Saturday, August 23, 2014
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
 

City Population Estimates Released: Jax Rank Drops

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.

Published June 28, 2010 in News      65 Comments    Open printer friendly version of this article Print Article


feature

Despite having 720.3 fewer square miles than Jacksonville to work with, it is estimated that San Francisco (46.7 square miles) added 7,357 residents to its population over the last year. San Francisco has now surpassed Jacksonville to become the 12th largest city in the country.

In the meantime, with a well documented struggling urban core and a dead suburban real estate market, Jacksonville (767 square miles) added 3,627 people.


Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places Over 100,000, Ranked by July 1, 2009 Population: July 1, 2008 to July 1, 2009

Rank  1-July-09    1-July-08    City/State

 1        8,391,881   8,346,794 New York, NY

 2        3,831,868   3,801,574 Los Angeles, CA

 3        2,851,268   2,830,026 Chicago, IL

 4        2,257,926   2,238,183 Houston, TX

 5        1,601,587   1,577,812 Phoenix, AZ

 6        1,547,297   1,540,351 Philadelphia, PA

 7        1,373,668   1,349,274 San Antonio, TX

 8        1,306,301   1,305,754 San Diego, CA

 9        1,299,543   1,279,539 Dallas, TX

10          964,695     948,686 San Jose, CA

11          910,920     912,633 Detroit, MI

12          815,358     808,001 San Francisco, CA

13          813,518       809,891 Jacksonville, FL

14          807,584     800,730 Indianapolis, IN

15          786,382     767,199 Austin, TX

16          769,360     759,390 Columbus, OH

17          727,575     704,299 Fort Worth, TX

18          709,441     692,989 Charlotte, NC

19          676,640     676,660 Memphis, TN

20          645,169     636,748 Boston, MA

21          637,418     638,091 Baltimore, MD

22          620,447     609,248 El Paso, TX

23          617,334     603,627 Seattle, WA

24          610,345     593,086 Denver, CO

25          605,473     598,465 Nashville-Davidson, TN

26          604,133     603,300 Milwaukee, WI

27          599,657     590,074 Washington, DC

28          567,641     562,849 Las Vegas, NV

29          566,503     563,119 Louisville/Jefferson County, KY

30          566,141     556,416 Portland, OR

31          560,332     551,875 Oklahoma City, OK

32          548,555     545,308 Tucson, AZ

33          540,921     537,385 Atlanta, GA

34          528,497     522,523 Albuquerque, NM

35          482,299     480,129 Kansas City, MO

36          479,921     472,951 Fresno, CA

37          466,687     461,047 Sacramento, CA

38          462,604     460,138 Long Beach, CA

39          462,486     459,160 Mesa, AZ

40          454,731     448,050 Omaha, NE

41          433,575     432,228 Virginia Beach, VA

42          433,136     431,196 Miami, FL

43          431,363     434,021 Cleveland, OH

44          409,184     403,181 Oakland, CA

45          405,791     393,866 Raleigh, NC

46          399,827     397,317 Colorado Springs, CO

47          389,625     385,755 Tulsa, OK

48          385,542     382,133 Minneapolis, MN

49          380,084     374,793 Arlington, TX

50          374,701     373,338 Honolulu, HI

51          372,186     365,838 Wichita, KS

52          356,587     356,730 St. Louis, MO

53          354,850     336,644 New Orleans, LA

54          343,890     340,108 Tampa, FL

55          340,340     337,152 Santa Ana, CA

56          337,896     333,114 Anaheim, CA

57          333,013     333,171 Cincinnati, OH

58          324,655     317,939 Aurora, CO

59          324,463     318,702 Bakersfield, CA

60          316,238     316,722 Toledo, OH

61          311,647     312,119 Pittsburgh, PA

62          297,859     293,225 Riverside, CA

63          296,545     292,240 Lexington-Fayette, KY

64          287,578     285,357 Stockton, CA

65          287,438     284,845 Corpus Christi, TX

66          286,174     280,471 Anchorage, AK

67          281,262     279,456 St. Paul, MN

68          278,154     277,376 Newark, NJ

69          273,611     268,552 Plano, TX

70          270,240     271,220 Buffalo, NY

71          256,445     253,693 Henderson, NV

72          255,890     254,143 Fort Wayne, TX

73          255,230     252,885 Chandler, AZ

74          255,061     251,114 Greensboro, NC

75          254,001     250,939 Lincoln, NE

76          252,188     250,746 Glendale, AZ

77          244,324     244,753 St. Petersburg, FL

78          242,503     239,658 Jersey City, NJ

79          238,715     236,496 Scottsdale, AZ

80          235,860     232,321 Orlando, FL

81          235,626     232,042 Madison, WI

