Jaxsonville Is Poor

[bl8jaxnative]

A lot of newly poor and, deepening poverty and deeply impoverished on this map.  Only Springfield and Mayport are bucking the trend.

https://eig.org/neighborhood-poverty-project/interactive-map

[vicupstate]

For those that think Consolidation was a bad idea, consider that if the old JAX city limits were still in effect, and you changed nothing else, JAX would be a very poverty stricken city, only Riverside-Avondale and San Marco would be significant exceptions.

[Steve]

I don't think this shows that Jacksonville is poor, though I think you can definitely make the argument that pre-consolidation Jax is definitely poor.

I think the bigger takeaway is that it furthers the argument that we've yet to fulfill Consolidation's promise.

[Tacachale]

For those that think Consolidation was a bad idea, consider that if the old JAX city limits were still in effect, and you changed nothing else, JAX would be a very poverty stricken city, only Riverside-Avondale and San Marco would be significant exceptions.

Excellent point.

[marcuscnelson]

It's disappointing, but not surprising. The past several decades have represented almost nothing but wasted attempts at urban renewal and a lack of leadership at a municipal level. Sure, every once in a while we had a Godbold or Delaney, but that doesn't make up for the Peytons and Currys.

[jaxlongtimer]

For those that think Consolidation was a bad idea, consider that if the old JAX city limits were still in effect, and you changed nothing else, JAX would be a very poverty stricken city, only Riverside-Avondale and San Marco would be significant exceptions.

I am not so sure this conclusion is a given.

Without consolidation, there would have been much more focus on the urban core's plight.  Much of the "urban" federal and state funding over the decades would have likely been more concentrated in the original City limits vs. being spread all over Duval County.

Similarly, some have also argued that a group of elected leaders that were forced to focus on the urban core would have been more proactive in finding ways to revitalize it.  Just look at most "non-consolidated" urban cores in the US and their revitalization.  Many, if not most, shared the issues of poverty and blight with Jacksonville and still moved forward on some basis.

Lastly, if the suburban class wasn't controlling the urban core, maybe we would have had a greater appreciation for its history and architecture, today serving as the basis for an area of thriving character and charm instead of being a dead space bloated with cold or neglected buildings and vacant lots.  Most of Jacksonville's character is best preserved in the current or former (e.g Springfield and parts of Riverside) impoverished neighborhoods.  Maybe LaVilla would still be around with an urban-centered government.

My perfect model would have been dividing the county up into 4 to 6 semi-self-governed areas with each unit sharing "back office"/"overhead" functions to achieve some of the efficiencies consolidation promised and joint venturing on some larger projects/tasks.  I think citizens just feel more connected to smaller governmental units and are, accordingly, more likely to civically engage .  That ups the ante for better land use, historic preservation, interest in education and so much more.

[Tacachale]

For those that think Consolidation was a bad idea, consider that if the old JAX city limits were still in effect, and you changed nothing else, JAX would be a very poverty stricken city, only Riverside-Avondale and San Marco would be significant exceptions.

I am not so sure this conclusion is a given.

Without consolidation, there would have been much more focus on the urban core's plight.  Much of the "urban" federal and state funding over the decades would have likely been more concentrated in the original City limits vs. being spread all over Duval County.

Similarly, some have also argued that a group of elected leaders that were forced to focus on the urban core would have been more proactive in finding ways to revitalize it.  Just look at most "non-consolidated" urban cores in the US and their revitalization.  Many, if not most, shared the issues of poverty and blight with Jacksonville and still moved forward on some basis.

Lastly, if the suburban class wasn't controlling the urban core, maybe we would have had a greater appreciation for its history and architecture, today serving as the basis for an area of thriving character and charm instead of being a dead space bloated with cold or neglected buildings and vacant lots.  Most of Jacksonville's character is best preserved in the current or former (e.g Springfield and parts of Riverside) impoverished neighborhoods.  Maybe LaVilla would still be around with an urban-centered government.

My perfect model would have been dividing the county up into 4 to 6 semi-self-governed areas with each unit sharing "back office"/"overhead" functions to achieve some of the efficiencies consolidation promised and joint venturing on some larger projects/tasks.  I think citizens just feel more connected to smaller governmental units and are, accordingly, more likely to civically engage .  That ups the ante for better land use, historic preservation, interest in education and so much more.

If we didn't consolidate, we would have either become Flint, Michigan with more suburbs, or we would have tried one of the other solutions tried by contemporary peers. Those include annexing suburban land like various Central Florida cities did, or creating a two tiered "Consolidation Lite" model like Miami. The former found success at the expense of intentionally drawing around distressed areas, and the latter did nothing to reduce redundancy. Consolidation holds up well in comparison.

Additionally, one has only to look at other Consolidated cities like Indy, Nashville, New York, etc. to see that there's not a close correspondence between consolidated government and issues in the urban core. Similarly there are plenty of non-consolidated cities - Birmingham, Spartanburg, Detroit - that are as bad or worse off than Jax.

