Talk:Neighborhoods of Jacksonville

Eastside

I sincerely appreciate the efforts of anonymous editor, User:72.192.242.12, to work towards accuracy of this article. Many people (myself included) have made the same mistake as he. As I have spent the majority of my 20+ years in Jacksonville working with the people of the Northside, including denizens of Eastside, I have run into two major misconceptions about the nature of Eastside. Most common, particularly amongst younger, mostly white, residents, living on the Southside, is to look at a map of Jacksonville and presume—quite understandably—that If the northern part of the city is the Northside, and the western part of the city is the Westside, and the southern part of the city is the Southside, then naturally the eastern part of the city must be the Eastside. Seems logical enough. I assume that that's what 72.192.242.12 was thinking when he placed "Eastside" under the section about the Intercoastal. But in fact, it is not so. Accordingly, I've added the history section to try to clarify things.

The other misconception is a more delicate one. Some folks from Jacksonville, primarily older, African American residents, still think of the Eastside as a section equal in standing with Northside and Westside, because that's how it was when they grew up. I learned long ago that it served no purpose to try to explain to a 68-year old man that Eastside was now considered a part of either "Northside" or "Downtown". Why bother debating the issue? Eastside still has the same boundaries that it always had, and it's really just a matter of semantics. I think that in Wikipedia we need to strive for accuracy (hence, my detailed edits), but in dealing with a human being whose world has changed labels, it is more important to be sensitive and respectful than to try to prove a point. Unschool 00:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

This article needs to be sourced. Some of what is stated as fact is contentious- for instance I think most people would consider Arlington it own entity, separate from the Southside, and where does downtown fit in this three-part division? There are several different definitions for the boundaries between neighborhoods, and this needs to be reflected here, or at least discussed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree on the need for sourcing. Downtown is not part of a "side" at all! "North"side and "West"side originally meant, "north" and "west" of downtown—it is its own thing.

But I disagree with you about Arlington. You must be under thirty to not realize that Arlington was THE best part of Southside to live in years ago. When young families wanted to live in a nice, but affordable neighborhood, it was to Arlington that they went, and then bragged that they lived on the Southside. I suggest you talk to people aged 45-65 who live in Arlington and ask them what side of town they live on. Most will say, without hesitation, Arlington is part of Southside. 216.199.161.66 23:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm under 30:) But my point with that was, some people (or even most people, as you say) may consider Arlington part of the Southside, but I just don't think that's always the case anymore. And since there is no official definition, neither would be wrong. If we had references, we could discuss how these things were though of, by whom, and when. We also wouldn't have to worry about leaving out neighborhoods that don't easily fit, like downtown, the beaches, and the area between Arlington and the Intracoastal.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is difficult. I thought the answer might lie in the city website. But while it does divide Southside into two sections (one for Arlington, as this editor has recommended), it has also divided the Westside into two sections—something that I have never seen done before. So I don't consider that to be a reliable source. I also looked at real estate listings. Some include Arlington in their Southside listings, some do not. I'm not sure that there is an authoritative source. 65.80.244.202 07:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Westside

So no mention of Sweetwater well I guess that does not suprise me. There are actually many neighborhoods missing from the Westside listing. So much for your "extensive" knowledge of Jacksonville.GZUS96 (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)GZUS96

I can't help but get the feeling that, whoever it was that wrote all those sections on the Westside, was just writing out of a real estate guide. It makes me want to barf. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the writer had never been to the Westside. Unschool 21:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Unschool. I wrote most of what you refer to above, and I am much older than you, and spent most of my life in Jacksonville since birth. Therefore, consider yourself "SURPRISED". Please add your apology below. My family has also been in Jacksonville since before the War Between The States, and our knowledge of Jacksonville is greater than yours. As for "real-estate", I simply tried to say some nice things about each section of town I added. In fact, what attracted my attention in the first place was some rather foul things written about Paxon, I believe by YOU, in fact. You really should keep your temper in check, and stop using Wikipedia to slam people, and places. I would think that it is a conflict of interest for you to act both as "creator" and "editor" of the Jacksonville Florida section of Wikipedia. It places you in contention with the others who wish to lawfully add their knowledge to the site. You mis-use your power and authority to "DELETE CONTENT" that you disagree with! Your job as a Wikipedia editor is to correct our typo's, and educate us on how to improve what we write. Remember, we are older than you, and have seen, and know more about this area than you. However, it appears that you like to start "EDIT WARS". I hope Wikipedia sees this, looks more closely at your work, and has a talk with you about "attitude." In any case, your various remarks "to me" and "about me" have been useful in helping me learn about Wikipedia. I thank you for that. User:Starfleet7