82          233,333     234,653 Norfolk, VA

83          230,130     230,228 Birmingham, AL

84          229,828     227,834 Winston-Salem, NC

85          229,174     223,331 Durham, NC

86          226,122     220,801 Laredo, TX

87          225,856     221,248 Lubbock, TX

88          225,390     224,987 Baton Rouge, LA

89          224,387     217,975 North Las Vegas, NV

90          223,738     219,315 Chula Vista, CA

91          222,455     220,319 Chesapeake, VA

92          222,013     218,645 Garland, TX

93          219,636     217,564 Reno, NV

94          218,896     216,876 Hialeah, FL

95          217,483     210,196 Arlington, VA

96          217,285     211,892 Gilbert, AZ

97          209,716     204,936 Irvine, CA

98          207,294     207,348 Rochester, NY

99          207,216     207,880 Akron, OH

100         205,707     204,778 Boise City, ID

101         205,540     201,250 Irving, TX

102         205,514     202,249 Fremont, CA

103         204,451     202,867 Richmond, VA

104         203,276     202,180 Spokane, WA

105         202,747     201,769 Modesto, CA

106         202,124     202,601 Montgomery, AL

107         201,162     200,451 Yonkers, NY

108         199,637     197,494 Tacoma, WA

109         199,242     198,922 Shreveport, LA

110         198,460     195,660 Des Moines, IA

111         198,410     198,013 San Bernardino, CA

112         198,061     195,224 Fayetteville, NC

113         196,847     195,450 Glendale, CA

114         194,343     193,949 Augusta-Richmond County, GA

115         193,710     193,159 Grand Rapids, MI

116         193,366     191,406 Huntington Beach, CA

117         193,172     193,212 Newport News, VA

118         193,171     192,734 Mobile, AL

119         191,930     189,971 Little Rock, AR

120         191,766     188,688 Moreno Valley, CA

121         190,414     186,646 Columbus, GA

122         189,389     187,068 Amarillo, TX

123         188,012     186,869 Fontana, CA

124         187,535     185,035 Oxnard, CA

125         185,100     184,704 Knoxville, TN

126         184,892     183,220 Fort Lauderdale, FL

127         183,171     180,792 Salt Lake City, UT

128         182,421     182,596 Worcester, MA

129         179,653     176,539 Huntsville, AL

130         176,858     173,700 Brownsville, TX

131         175,021     175,091 Jackson, MS

132         174,907     172,601 Overland Park, KS

133         174,255     171,444 Tempe, AZ

134         172,945     170,762 Aurora, IL

135         172,901     169,885 Oceanside, CA

136         172,574     171,847 Tallahassee, FL

137         171,909     171,973 Providence, RI

138         171,809     170,057 Rancho Cucamonga, CA

139         171,602     170,947 Ontario, CA

140         171,349     170,819 Chattanooga, TN

141         169,174     168,005 Santa Clarita, CA

142         166,332     164,727 Garden Grove, CA

143         165,809     163,110 Vancouver, WA

144         163,351     160,436 Grand Prairie, TX

145         162,740     158,093 Peoria, AZ

146         157,935     155,011 Sioux Falls, SD

147         157,630     156,304 Springfield, MO

148         157,468     155,531 Santa Rosa, CA

149         157,280     157,266 Rockford, IL

150         155,719     153,706 Salem, OR

151         155,575     155,521 Springfield, MA

152         154,410     153,701 Port St. Lucie, FL

153         154,202     154,818 Cape Coral, FL

154         153,857     154,575 Dayton, OH

155         153,231     152,080 Eugene, OR

156         152,367     151,560 Pomona, CA

157         151,037     148,346 Corona, CA

158         150,006     144,579 Alexandria, VA

159         147,633     145,780 Joliet, IL

160         146,600     145,673 Pembroke Pines, FL

161         145,834     144,961 Paterson, NJ

162         145,789     145,808 Pasadena, TX

163         145,776     144,156 Lancaster, CA

164         144,289     142,209 Hayward, CA

165         144,276     142,702 Salinas, CA

166         144,236     145,256 Hampton, VA

167         143,985     141,705 Palmdale, CA

168         143,667     141,880 Pasadena, CA

169         143,663     142,492 Naperville, IL

170         143,209     142,231 Kansas City, KS

171         142,622     141,853 Hollywood, FL

172         141,943     140,998 Lakewood, CO

173         140,317     139,664 Torrance, CA

174         140,170     137,442 Escondido, CA

175         138,736     135,871 Fort Collins, CO

176         138,560     138,629 Syracuse, NY

177         137,298     136,666 Bridgeport, CT

178         136,990     135,436 Orange, CA

179         136,600     129,190 Cary, NC

180         135,228     132,266 Elk Grove, CA

181         134,699     132,251 Savannah, GA

