Talk:Neighborhoods of Jacksonville

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eastside 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Westside 

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge With Main Jacksonville Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Map 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lake Shore 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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
*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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Article layout

message: 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)
thread_title: Move

message: 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. 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. 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)
replies: text: 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). 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Than remove the unuseful map. Mathew105601 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Urban Core

message: 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)
thread_title:  Indian Springs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should Southside get it's own article?