To anyone who might actually think from these comments that I am a big meanie, please see Starfleet's comments to me, written I believe three days after this, on my talk page. Unschool 21:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As Usual "Unschool", you LIE. as my comment to you on your my talk page was "2 DAYS EARLIER", and on a different subject. not "3 days later" as you state above. You have no class, are are not to be trusted. Please stop mis-representing yourself. I will note to all, that what "I WAS REFERRING" to on your talk page was a compliment that you made about my work. It was only later that I learned that you had simultaneously made "nasty remarks" on this page. In other words, YOU ARE TWO-FACED. JULY 2, 2007 User:Starfleet7

What are you talking about? I'm starting to think that you're just a 12 year old kid who wants to start a fight because it's fun. Do you have anything serious you want to discuss? Unschool 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge With Main Jacksonville Article

This article should be merged with the main Jacksonville Article or at least linked to as a stub, not as a seperate article.

I would submit that this is far too long either to be included in the main Jax article. It also seems to exceed the length of any stub that I have ever seen, though it does possess some of the same qualities of some stubs. Unschool 21:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Map

Thanks for fixing up the map to match the city's website. I also agree with your inclusion of the commonly used terms in the text, though I'm going to try something just a little different, if you don't mind. Unschool (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Arlington?

I live in St. Nicholas, and It is not considered in Arlington. Probably goes in southeast. Richmond96 (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Article could use cleanup

This article reads like it was written by the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce. 69.242.40.140 (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Lake Shore

The unregistered user at 74.170.103.4 & 68.213.71.186 (same person) has been adding to the Lake Shore neighborhood section for over a week. There is quite a bit of material, but it is unsourced, which needs to be corrected. Additionally, Neighborhoods of Jacksonville, Florida is intended as an overview; places with significant history or extensive detail should have their own article and Neighborhoods of Jacksonville, Florida should link to that article. Please refer to the sub-sections Mandarin, LaVilla, Bayard, Riverside, etc. Mgrē@sŏn 20:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for being confused.. ? The material I added regarding the Marina Mile seemed relevant due to the regional uniqueness of this conglomeration of facilities. The JHPC and reapportionment committee drew the "map" of Lakeshore to include the boundaries of Tunis, Fishweir Creek, and the Cedar River/Creek, to the Grand Ave draw-bridge. I understand that details are important. If Lakeshore is partially bound by SanJuan, in what neighborhood does St.Matthews catholic church lie? Or the businesses on the north side of the center line of SanJuan Ave.?

While the Richardson and Prioleau estates once occupied parcels near what are now Cardinal and Riverdale, are these areas (LakeShore Terrace and Lakeside Park II) now not really part of water-bound Lake Shore?

Please enlighten me?

We volunteers share resources and intel, as such, we are aware that Lake Shore is not a recognized historic district, and know it will never be SanMarco, Avondale, Ortega, etc., but we continually strive to rebuild the neighborliness among resident constituents who wish to passively reduce and prevent opportunity for rising crime due to vacancy and diminished appeal.

We work so hard to restore pride in ownership with small beautifications, and improve the experience for the vast many people to whom the Marina Mile serves as a front door to our great city.

I would very much appreciate any help in the form of guidance and direction toward improving the perception of the area east of Blanding Blvd., as this grid continues to transition.

Much thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.103.4 (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I am not as pc literate as I need to be... I see that on google maps, lakeshore is shaped a bit like the the state of Texas. funny b/c we have texas sized pedestrian problems. I would still cherish your feedback, THANKS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.103.4 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Normandy Village

I lived in Jax. from age 1-19, minus 2 years aged 15-16. Obviously went to school there, including a really thorough 3rd-grade study of the city. I don't remember anything about French or Spaniards right there. The French were in Ft. Caroline and the Spaniards in St. Augustine. The Timucuans were in what became Jax. Anyway, what you edited isn't about all of Jax, but about Normandy Village. How about this: The Normandy area was settled by the Hogan family, early 19th-century pioneers. I think that's accurate. Yopienso (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the original wording is that it claimed the Hogans family (it was "Hogans" at that time, not "Hogan") were the first white settlers in all of Duval County. That's obviously false; there's the French Fort Caroline, and the Spanish forts and missions in present-day Duval from at least 1587. Your wording looks fine, but what we really need are sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd thought the "s" was a typo, but I see it wasn't. This article has a little information way down, but I don't see that Hogan St. in downtown is named. Ft. Caroline was never in Jax until Consolidation in--oh, I forget when--about 1965? Search "Hogans" here. Lots of sources here. Gotta admit I'd never heard of Fort St. Nicolas.

