grew 1.2%
Pinellas County - lost 0.1%
Orange County - grew 0.9%
Duval County - grew 0.5%
Well, to be fair, I think stephendare does understand math. Duval's growth rate and slowdown is similar and proportional to Miami-Dade's and Broward's. The slowdown is also applicable and comparable.
However, Duval grew nowhere near as fast as either Hillsborough or Orange. And the drop-off in growth is not nearly as dramatic, nor is it comparable. They grew at 20% and are still growing at 1%? Wow.
I'm surprised you didn't include the rest of the counties in the mix.
Another factor that should not be lost is Pinellas, Miami-Dade and Broward are all essentially built out. The majority of growth in these places comes from redevelopment and high density urban infill. On the other hand, the majority of growth in Duval, Hillsborough and Orange happens to be urban sprawl.
QuoteQuoteDuval's growth rate and slowdown is similar and proportional to Miami-Dade's and Broward's. The slowdown is also applicable and comparable.
Another factor that should not be lost is Pinellas, Miami-Dade and Broward are all essentially built out. The majority of growth in these places comes from redevelopment and high density urban infill. On the other hand, the majority of growth in Duval, Hillsborough and Orange happens to be urban sprawl.
It's also interesting to note that Pinellas didn't grow, because politically the majority of that county didn't want to urbanize (outside of downtown St. Pete.) And that Miami-Dade and Broward turned to high-density urban infill development
because they had no choice in the matter. Miami-Dade and Broward didn't have a "Portland" or "Vancouver" epiphany and decide to pursue smart growth strategies; those counties ran out of space to continue to build the bad stuff, and started to build the good stuff (and sadly, in many cases, built the "suburbs in the sky" style of high-rises instead of New Urbanist development.)
That seems to be an unfortunate trait in Florida: smart growth after all other ways of growth have been extinguished and it's the only possibility left.
I've asked you to explain how my math is wrong and/or what I don't understand.
Please enlighten me
No you didn't. All you did was say he was wrong. Tufsu1 presented statistics to prove his point. All you did was talk.
*** "Jacksonville" Celebrated The Million Mark in 1996 ***
Joint Barnett Bank/City of Jacksonville effort
From: "Kick Ass"
Selected Miami Herald columns of Carl Hiaasen
Univ. Press Of Florida-hard copy edition
'Choked on Growth' page 353
February 4,1996
Weird but true:In Jacksonville,an extravaganza called "Millionth Mania" was recently held to "celebrate" the area's one millionth new resident.
As if this were a good thing,something to be desired.
South Floridians can only shake their heads in puzzlement.We stopped celebrating about three million newcommers ago.Today,ascending population in Dade,Broward and Palm Beach are curtly noted and often received with quiet dismay.
In Jacksonville,they shot off fireworks on the river,while Barbara Eden and Frankie Valli entertained.But not everyone was jumping for joy.
Mike Webster,a native Miamian,fled to North Florida in 1980.The Jacksonville Yacht broker is a founding member of a small but feisty cell of objectors called the Florida League Against "Progress".
FLAP has no dues,no officers,no membership rolls and no meetings.What it does have is a plainly articulated position:That Growth for Growth's sake is reckless,and that all Floridians are paying the price in declining quality of life-crime,traffic,gridlock,sprawl,overcrowded schools,more taxes.
Years ago,FLAP gained modest attention by distributing delightfully seditious bumper stickers that said:LEAVING FLORIDA?TAKE A FRIEND!
Understandibly,Webster was chagrined when his adopted hometown began to boast about swelling to one million residents.It was the same mentality that had turned South Florida in to a parking lot.
So fervid was Jacksonville's yearning to reach it's "magnificent milestone" that the city fudged the numbers.Duval County,which defines metropolitan Jacksonville (the entire county) has only about 700,000 people.Therefore,promoters of "Millionth Mania" were compelled to include in their arithmetic the combined census of Duval,Baker,Nassau,Clay and St.Johns counties.
Technically,it was "northeastern Florida" that two weeks ago welcomed it's one millionth resident.Mike Webster says he was no less alarmed.
He banged out an irreverent press release that was pretty much ignored by the region's mainstream media.That's too bad,because in it he enunciated what many frustrated Floridians are feeling.
"For places like Jacksonville," Webster wrote,"the question of growth is not one of right or wrong,but rather of addiction.We have worshipped the lord of growth.We have multiplied,now we must become fruitfull".
