Monthly Archives: November 2016

11th St -13th St and Prospect

fig-7-demographics-2010

fig-3

Overall, my area typically had a lower income, lower housing values, higher housing vacancy, and lower levels of education than Kansas City. The income gap between greater KC and my area widened throughout the years. By 2010, one of my tracts had a median income of less than $13,000. When the rent increased and the incomes decreased, I noticed higher levels of housing vacancy. I noticed an increase in education over the years, though it still remained less than in KC. The population shifted in my tracts from being more even with race to being mostly African American in most areas. My tract numbers changed, so the four tracts listed in each table represent roughly the same areas.

Census Analysis from Truman Rd. to 18th Street along Prospect Avenue

The Census data that I found for this area ,prominently showed growth through the years of 1950 , 2000 and 2010. When I compared the census data from 2010 for this area to that of the entire Kansas City metro in 2010 the rates where lower for the Prospect area . Rates of home owner occupation,housing value ,and income were  much lower in the Prospect area . The racial make up of the census tracts from Truman road to 18th street along Prospect changed throughout the three years . In 1950 ,the number of White and Black residents was almost even. By 2000 the majority of residents ethnicity had shifted to  prominently Black with very few Whites.  In 2010, Black residents were still the majority of the population in the Prospect area. Compared to the over all Kansas City population  in  2010 the tracts for this area in 2010 had a much larger number of Black residents .The census data for Prospect avenue from Truman road to 18th street shows that this area lowered in value and changed in racial demographics compared to that of  the entire Kansas City metro in 2010 .

Information for two blocks North of Independence Ave and on either side of Prospect

The two blocks I have been studying are North of Independence Ave and on either side of prospect. Digging up data has shown various trends for the area and Kansas City in general. The two graphs shown show how the rent and house prices have steadily gone up in a similar way over the years.
Other data, not necessarily correlating to the graphs, shows how the white population for the census block that my two blocks are located in, has diminished over the years. In 1950, the population was completely white. In 2000, the white population only made up 38.1%. City wide, in 1950 the white population was 87.4%, and in 2000, the citywide white population was 62.5%. It’s interesting to notice how the particular area my blocks are in has grown substantially more multicultural than the city overall.

median-house-and-rent-values-census-project

Prospect Corridor Amie-Lexington

My assigned area is between Lexington Avenue and Amie street, in the Historic Northeast neighborhood Pendleton Heights. I have rented in this neighborhood for 10 + years,  it was interesting to dig into some demographics.

Something I have suspected recent years is the reality that I will soon be priced out of the neighborhood. This year an $85,000 house that my boyfriend and I were interested in sold for CASH the day it hit the market. My census studies confirmed this for me. The rise in home value has nearly doubled from 2000-2010, while the median income has remained stagnant. This trend is not reflected in the KCMO area as a whole.

screen-shot-2016-11-16-at-7-36-18-am

 

Prospect Corridor Analysis: Linwood to 30th Street

A major transformation along my assigned blocks is the density. While conducting my census comparison analysis I noticed that listed in the 1950’s census was a significant amount of population density. Also, the median housing value was much lower. I would think that the housing prices did have some influence on the density I mentioned earlier. Also there were twice the number of residential units in this area in the 1950’s than in more recent years.

Census Analysis E 26th to E 28th in 1950-2000-2010

In summary, I am surprised how much of the population has decreased in the area. In the 1950’s the total population was recorded at 18,521; and has decreased to 5,617 in the year 2000, and decreased a bit more to 4,957 in 2010. House abandonment and new development have played a huge role as I have noted from the Sandborn map analysis. Education after high school has increased from the 1950’s but there seems to be very small decline in the span of 10 years from 2000 to 2010. Race in general has also not stayed the same, as there was a decrease in white population over time, with 54.4% being African American/Black and 45.4% White in 1950. The 2000 census data showed a huge decrease in white population in the area in 50 years, with only 1.7% of white occupants in the area, and 94.7% of the population being African American. Though white population in this area has begun to increase over the recent years, as have minority races, that aren’t African American/Black.