Real life got busy for me today until April, so I'm sorry to say I won't be able to collaborate on this. Best, Yopienso (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at those sources and see what I can do. But if Fort Caroline wasn't in Jacksonville, then neither was Normandy at the time the Hogans family was first there. Indeed, there was no Jacksonville (or Duval County) at that time. I'm not sure when Normandy was annexed by the city, but it wasn't until well after 1887, when the city limits were expanded for the first time (this only brought them as far west as LaVilla). Suffice it to say that the Hogans family were early pioneers to the area, but they certainly weren't the first whites in Jacksonville, let alone the first in what is now Jacksonville.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Eureka! This, from Cliffton Johnson's 1918 Highways and Byways of Florida, and Wayne Wood's Jacksonville's Architectural Heritage have some information on the Hogans family. Evidently the "first" Hogans in the area were not in Normandy at all (at least not at the point that they could claim to be first in Jacksonville. The Spanish settler Maria Taylor, who later married Lewis Zachariah Hogans, received a grant from the Spanish government to land in what is now downtown Jacksonville in 1816. She wasn't the first one on that land, however; the previous holder had died, which is why I presume Mike Hogan calls Lewis Hogan (curiously neglecting Maria Taylor) the "first permanent settler in Jacksonville". But none of this has anything to do with Normandy, so it can't be used as a source for that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Article layout

I've never liked how this article is laid out, but I've never been sure how to fix it. The current setup is problematic in that it doesn't accurately describe what the six "major sections" used by the city really are. In reality, they are just planning districts used by the city for various purposes such as organizing the Citizens Planning Advisory Committees (CPACs). They don't have any true official status and aren't otherwise widely used.
Traditionally, Jacksonville is divided into four major sections, without any absolute boundaries: Northside, Westside, Arlington, and Southside. Additionally, there are neighborhoods that do not really fall into these conventional areas, such as Downtown, Riverside, and the Jacksonville Beaches. This is explored in one of the sources used here, McEwen's The Vernacular Neighborhoods of Jacksonville, Florida. The city planning districts are convenient in that they contain every area of Jacksonville. However, as they lack any true official status and aren't in common use in any other sources, organizing the article around them is problematic. We have other problems in that we list at least two dozen minor neighborhoods without any sources, bloating the article.
I suggest we rework the article away from using the planning districts, and just devote article sections to whatever neighborhood/area of town that are notable. For neighborhoods that are typically considered part of one of the four sections of town (such as Clifton for Arlington, Panama Park for Northside, or Baymeadows for Southside) it can be included in a subsection if they are notable. I don't think this will result in too many sections once we remove all the unsourced minor neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that should have their own section include Downtown, LaVilla, Springfield, Riverside and Avondale, Brooklyn, East Jacksonville and Fairfield, Ortega, San Marco, St. Nicholas, and Mandarin. Riverside/Avondale should probably be discussed in one section, as they are so closely related, and Fairfield can be discussed under East Jacksonville. Northside, Westside, Arlington, and Southside can have their own section, with subsections for individual notable neighborhoods. Thoughts?--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, we should have a separate section for the Beaches, with subsections for each area.

Here are the neighborhoods that have their own chapter in Jacksonville's Architectural Heritage. I think most of these ought to have their own section here.

• Downtown
• LaVilla
• Brooklyn
• Riverside & Avondale. They are discussed together in this and many other sources; they should have one section here, and we should probably merge the articles.
• Springfield
• Fairfield, East Jacksonville & Oakland. These should be discussed together under the East Jacksonville section.
• St. Nicholas, Keystone Bluff, Empire Point & Oakhaven. These should be discussed together under the St. Nicholas section
• Clifton. It's treated separately in this book, but I think it should be listed along with Arlington.
• Oklahoma / South Jacksonville. These names are no longer commonly used for this area, most of which is now called San Marco, as noted by Wood. This material can be treated in the San Marco section.
• San Marco. See above.
• San Jose. This may or may not need its own section; it can probably be discussed under Southside
• Mandarin (& Bayard). Bayard could be a subsection under Mandarin, or under Southside, as it's more usually considered part of Southside, as in here[1][2]
• Arlington
• Fort George Island This isn't really a neighborhood.
• Mayport This should be under the Beaches section
• Jacksonville Beach (& Palm Valley) Only one Palm Valley location is mentioned; Jax Beach should be included under the Beaches section.
• Atlantic Beach. This should be under the Beaches section.
• Neptune Beach. This should be under the Beaches section.
• Ortega
• West Jacksonville. Better known as Westside.
• Baldwin.
• North Jacksonville. Better known as Northside.