182         133,963     131,713 Sunnyvale, CA

183         133,872     133,835 Warren, MI

184         133,509     132,124 Mesquite, TX

185         132,620     130,935 Fullerton, CA

186         132,225     128,542 McAllen, TX

187         129,333     127,849 Columbia, SC

188         129,209     125,663 Carrollton, TX

189         128,182     127,619 Cedar Rapids, IA

190         127,671     120,988 McKinney, TX

191         127,176     127,061 Sterling Heights, MI

192         126,626     123,564 Bellevue, WA

193         126,518     125,763 Coral Springs, FL

194         126,217     124,525 Waco, TX

195         125,285     124,400 Elizabeth, NJ

196         125,093     123,444 West Valley City, UT

197         124,565     120,275 Clarksville, TN

198         124,331     123,692 Topeka, KS

199         124,060     123,826 Hartford, CT

200         123,520     122,560 Thousand Oaks, CA

201         123,330     123,206 New Haven, CT

202         122,830     119,754 Denton, TX

203         122,224     120,859 Concord, CA

204         122,111     119,643 Visalia, CA

205         121,962     120,094 Olathe, KS

206         121,446     120,867 El Monte, CA

207         121,180     121,212 Independence, MO

208         121,026     119,107 Stamford, CT

209         120,921     119,977 Simi Valley, CA

210         119,775     118,468 Provo, UT

211         119,510     118,843 Killeen, TX

212         118,033     117,456 Springfield, IL

213         117,179     116,260 Abilene, TX

214         117,003     113,591 Thornton, CO

215         116,616     116,085 Gainesville, FL

216         116,584     116,224 Evansville, IN

217         115,687     112,152 Roseville, CA

218         115,638     113,511 Charleston, SC

219         115,520     114,200 Peoria, IL

220         114,983     113,812 Athens-Clarke County, GA

221         114,915     113,781 Lafayette, LA

222         114,622     114,458 Vallejo, CA

223         113,810     114,129 Lansing, MI

224         112,852     111,974 Ann Arbor, MI

225         112,241     111,769 Inglewood, CA

226         111,997     109,526 Santa Clara, CA

227         111,475     112,857 Flint, MI

228         110,921     109,313 Victorville, CA

229         110,420     109,326 Costa Mesa, CA

230         110,099     109,954 Beaumont, TX

231         109,395     109,124 Manchester, NH

232         109,332     109,330 Miami Gardens, FL

233         109,176     108,214 Miramar, FL

234         109,063     107,316 Norman, OK

235         108,850     107,048 Westminster, CO

236         108,780     107,889 Cambridge, MA

237         108,666     105,960 Midland, TX

238         108,172     107,354 Arvada, CO

239         107,815     107,693 Allentown, PA

240         107,521     105,492 Elgin, IL

241         107,143     106,993 Waterbury, CT

242         107,117     106,664 Downey, CA

243         106,081     105,802 Clearwater, FL

244         105,845     103,959 Billings, MT

245         105,464     104,892 West Covina, CA

246         105,412     101,911 Round Rock, TX

247         105,209     101,749 Murfreesboro, TN

248         105,169     101,761 Lewisville, TX

249         104,915     104,396 West Jordan, UT

250         104,877     104,348 Pueblo, CO

251         104,423     103,524 San Buenaventura (Ventura), CA

252         104,400     103,175 Lowell, MA

253         104,215     104,536 South Bend, IN

254         103,586     103,330 Fairfield, CA

255         103,571     103,815 Erie, PA

256         103,486     101,824 Rochester, MN

257         103,396     102,295 High Point, NC

258         103,201     101,245 Richardson, TX

259         103,166     101,700 Richmond, VA

260         103,121     102,031 Burbank, CA

261         102,822     101,114 Berkeley, CA

262         102,609     102,020 Pompano Beach, FL

263         102,508     102,142 Norwalk, CA

264         102,412      96,410 Frisco, TX

265         102,324     100,976 Columbia, MO

266         102,295     100,765 Gresham, OR

267         102,165     100,917 Daly City, CA

268         101,351     100,822 Green Bay, WI

269         101,350     100,397 Wilmington, NC

270         101,313     101,393 Wichita Falls, TX

271         101,306     100,132 Davenport, IA

272         101,182      99,765 Antioch, CA

273         100,999     100,399 Palm Bay, FL

274         100,837      99,408 Centennial, CO

275         100,807      97,824 Odessa, TX

276         100,160      99,466 Boulder, CO

source: http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2009-01.csv

Article by Ennis Davis







65 Comments

duvaldude08

June 28, 2010, 08:58:41 AM
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.

thelakelander

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.

