Florida's Major Downtowns: How Does Jax Compare?

[bl8jaxnative]

The lack of focus is due to incentives.  It is a size thing but not about downtown.  #KCMO, MPLS and others don't have that empty land to lean on for fresh income.   Heck, one can argue that Savannah didn't start to turn it's core around until all the good annexation options were gone.  The same with Greeneville, SC.

Are you sure? Kansas City is a big sprawler. That place annexed more than 235 square miles of land area between 1950 and 1970. Its population maxed out at 507k after the last big annexation. It bottomed out to 435k in 1990 before they finally started getting their act together. Now it's up to 488k. Nevertheless, one thing KC didn't do was go godzilla on itself while in decline. Now it's blessed with all those old cool buildings and warehouse districts outside of downtown to replenish (and it's done a great job doing just that). On the other hand, we had WW3 with ourselves and called the resulting moonscape cleaning up blight.

You're also wrong about Savannah. It was 11 square miles in 1940 with a population of 95k residents. It peaked at 149k in 1960 after annexing 30 square miles over a 20 year period. It bottomed out at 131k in 2000. It's now 108 square miles with an estimate of 146k residents. It owes its urban renaissance to preservationist who saved much of its building stock from demo cray crays and the emergence of SCAD.

Correct.  They're not perfectly boxed and have annexed.  It's not that there's a complete absence of annexation nor a sole focus on downtown.  Those are very good points.

KCMO's interesting.  I'd love to better understand the dynamics there.  A lot of land was annexed yet 3/4ths of the growth has happened outside of it, Lees Summit, Overland Park, etc.   A lot of that sits empty.  Maybe it was a distraction and focus a generation or two ago but it doens't seem to be today.   What growth has occured in these areas hasn't been enough to offset the massive slide the core areas have undergone.   

The danger on focusing on the lack of purity in the claim is getting lost in the weeds.   Savannah hasn't had a great economy and they're a small city, less than 150,000.  That's night and day compared to having 900,000 and being one of the fastest growing cities in the nation.   It naturally lends itself to focusing on an area like downtown.   

Note that Greenville, SC isn't a pure play either.  More often than not, you'll find cities that have annexed.  Chattanooga's like Greeneville in that while they've been able to annex, they've reached practical limits.  Geography limits a bunch of growth, both the mountains and the Georgia state line.  And the suburban communities to the east of Chattanooga haven't just fought annexation, sections of east Chattanooga have tried to leave ( de-annexation ) the city!   IMHO that lends itself to city officials wanting to and being interested in revitalizing the core.   

That's not to take away from all the different pieces that need to happen.   There are a lot of factors in play. Maybe the more important story with Savannah isn't size but all the NGOs - all the civic groups - that were needed over the decades to finally get things to move in the right direction?  Maybe size is a catalyst but not a cause?

Either way with Jacksonville you're looking at a city pushing to a  million people.  That's ginormous.  Less than a dozen cities in the US have more.  Most major cities in the country have less than half that population.

[thelakelander]

KCMO's interesting.  I'd love to better understand the dynamics there.  A lot of land was annexed yet 3/4ths of the growth has happened outside of it, Lees Summit, Overland Park, etc.   A lot of that sits empty.  Maybe it was a distraction and focus a generation or two ago but it doens't seem to be today.   What growth has occured in these areas hasn't been enough to offset the massive slide the core areas have undergone.

I don't see KCMO being any different from the majority of cities in the US that did not consolidate with their core county....and for that matter Jacksonville. Suburban growth has still happened since WW2, regardless of if the suburb is in city limits (due to consolidation...like Jax or annexation...like KC/Tampa) or if they're incorporated (Ex. Overland Park) or unincorporated (ex. northern St. Johns County).
 

The danger on focusing on the lack of purity in the claim is getting lost in the weeds.   Savannah hasn't had a great economy and they're a small city, less than 150,000.  That's night and day compared to having 900,000 and being one of the fastest growing cities in the nation.   It naturally lends itself to focusing on an area like downtown.

Note that Greenville, SC isn't a pure play either.  More often than not, you'll find cities that have annexed.  Chattanooga's like Greeneville in that while they've been able to annex, they've reached practical limits.  Geography limits a bunch of growth, both the mountains and the Georgia state line.  And the suburban communities to the east of Chattanooga haven't just fought annexation, sections of east Chattanooga have tried to leave ( de-annexation ) the city!   IMHO that lends itself to city officials wanting to and being interested in revitalizing the core.

That's not to take away from all the different pieces that need to happen.   There are a lot of factors in play. Maybe the more important story with Savannah isn't size but all the NGOs - all the civic groups - that were needed over the decades to finally get things to move in the right direction?  Maybe size is a catalyst but not a cause?

I think the danger in such discussion and analysis is trying to paint Jacksonville's situation and challenges as unique. They aren't. How you address walkability is the same, regardless of what a city's size or taxation structure is. If you want a vibrant pedestrian scale setting, you cluster it as much as possible in a pedestrian oriented fashion. If we don't care, then spread it around and stop selling the public on subsidized investments that won't deliver what's being promised.   

Either way with Jacksonville you're looking at a city pushing to a  million people.  That's ginormous.  Less than a dozen cities in the US have more.  Most major cities in the country have less than half that population.

Jacksonville consolidated with its core county. In reality, it's the 40th largest urban area in the country. Nevertheless, whether the number is 100,000 (the original city of Jax) or 900,000 (Duval County), the method to quickly revitalize a pedestrian scale setting or neighborhood does not change.

[heights unknown]

"Original City of Jax" meaning, the old city limits? I guess if they ever wanted to rescind consolidation, they would have to sit, discuss, and assess what the new city limits would be. Jax has certainly sprawled out since 1967 or 68. But I'll bet with new city limits we could squeeze a good population of around 400,000 into the new city limits.

[thelakelander]

Yes, the pre-consolidated city, which was roughly 30 square miles. It's declined about 50% in population since 1950.