Here's an article we wrote about it 2 years ago. https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/how-does-consolidation-compare/

[Bill Hoff]

A lot of newly poor and, deepening poverty and deeply impoverished on this map.  Only Springfield and Mayport are bucking the trend.

https://eig.org/neighborhood-poverty-project/interactive-map

If the data were current up to date, I suspect much more of the Springfield historic district would be blue, and not just a third of it. Past 2 years have seen notable residential growth.

[Steve]

For those that think Consolidation was a bad idea, consider that if the old JAX city limits were still in effect, and you changed nothing else, JAX would be a very poverty stricken city, only Riverside-Avondale and San Marco would be significant exceptions.

I am not so sure this conclusion is a given.

Without consolidation, there would have been much more focus on the urban core's plight.  Much of the "urban" federal and state funding over the decades would have likely been more concentrated in the original City limits vs. being spread all over Duval County.

Similarly, some have also argued that a group of elected leaders that were forced to focus on the urban core would have been more proactive in finding ways to revitalize it.  Just look at most "non-consolidated" urban cores in the US and their revitalization.  Many, if not most, shared the issues of poverty and blight with Jacksonville and still moved forward on some basis.

Lastly, if the suburban class wasn't controlling the urban core, maybe we would have had a greater appreciation for its history and architecture, today serving as the basis for an area of thriving character and charm instead of being a dead space bloated with cold or neglected buildings and vacant lots.  Most of Jacksonville's character is best preserved in the current or former (e.g Springfield and parts of Riverside) impoverished neighborhoods.  Maybe LaVilla would still be around with an urban-centered government.

My perfect model would have been dividing the county up into 4 to 6 semi-self-governed areas with each unit sharing "back office"/"overhead" functions to achieve some of the efficiencies consolidation promised and joint venturing on some larger projects/tasks.  I think citizens just feel more connected to smaller governmental units and are, accordingly, more likely to civically engage .  That ups the ante for better land use, historic preservation, interest in education and so much more.

If we didn't consolidate, we would have either become Flint, Michigan with more suburbs, or we would have tried one of the other solutions tried by contemporary peers. Those include annexing suburban land like various Central Florida cities did, or creating a two tiered "Consolidation Lite" model like Miami. The former found success at the expense of intentionally drawing around distressed areas, and the latter did nothing to reduce redundancy. Consolidation holds up well in comparison.

Additionally, one has only to look at other Consolidated cities like Indy, Nashville, New York, etc. to see that there's not a close correspondence between consolidated government and issues in the urban core. Similarly there are plenty of non-consolidated cities - Birmingham, Spartanburg, Detroit - that are as bad or worse off than Jax.

Here's an article we wrote about it 2 years ago. https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/how-does-consolidation-compare/

I have a hard time with the "What would Jacksonville be if we didn't consolidate?" question. Unquestionably, looking at a map of pre-consolidation Jacksonville the city as a whole is largely poor. But, it's unreasonable to think that non-consolidated Jacksonville wouldn't have made SOME positive strides in the economic development arena. Right now we have 840 Square Miles of land the JEDC can pitch for economic development.

Personally, I've thought about what we may have done as a city if we went the route of annexation - I know there was a competing proposal that included Arlington, and at least part of the lakewood area (not sure the exact borders).

[vicupstate]

For those that think Consolidation was a bad idea, consider that if the old JAX city limits were still in effect, and you changed nothing else, JAX would be a very poverty stricken city, only Riverside-Avondale and San Marco would be significant exceptions.

I am not so sure this conclusion is a given.

Without consolidation, there would have been much more focus on the urban core's plight.  Much of the "urban" federal and state funding over the decades would have likely been more concentrated in the original City limits vs. being spread all over Duval County.

Similarly, some have also argued that a group of elected leaders that were forced to focus on the urban core would have been more proactive in finding ways to revitalize it.  Just look at most "non-consolidated" urban cores in the US and their revitalization.  Many, if not most, shared the issues of poverty and blight with Jacksonville and still moved forward on some basis.

Lastly, if the suburban class wasn't controlling the urban core, maybe we would have had a greater appreciation for its history and architecture, today serving as the basis for an area of thriving character and charm instead of being a dead space bloated with cold or neglected buildings and vacant lots.  Most of Jacksonville's character is best preserved in the current or former (e.g Springfield and parts of Riverside) impoverished neighborhoods.  Maybe LaVilla would still be around with an urban-centered government.

My perfect model would have been dividing the county up into 4 to 6 semi-self-governed areas with each unit sharing "back office"/"overhead" functions to achieve some of the efficiencies consolidation promised and joint venturing on some larger projects/tasks.  I think citizens just feel more connected to smaller governmental units and are, accordingly, more likely to civically engage .  That ups the ante for better land use, historic preservation, interest in education and so much more.