duvaldude08

June 28, 2010, 09:14:11 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

thelakelander

June 28, 2010, 09:36:30 AM
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.

JeffreyS

June 28, 2010, 09:42:32 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.

Overstreet

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.

JeffreyS

June 28, 2010, 09:52:15 AM
Yeah that is the point Lake illustrated in the article.  With our land mass we should be even higher.

tufsu1

June 28, 2010, 09:59:02 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.

Lunican

June 28, 2010, 10:00:19 AM
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



Net Urban Core Loss (1950 - 2000): -91,764

stephendare

June 28, 2010, 10:12:03 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.

On what grounds?  Why isnt the same thing happening in the other major floridian cities then?

Or is it just your normal fetish for the status quo?

duvaldude08

June 28, 2010, 10:13:12 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.

AaroniusLives

June 28, 2010, 10:23:22 AM
Quote
It'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.


Quote
Why 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.

 

reednavy

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.

JeffreyS

June 28, 2010, 10:57:19 AM
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.

thelakelander

June 28, 2010, 11:13:05 AM
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.

Quote
I 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.

thelakelander

June 28, 2010, 11:16:10 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.

reednavy

June 28, 2010, 11:44:55 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.

thelakelander

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-10east

June 28, 2010, 12:46:12 PM
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.

north miami

June 28, 2010, 12:54:32 PM

 Tongue (slightly) in cheek headline:

 Increasing popularity of urban living has caused growth of Clay & St.Johns

Onward-

AaroniusLives

June 28, 2010, 01:32:22 PM
Quote
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.

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: 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. 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? 



thelakelander

June 28, 2010, 02:04:59 PM
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

north miami

June 28, 2010, 02:10:52 PM
Quote
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.



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.

reednavy

June 28, 2010, 02:14:16 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.

AaroniusLives

June 28, 2010, 02:30:07 PM
Quote
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??.

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.

Quote
Quote
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.

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.

thelakelander

June 28, 2010, 02:33:49 PM
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.

tufsu1

June 28, 2010, 02:49:33 PM
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%

stephendare

June 28, 2010, 02:57:56 PM
On what grounds?  Why isnt the same thing happening in the other major floridian cities then?

It is...check the stats big guy!
no.  it isnt.

our rate of slowdown is remarkable.

I never care for this method of explaining things as inevitable.  Its bollocks.

tufsu1

June 28, 2010, 03:00:42 PM
look up

stephendare

June 28, 2010, 03:02:13 PM
so we beat pinellas county?

Give me a break, please.

AaroniusLives

June 28, 2010, 03:07:07 PM
tufsu1, that was helpful. Can you do it for all the counties in the list?

tufsu1

June 28, 2010, 03:07:27 PM
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.

stephendare

June 28, 2010, 03:08:06 PM
no...let me try and explain this again

Ornage 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.

geometrically proportional, tufsu.

Its not 'proportional' if we grow at half their rate, but then slow down at twice their rate.  Wherever do you come up with this nonsense?

Dont be disingenuous.

tufsu1

June 28, 2010, 03:08:58 PM
I'm not the one who doesn't seem to understand math

stephendare

June 28, 2010, 03:10:14 PM
I'm not the one who doesn't seem to understand math

really?  see up above.  And its too late to delete your comment.

incidentally, while you are checking an online math primer you might want to look up how to calculate 'velocity' separately.

The rate of increase isnt even related to the concept of the velocity of decline.  Nice try, but no um....cigar.

tufsu1

June 28, 2010, 03:39:53 PM
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?