By my count, depending on how we do it this would be a total of around 15 sections, some of which will have subsections. We could add others depending on what other reliable sources say.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, though Wood's book doesn't have a section covering the whole region now known as Southside, we certainly should have a section on it. Some of the other areas, such as Bayard, can be subsections of that.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your proposed changes. I say go for it. VillageGreen1215 (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I see my change has drawn some opposition.[3] I reiterate that the changes I suggested here and then enacted are based on sources already cited in the text: McEwen's The Vernacular Neighborhoods of Jacksonville, Florida and Wayne Wood's Jacksonville's Architectural Heritage. The next step will be to get the page numbers in there and probably some cleanup and expansion, but the material is definitely verifiable and attributable.

As I say, the previous version was problematic in both the organization and what it contained. We shouldn't revert back to that without discussion.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted these changes today. They removed all the work I've done, and reinserted most of the previous problems with content and layout. Specific problems include the idiosyncratic capitalization in the sections, and placing some neighborhoods in sections where they don't really belong. For instance, Riverside-Avondale isn't clearly part of the Westside. Notably, it isn't included in the West Jacksonville section of Wayne Wood's book. And Springfield isn't really part of Downtown. It's not so clear cut.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Move

I reverted this move yesterday, as it hadn't been discussed and I don't think the case is made for the move in the edit summary. The WP:USPLACE guideline doesn't seem to recommend the "Neighborhoods in xx" form, nor does it appear to be the prevailing practice. Category:Lists of neighborhoods in U.S. cities shows a variety of different names are in use: "Neighborhoods in xx", "Neighborhoods of xx", "xx neighborhoods", "List of xx neighborhoods", etc. "Neighborhoods in xx" doesn't appear to be significantly much more common than other forms. Additionally, the addition of "Florida" to the title is unnecessary for disambiguation, as there isn't a similar article on any other city named Jacksonville. I'm open to discussing this if I'm seeing things wrong, but a move shouldn't be made without discussion.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Image Map

The image used here is PD and thus can use an image map. The links could either take them to the section links or the individual articles (if applicable). Killiondude (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The map isn't great. What it actually shows is the borders of the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee districts, which don't really match up with typical use found in other sources such as the ones cited here. I think a better solution will be to remove it and find a better one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, The map is confusing. No reference is made to the locations cited on it. I don't know of anyone who calls the Westside Southwest Jacksonville. I think this map has set a precedent. Google maps has stated to label the areas. If the picture is removed on the neighborhood page I would probably have a better chance of convincing the moderators to let me change it back. I'm glad to hear I'm not alone in my frustration with this map. Mathew105601 (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This map is better, but it's still not cited. It appears to most closely follow Figure 6 in McEwen's "The Vernacular Neighborhoods of Jacksonville, Florida". However, this is only one of various maps McEwen includes and it's not the best one, as he says he made it "based on local real estate and apartment hunting maps" (p. 69). A better map is Figure 4 (p. 64) which he put together based on his GIS data from business names and outlined based on his own knowledge of the area. It's much more objective, and includes the overlap between Southside and Arlington that appears in the text. However, it excludes areas where he found no business names, so large parts of the county are excluded even though they're included on some of his other maps. Of course, it also excludes specific neighborhood names.

What I'd like to see is a map including the "Sides" (Northside, Arlington, Southside, Westside and the Jacksonville Beaches) based on McEwen's Figure 4, but without the outer boundaries (ie, so all the Beaches, Northside, etc. are included). Over that, I'd like to see the names of the individual neighborhoods included in this article written over their general area as detailed in Wood, without worrying about the boundaries since those are much more subjective. This way we'd have a useful map based on the reliable sources McEwen and Wood.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, in whatever case I hope the resulting image is PD so that you can use an imagemap. This is an area Wikipedia lacks in (better multimedia support). You may or may not know about Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. Requests there are usually unanswered, but there is the slim chance that someone feels up to the challenge. Killiondude (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know anything about that, but we can definitely look into that if no one here feels like taking up the task. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is something i put together. It isn't 100% accurate, it's more approximate, but I believe it to be a better reference than the two previous versions. Let me know what you think.Mathew105601 (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Divisions within the city of Jacksonville