If we didn't consolidate, we would have either become Flint, Michigan with more suburbs, or we would have tried one of the other solutions tried by contemporary peers. Those include annexing suburban land like various Central Florida cities did, or creating a two tiered "Consolidation Lite" model like Miami. The former found success at the expense of intentionally drawing around distressed areas, and the latter did nothing to reduce redundancy. Consolidation holds up well in comparison.

Additionally, one has only to look at other Consolidated cities like Indy, Nashville, New York, etc. to see that there's not a close correspondence between consolidated government and issues in the urban core. Similarly there are plenty of non-consolidated cities - Birmingham, Spartanburg, Detroit - that are as bad or worse off than Jax.

Here's an article we wrote about it 2 years ago. https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/how-does-consolidation-compare/

I have a hard time with the "What would Jacksonville be if we didn't consolidate?" question. Unquestionably, looking at a map of pre-consolidation Jacksonville the city as a whole is largely poor. But, it's unreasonable to think that non-consolidated Jacksonville wouldn't have made SOME positive strides in the economic development arena. Right now we have 840 Square Miles of land the JEDC can pitch for economic development.

Personally, I've thought about what we may have done as a city if we went the route of annexation - I know there was a competing proposal that included Arlington, and at least part of the lakewood area (not sure the exact borders).

There is no way to know for sure, but I doubt much could have been done to change things in a big way.  All the growth before consolidation was in the county. Without consolidation, what exactly would have changed that? ALso, both the inside and outside areas would be burdened with the duplication and inefficiency of the then existing government. Prior efforts at annexation were not successful, so what would have changed that? 

[Steve]

For those that think Consolidation was a bad idea, consider that if the old JAX city limits were still in effect, and you changed nothing else, JAX would be a very poverty stricken city, only Riverside-Avondale and San Marco would be significant exceptions.

I am not so sure this conclusion is a given.

Without consolidation, there would have been much more focus on the urban core's plight.  Much of the "urban" federal and state funding over the decades would have likely been more concentrated in the original City limits vs. being spread all over Duval County.

Similarly, some have also argued that a group of elected leaders that were forced to focus on the urban core would have been more proactive in finding ways to revitalize it.  Just look at most "non-consolidated" urban cores in the US and their revitalization.  Many, if not most, shared the issues of poverty and blight with Jacksonville and still moved forward on some basis.

Lastly, if the suburban class wasn't controlling the urban core, maybe we would have had a greater appreciation for its history and architecture, today serving as the basis for an area of thriving character and charm instead of being a dead space bloated with cold or neglected buildings and vacant lots.  Most of Jacksonville's character is best preserved in the current or former (e.g Springfield and parts of Riverside) impoverished neighborhoods.  Maybe LaVilla would still be around with an urban-centered government.

My perfect model would have been dividing the county up into 4 to 6 semi-self-governed areas with each unit sharing "back office"/"overhead" functions to achieve some of the efficiencies consolidation promised and joint venturing on some larger projects/tasks.  I think citizens just feel more connected to smaller governmental units and are, accordingly, more likely to civically engage .  That ups the ante for better land use, historic preservation, interest in education and so much more.

If we didn't consolidate, we would have either become Flint, Michigan with more suburbs, or we would have tried one of the other solutions tried by contemporary peers. Those include annexing suburban land like various Central Florida cities did, or creating a two tiered "Consolidation Lite" model like Miami. The former found success at the expense of intentionally drawing around distressed areas, and the latter did nothing to reduce redundancy. Consolidation holds up well in comparison.

Additionally, one has only to look at other Consolidated cities like Indy, Nashville, New York, etc. to see that there's not a close correspondence between consolidated government and issues in the urban core. Similarly there are plenty of non-consolidated cities - Birmingham, Spartanburg, Detroit - that are as bad or worse off than Jax.

Here's an article we wrote about it 2 years ago. https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/how-does-consolidation-compare/

I have a hard time with the "What would Jacksonville be if we didn't consolidate?" question. Unquestionably, looking at a map of pre-consolidation Jacksonville the city as a whole is largely poor. But, it's unreasonable to think that non-consolidated Jacksonville wouldn't have made SOME positive strides in the economic development arena. Right now we have 840 Square Miles of land the JEDC can pitch for economic development.

Personally, I've thought about what we may have done as a city if we went the route of annexation - I know there was a competing proposal that included Arlington, and at least part of the lakewood area (not sure the exact borders).

There is no way to know for sure, but I doubt much could have been done to change things in a big way.  All the growth before consolidation was in the county. Without consolidation, what exactly would have changed that? ALso, both the inside and outside areas would be burdened with the duplication and inefficiency of the then existing government. Prior efforts at annexation were not successful, so what would have changed that? 

Hard to say - in the 1960's Jacksonville was far from unique in the fact that the suburbs grew at a much faster rate than the urban core. Jacksonville also isn't unique in that the urban core was becoming quite poor with every year that went by. Plus, nearly every non-consolidated city has the issue of duplicate services. Yet, somehow other cities are getting by.