2010 Census: Top Ten Population Losers

[thelakelander]

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.

[I-10east]

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.  

[tufsu1]

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%

[rainfrog]

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).

[thelakelander]

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.

[thelakelander]

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

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).

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.

[Jdog]

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.).   

 

[thelakelander]

^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.

[tufsu1]

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%