I like it! I'd suggest a few changes largely based on McEwen, which I can email you if you'd like. First, I'd extend the "Beaches" to include the Mayport area. Second, I'd like to see the overlap he documents between Arlington and Southside, which is roughly the space between Beach Boulevard and the Arlington Expressway/Atlantic Boulevard (excluding Clifton, which is all Arlington). Third, and this is a big one, both McEwen and Wood include the neighborhoods directly west of Downtown as part of the Westside, not Northside. By McEwen's map, roughly everything south of 20th Street and west of I-95 is "Westside". North of 20th street is "Northside", which tracks with Wood's book as well. Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to the McEwan map. I guess where I need some conformation Northside/Westside line. Should I extend an invisible line from the 20th Street parallel or is MLK part of the line? Mathew105601 (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have email enabled? I can send you a PDF of the McEwan paper if you shoot me an email (via the "email this user" function under the toolbox to the left). His line starts at 20th street and goes west; further in it cuts north. I expect that the further out areas are less important as the population is so sparse there. North of 20th street is Northside. Wayne Wood also describes North Jax roughly as north of 20th street, so I think that's a pretty good boundary to use.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Urban Core

I'm sorry to do this, but I reverted this rearrangement as I don't see sources for those definitions. For starters, there are multiple definitions for "Urban Core" that are in common use, and this may be one of them, but we really need to consult our sources. Looking at available sources, I can see at least three definitions:

• The "Urban Core" planning district, including Downtown (excluding the Southbank), Springfield, Eastside, and adjacent urban Northside and Northwest Jax neighborhoods. This includes several neighborhoods that are also considered part of the "Northside". It is used by some city and community units but otherwise doesn't seem to be widely used.[4] The other planning districts don't correspond to common use (no other sources define "Southwest Jacksonville" or "Southeast Jacksonville".)
• "Urban Core" meaning the Old City, which includes all the neighborhoods in pre-consolidation Jacksonville. This is the definition used by various works such as Metro Jacksonville articles.[5] It includes neighborhoods like Riverside and Avondale, Ortega, and San Marco, which may be considered part of the "Sides" but also part of the "Urban Core".
• The area never considered part of any of the "Sides". Generally speaking, this includes only Downtown, Springfield, and the Eastside. McEwen essentially includes this area on his maps, but doesn't give it a name (he also excludes the Southbank of Downtown). This is a bit reductionist, as it excludes several neighborhoods that are as or more closely associated with the Urban Core than the "sides".

I still think the best solution is to just follow Wayne Wood and list the main neighborhoods separately, and only include them under the "Sides" if he does. For the map we can follow the various maps included in McEwen so long as we cite the source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