Webster is no new age granola head.A self described conservative Democrat,he was until recently a loyal member of the NRA.He doesn't worry about endangered Panthers so much as farmers,river men and others whose fortunes are jepardized by overdevelopment.
"Much of what passes for progress isn't," Webster says.He includes himself among the threatened: "If our marine resources collapse,the bottom falls out of the boat business."
And while FLAP stops shy of advocating a cap on growth,Webster has dryly suggested that Florida will "depromote" itself to slow the influx of new arrivals.
Which got me thinking:What better way for a city to spook prospective residents than to publicize (with fireworks!) it's own overcrowding.
Is it possible,I wondered,that FLAP infiltrated Jacksonville's Chamber of Commerce and City Events office? Was Webster himself secretly responsible for the big "Celebration"?
Though he denies involvement,the phrase "Millionth Mania" certainly has the sly ring of parody.Perhaps it wasn't the hokey,misguided boosterism I first thought.Perhaps it was a prank-a perversely brilliant prank-meant to scare people away from Duval County.
And it'll probably work.
North Miami, I assume you have some affiliation with FLAP as well...
Thanks for posting the article. It kind of draws attention to the inferiority complex of Jacksonville. We MUST grow so that we can compete with the 'big boys'. There are smaller cities who are widely viewed as more successful because they have sound governance and smart policies. Those areas are experiencing growth as a result. We are more concerned with doing the reverse. Grow first, then create positive resources to serve our residents.
I'd be excited for us to never hit 2,000,000 residents if it meant that we would have a healthy downtown and excellent core neighborhoods. Lets readjust our perspective to concentrate on better serving the residents we already have, not trying to attract one and all with our Disney-fied 'Town Centers' and Stepford-style mega developments.
This does not mean i'm against bringing jobs to town. We have an overbuilt housing stock as it is. Let's recruit businesses and fill out our core areas first, then worry about outward growth. Jobs are what will create a healthy and wealthy city, whether we have 1 or 10 million people. To do this, we should start with our already strong areas of employment, and work on growing those through partnerships. Save the money we spend on overpasses and utilities out to the county lines and use it to help a company locate in the core.
I see jax as a McMansion itself, huge with faux features that lacks a lot of substance.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on June 29, 2010, 12:59:45 PM
North Miami, I assume you have some affiliation with FLAP as well...
Thanks for posting the article. It kind of draws attention to the inferiority complex of Jacksonville.
Captain Zissou-note the article references Mike Webster is a native of Miami.That's me; "North Miami"
I figured it was you, its just forum etiquette not to say someone's real name if it has not already been mentioned.
Yacht Broker +
Transplant from Miami+
Disgruntled about FL growth+
Posts an article almost 15 years old
= It's probably you in the article.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on June 29, 2010, 01:21:13 PM
Posts an article almost 15 years old
"Millionth Mania" event was indeed 15 years ago.
I knew then,during that era, that a lot of then-current events would not reveal true significance for some time.
Quote from: stephendare on June 29, 2010, 01:18:55 PM
Seriously. look up geometric progression. Then compare and contrast to proportional relationships.
TUFSU literally does not know what he is talking about, and clearly he has at least one cell mate ;)
perhaps we can discuss this tonight ;)
Stephen and I actually discussed this tonight (along with sme other folks)....I do agree with Stephen's math in regards to Miami/Dade...I also showed that proportional growth/loss in Orlando/Orange County was very similar to Jax/Duval.
Overall, growth in Florida slowed significantly in 2008-2009 as more people moved out than moved in (growth only occurred because more people were born than died)...what makes Miami/Dade a bit different is it still has significant in-migration of peole from other countries.
In the end, we both saw the other's point.
The numbers appear to show that Jax's growth has suffered the most out of Florida's top 4 metro areas. However, I still suspect that our "urban core" (central city) numbers are worse when compared to the actual cities of Orlando, Tampa and Miami.
For example, Miami is only 35.6 square miles and it has added 70,666 residents since 2000. There is a great chance that during this same period, Jacksonville's "urban core" (the 30.2 square mile old city) actually lost population. On the other hand, the majority of cities across the country are gaining population in their urban cores (even many of the rust belt cities). This is where Jacksonville's true problem lies.
Article about St. Pete
http://www.tampabay.com/news/growth/census-estimates-st-petersburg-lost-population-from-2008-to-2009/1104313
and another one....this one is good in that it tries to show urban growth vs. suburban growth.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/06/22/suburb-population-growth-slows/