Census 2010: Urban Jacksonville In Decline

[I-10east]

I wish we could stop promoting the urban core redevelopment without making suburban life seem immoral. There were reasons many people wanted to leave the urban cores across the country in the 1950's. This is America after all, and people can live where they choose. We should focus on how to make the core desirable again. Everyone has their wishes, urban, suburban, exurban or rural. Create an environment that is desirable, and stop painting it like some form of unethical conduct.

+1000

[buckethead]

I agree somewhat. It really doesn't have to come down to suburbanites being evil, or stupid. I don't believe it is the case.

From a viewpoint of sustainability, be it environmental or fiscal, denser development brings more bang for the buck. Bigger sewage and drainage, but far less length. same goes for water, electrical, cable, roads, gas, shopping, etc.

Mass transit brings more bang for the buck. It burns less fuel per carcass. How much roadway does it take to accommodate 81 drivers in a 300' stretch? Now look at those same 81 cabooses planted firmly on a streetcar. 12' wide corridor, loaded and moving with priority. Ex drivers are now banging on the blackberry.

City living is fun, interesting and full of vigor. Visit our big US cities (some are better than others). Imagine some of those attributes you enjoy there, right here.

Suburbs are fine, but when the reality is that for many years, private land owners have used local and state political connections to have infrastructure built to and on their property in an effort to increase it's value, we need to rethink.

I don't imagine most people consider these things when they buy a home. I confess, I did not.

More than any other source, MJ has me thinking about the issue of municipal responsibility and how each citizen is part of that municipality. (Therefore each of us are responsible for the decisions made, collectively and individually. One size does not fit all. Results may vary.)

[thelakelander]

There is nothing wrong with sustainable suburban development. We just need to discourage the style that's bankrupting the city.

[Wacca Pilatka]

I don't mean to come off as making suburban life sound immoral.  I live a suburban existence in Grafton, Virginia myself, and I do understand that some urbanists can sometimes come off, inappropriately and snobbishly, as making suburbanites sound like irredeemable morons ("Little Boxes" et passim).  But I do think that it's woefully fiscally irresponsible for a city to create development conditions and policies that encourage expensive and wasteful sprawl while essentially punishing anyone trying to work, live, play, or start a business in the core city.  Such circumstances threaten the city's bottom line as well as its preservation of history, sense of place and pride, and essential character.  This is what is and has been happening in Jacksonville.

[I-10east]

Somebody answer this question; What if a new suburban subdivision (like the new one on Sunbeam) is actually successful in the future? What if it doesn't have a whole bunch of 'now availables' in it? MJ's typical way of thinking either way it's a 'lose lose' situation. If it's successful, they are taking people away from DT housing, and of course if it flops then that's adding fuel to the fire.

[rainfrog]

For what it's worth, given everything else as a constant, I've estimated that Jacksonville's core population today would only be somewhere between 150,000-160,000 had its loss been attributed solely to the shrinkage of the national average household size since 1950.

Food for thought...

[I-10east]

IMO true urban Jax is not being fully represented here. Old neigborhoods with block style residential housing (like Paxon for example) is not the suburbs. True 'suburbs' are places like Argyle Forest. Jax has plenty of urbanity outside of just the DT area, Springfield, Avondale, and Riverside that does not seem to be represented for whatever reason.

[urbanlibertarian]

Well there was a legal push to drive them out of the cities as well, spuwho.

It just wasnt possible to build for density after the war.

Zoning laws were implemented across the country for the express purpose of suburbanizing.

You're on to something here, Stephen.  Let's eliminate zoning in all the urban core neighborhoods!

[finehoe]

Let's eliminate zoning in all the urban core neighborhoods!

It's already been done:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Enterprise_Zone

[ChriswUfGator]

I wish we could stop promoting the urban core redevelopment without making suburban life seem immoral. There were reasons many people wanted to leave the urban cores across the country in the 1950's. This is America after all, and people can live where they choose. We should focus on how to make the core desirable again. Everyone has their wishes, urban, suburban, exurban or rural. Create an environment that is desirable, and stop painting it like some form of unethical conduct.

Yes, there were reasons. Thankfully segregation and widespread race riots have gone the way of the dodo, so I'm not sure those reasons are particularly valid in today's environment. They didn't call it "White Flight" nationwide for nothing. More importantly, we have now seen the effects of massive suburban growth for 50 years and have had the chance to analyze it. It is disastrous.

[ChriswUfGator]

Well there was a legal push to drive them out of the cities as well, spuwho.

It just wasnt possible to build for density after the war.

Zoning laws were implemented across the country for the express purpose of suburbanizing.

You're on to something here, Stephen.  Let's eliminate zoning in all the urban core neighborhoods!

Or perhaps rewrite zoning laws in such a way that they do not force suburbanization.

Dense urban areas developed in the 19th century largely because of a lack of zoning restrictions. To get back to that, the first step is eliminating those restrictions. I am sure we have learned from history enough to know better than to locate a sewer plant next to a restaurant, but aside from these obvious kind of public health issues (of which there should be very few) I think we should eliminate zoning restrictions in urban environments almost completely. When it comes to zoning in an urban environment, less is more. If by "rewrite" you mean "eliminate restrictions" then that would be awesome.

An urban core is a commercial hub, and the market should decide the use of a property. When you take that out of the equation and supplant it with poorly-informed (or in Jacksonville's case during the Great Decline, racist and/or corrupt government workers) making the decisions on who opens what where, the result is predictably disastrous.

The only way to prevent abuse of power is not to grant it in the first place.

[Brian Buchanan]

i understand the loss, however i would point out the gentrification of springfield has pushed out a large population of squaters. and that there are abandoned place all along north Main st that would take significant funds to revitalize. I live in Avondale, us, Riverside, Springfield and Murrayhill are doing nothing but growing. and the three apartment buildings in San marco probably have as many people as all of San Marco did in the 1930.

[thelakelander]

Avondale, Riverside, Murray Hill, and Springfield are all continuing to decline in population, although gentrification is most likely the reason now.  Along with some areas of Baymeadows, Moncrief, and Durkeeville, Springfield had one of largest population declines (in terms of percentage) over the past decade.  That's one of the major reasons the task of revitalizing Main Street is so difficult.  It's a commercial corridor build to support a community that is nowhere near the density it was during it's heyday.

On the other hand, San Marco grew in population over the last decade.  San Marco is a part of the former City of South Jacksonville, that was annexed into Jacksonville in 1932.  At the time, South Jacksonville with a population 5,507 had more people than all of downtown (Northbank, Southbank, Brooklyn, East Jacksonville, etc.) does today (maybe 3,000 tops).

[Brian Buchanan]

I just check facts and the 32206which is Springfield zipcode gained about 3000 people and 32205 only lost 199 people which could be a variety of reasons like the Navy transfers. 32204 lost about 200 as well but as soon as the new developments are  finished in brooklyn the number will probably increase by at least 25%. however different websites say different things i found where u got your info. so i am going to say this i live here and can i say its busy as hell here go to king street it packed about 5 nights a week
m

[thelakelander]

The numbers I used come from the US Census Bureau. Unfortunately, 32206 hasn't seen an increase in official population numbers in decades. Here is an easy to use census quick map where you can pull the numbers by 2010 census tract:

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map