My email is enabled. I wish there was a way to include the Old City definition of the Urban Core. In my mind it is the most relevant. No one ever thinks of Avondale as part of the Westside. Most of the confusion in neighborhoods lies within the Urban Core area. Designating an area the same as the 1968 city limits could prove to be easier to deal with future border disputes. As we have discussed before, I see neighborhoods as a shifting and evolving unit. It's difficult to find hard and fast data that truly reflects an area. Consolidation is a hard and fast event. Not to discredit Woods or McEwen, but both of these authors are looking at the city through a certain lens. I think there findings are relevant, but I don't want to ignore other historical events or data just to stick to there view of Jacksonville. This isn't going to end with us. With that said, I know the current map is not 100% accurate. I'm trying to figure out a visually appealing way to represent overlap. I don't want to clutter the map. It should be easy to read. I would be interested to know if the "side" designations started prior or after consolidation. If it is after, I think there is a stronger case for pre-con Urban Core designation. Send me that map, and let me know what you think. Mathew105601 (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll shoot you a PDF of the McEwen paper. As for the "sides", they were in use before consolidation (some of them long before). As today, they included area both inside and outside the city limits (except Arlington).[6][7][8][9] There's the rub; many neighborhoods are part of one of the "sides" but are also in the Old City limits and are often considered part of the urban core. Brentwood is part of the Northside, San Marco is part of the Southside, and Riverside is occasionally considered part of the Westside, but they're all often associated with the urban core. You're right, neighborhood boundaries are fluid, and the sources aren't perfect, but we have to stick with the best published sources we can find over our own assumptions. Doing that results in a mess like it used to look. So long as we follow the sources, we can say "this is what it looks like according to such-and-such source" rather than "this is what it looks like, period."--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I never received an email. You can send it to mathew1056@gmail.com. I can retrieve it there. Mathew105601 (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed Mgreason's map, as it doesn't appear to reflect the actual boundaries of the planning districts. I'm sure we can discuss all of that in one area; I'll take a stab at it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Per this discussion and others previously, I've reverted the latest restructuring for the reasons given above. The fact remains that sources generally do not divide Jacksonville's neighborhoods up in this way. There are a number of neighborhoods grouped under the "Central" heading that are also considered part of the "sides": Riverside and Avondale and Ortega may be considered part of the Westside, while San Marco is part of the Southside, and various urban neighborhoods north of Downtown are part of the Northside. Barring new sources I don't think the rearrangement is beneficial.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine. I see you are doing a full review of my recent changes... Regardless of what you think, I do see it as beneficial, especially since we are talking about designations that are somewhat amorphous to begin with. Some neighborhoods have an ability to culturally stand alone. It just so happens that in Jacksonville's case it is neighborhoods that were absorbed into the city limits at an early date. I'm not attempting to create some new name out of nothing. For organization sake it is easier to talk about those neighborhoods individually, just as easier to discuss Westside in general as opposed to its smaller parts. I agree with you that it is not perfect, but there is a conflict here. There are indeed neighborhoods that are downtown and "central" city oriented. Just like the English language is a living and breathing thing I think the same applies here. There is no official government designation so what is in the public discourse is all that builds these ideas. What is a better answer? Where do these line lie? What is a proper designation? Mathew105601 (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess the question to ask is what changes need to be made so that I'm not bulldozed over on this?.. I will point out, currently Riverside & Avondale stands alone and is not under the subtitle of Westside. I also have a problem with the name "Riverside and Avondale". Anyone who lives in those communities would tell you they feel they are different places. The only association they have is RAP. Mathew105601 (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that the division seems arbitrary; the sources rarely if ever organize the neighborhoods as you have. Like I say, the main source, the Wood book, doesn't get into it and deals with each of the (more noteworthy) neighborhoods in separate chapters. The borders between the "sides" and the "central" city, as well as between the neighborhoods themselves, are not defined so it isn't cut and dry to group the neighborhoods like this. As I say, something like San Marco is both part of the Old City and is part of the Southside. Rather than argue about what goes what goes where, giving them separate sections lets us just lay out the different definitions of each place. I also don't see the navigational benefit to the restructuring; it creates a lot of sub-sections and sub-sub sections.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Than remove the unuseful map. Mathew105601 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the map's about as good as we're going to get, unless someone creates a better one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I have been grappling with this for a while. I recently changed the map to numbers because I was having issue with the "Old City" designation. I figured making it a number would give it a better opportunity of someone else finding the right title. I don't know what you should call it, or if those are exactly the right line to be portraying. I think at the time the train of thought was that the last officially recognized lines of the old city limits best captured something. Whether it is published on here or not, as a citizen I do find the idea of these neighborhoods interesting, and I'm interested in shinning the right spotlight on them. Even if Riverside does have a past as being considered on the Westside I think the perception nowadays is that Riverside is one of a group of culturally significant neighborhoods that feeds the character of the "city", not necessarily Westside. I think if a panel was ever devised to establish officially designated neighborhoods some of theses types of relationships would have to be evaluated. My attempt is to group the Riverside and Springfield type neighborhoods in a place where they stand alone, but also allow for the other understood "sides" to hold there own. I agree that "Central" is not a truly understood term in Jacksonville, but the notion of being in the core is. I'm looking for a noun, not a pronoun. Also, it was utter bliss to see the table of content and the map line up as well as they did. I just wanted it to be true. Mathew105601 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Mathew105601: Maybe someday more sources will appear discussing Jacksonville neighborhoods and we can vet how best to incorporate them all. I think you're right, the urban core/Old City neighborhoods (at least some of them) are increasingly considered part of a unit. But the sources don't reflect that, yet. And frankly, the "urban core" identity is divided internally more than it's divided from some surrounding neighborhoods. People in Riverside and San Marco aren't typically thinking of Brentwood, Panama Park, or East Jax when they talk about the urban core.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Indian Springs

Why is there a redirect from Indian Springs, Florida here, when it isn't mentioned in the article? deisenbe (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Should Southside get it's own article?

Southside is pretty notable. Its more of a financial hub for Jacksonville than the Urban Core. I feel like Sothside deserves it's own article. Majonezeman (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)