AaroniusLives

June 28, 2010, 03:45:53 PM
Quote
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%

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.

thelakelander

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.

fieldafm

June 28, 2010, 04:32:13 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.

tufsu1

June 28, 2010, 05:05:36 PM
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).

stjr

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.

tufsu1

June 28, 2010, 05:15:05 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!

thelakelander

June 28, 2010, 05:16:57 PM
Quote
but 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.

thelakelander

June 28, 2010, 05:20:05 PM
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.

AaroniusLives

June 28, 2010, 05:56:11 PM
Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Live_Oak

June 28, 2010, 06:01:26 PM
Do no more posts from stephen dare mean that he discovered he was wrong and tufsu1 was right?  Tufsu1's math is correct.

thelakelander

June 28, 2010, 06:14:17 PM
Quote
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%

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.

AaroniusLives

June 28, 2010, 06:36:42 PM
Quote
Quote
Duval'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.

stephendare

June 29, 2010, 10:27:01 AM
Do no more posts from stephen dare mean that he discovered he was wrong and tufsu1 was right?  Tufsu1's math is correct.

Hardly,  It means that I was at the metrojacksonville board meeting.  Alternately it means there are two people who do not understand statistics:  TUFSU and yourself.

There are many online sources to educate yourself on the subject incidentally. ;)

tufsu1

June 29, 2010, 11:25:44 AM
I've asked you to explain how my math is wrong and/or what I don't understand.

Please enlighten me

stephendare

June 29, 2010, 11:42:35 AM
I've asked you to explain how my math is wrong and/or what I don't understand.

Please enlighten me

Ive already explained it.  Apparently this is an impossible task.

Live_Oak

June 29, 2010, 12:07:12 PM
No you didn't.  All you did was say he was wrong.  Tufsu1 presented statistics to prove his point.  All you did was talk.

north miami

June 29, 2010, 12:15:53 PM
*** "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.

Captain Zissou

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.  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.

north miami

June 29, 2010, 01:12:10 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"

stephendare

June 29, 2010, 01:18:55 PM
No you didn't.  All you did was say he was wrong.  Tufsu1 presented statistics to prove his point.  All you did was talk.

no, live oak, that is all you have done.

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  ;)

Captain Zissou

June 29, 2010, 01:21:13 PM
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.

north miami

June 29, 2010, 01:27:42 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.

tufsu1

June 29, 2010, 03:19:24 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  ;)

stephendare

June 29, 2010, 06:12:58 PM
Quote
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%

ok kids, lets show a little math here.

lets assume that 2000 is the base year.

if Miami has grown 11% since then, then it has grown at a rate of 1.1% of the 2000 base per year.
If Jacksonville has grown 10% since then, it has grown at an average of 1% of the 2000 base per year

This gives you some idea of the average annual rate of growth since then.  Using 2000 as the base.

In the year from 2008 to 2009, that rate has slowed to
.8% for Miami for a single year of growth (about a 20% loss from its anticipated 1.1%)
and
.5% for Jacksonville for a single year of growth (or a 50% loss from its average growth of 1%)

Now I don't know how the rest of you rocket scientists add up these numbers but it shows a slowdown that is double the loss of Miami's.

When something's rate of loss is double the loss of another something, by definition it is not proportional.

And this doesnt even address the relevant factors of land density, availability or anything that matters.

The problem is that these numbers are a bit confusing and they don't show the relational changes in a way that matters (a comparison of the percentage of increase, rather than the increase itself or---- god forbid, the actual numbers) and falsely leaves the impression that a 100% proportional decrease is the same thing as a directly proportional decrease.

typical.

Now if anyone needs this broken down a little further with the use of actual numbers and comparison, I suppose I will be glad to illustrate it.

tufsu1

June 29, 2010, 09:32:19 PM
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.

thelakelander

June 29, 2010, 09:53:27 PM
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.

stephendare

June 29, 2010, 10:42:47 PM
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.
+1

tufsu1

July 01, 2010, 11:15:01 AM
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/
View forum thread
Welcome Guest. You must be logged in to comment on this story.

What are the benefits of having a MetroJacksonville.com account?
  • Share your opinion by posting comments on stories that interest you.
  • Stay up to date on all of the latest issues affecting your neighborhood.
  • Create a network of friends working towards a better Jacksonville.
Register now
Already have an account? Login now to comment.