Census Data

When looking at the all the census tracts I found a lot about the area and how it changed over time. In the 1950 census tract there were 14,954 residences that lived in the area by 2010 there are only 7,115. The area has changed demographically too, it was a majority white neighborhood then by 2000 in was a African American community. There was also a housing crisis. In 1950 there were 4,828 housing units and by 2010 there were only 3,192. After reviewing the data is kind of overwhelming to see a area that was thriving disappear.

 

Census Tract Analysis along Prospect between 52nd and 54th

I was able to look at census tracts for Prospect between E 52nd Street and E 54th Street in 1950, 2000 and 2010. The Census Tract for the west side of Prospect on these blocks is 0.49 square miles and the east side of Prospect on these blocks is 0.64 square miles. Factors such as race and ethnicity, educational attainment and population density changed much through these decades.

There is a constant data difference for the west side and the east side of Prospect for these blocks. For the most part, the west side has a higher percentage in population. In 1950, on the west side there were 4,459 people. On the east side, the population was 2,815. The population density for the west was 9,009.12 per square mile and for the east 4,374.2. The west side almost doubles the east side population. However, by 2000, the population is not as contrasted in the west and east. The west side greatly decreased to 2,980 while the west side decreased to 2,096. By 2010, the population continued to decrease on both sides of Prospect, the west side had 2,631 and the east side had 1,403. Even though the population decreases from 2000 to 2010, the population decrease from 1950 to 2000 was greater.

Census Tract Data Analysis: Independence to E 8th St along Prospect Ave

For my analysis, my block was within two census tracts that go north-south from Independence to E 12th st, and east-west from Cleveland Ave to Woodland Ave. What mostly got my attention is that population drastically decreased from 1950 to 2010 and esp. around the area of 2000. In my own opinion, I think not only in this area I believe in America in general during that period of time (1950-2000) population decreased because of the two wars that happen in America, the Korean war and the Vietnam war, which caused a lot of battle deaths that lead to a decrease in the population. However, this is not the only reason there are other factors of course.
On the other hand, the increase in education was pleasing to find. Education is power basically and we can see this in our time today. The rates of graduates have increased from 1950 to 2010 in a delightful way, which was not even at a bad low rate in the 1950s. Yet I would love to show some of the charts and data that I have collected, but sadly I forgot my flash drive in studio so you’re just gonna have to believe me because I said so. haha

Prospect Avenue between 40th and 42nd street

Much like other areas within the eastern portion of Kansas City, Missouri, the 40th through 42nd blocks along Prospect Avenue have undergone major demographic transitions over the past 66 years.  Between 1950 and 2000, the racial makeup of the area underwent a 180-degree shift from nearly all white to almost entirely black.  Housing values and population density also significantly decreased as large populations relocated and investment was redirected toward the suburban fringes.

The most significant change from 2000 to 2010 was the increase in vacant properties.  This area was hit hard by the economic recession of 2008, and the number of vacancies and dilapidated properties supports this.  Median rent increased as well, indicating a stronger competition for housing among those who no longer owned a home. Proximity to the city center also contributed to this increase as interest in a more urban lifestyle continued to rise.

Census information for 21st to 24th on Prospect Ave

1950 2000 2010-msa 2010

When looking at the census’ data for 1950, the first thing I noticed was that there are four tracts that make up my blocks; tract 32, 33, 39, and 37. In two of the four tracts there are a very small number of white populations as compared to black on the tracts west of prospect. Redlining was starting to happen more often in this area, as noted in my first paper. “In the late 1940s home owners associations were trying to keep “blacks” out of “whites” neighborhoods. One of the ways that this was accomplished was by the association raising money to buy houses that used to be owned by blacks or who will rent to blacks.

The census data for 2000 shows a huge loss in population when compared to fifty years previous. White flight appears to be an issue when you look at the drastic change of the number of white population in all four tracts

Looking at the 2010 MSA for Kansas City shows that there is a large population in this area, almost 2 million people. The population of whites is more than six times that of the black population is Kansas City.

2010 shows a slight increase in three of the four census tracts, the fourth tract 32 which became tract 166 has a sizeable population increase. Tract 32 had a small increase in white population while the other three saw large numbers return. However, the white population is nowhere near where it was in the 1950s in tract 33 and 37.

 

E 54th Street and E 56th Street

I was assigned E54th St and E 56th St east and west of Prospect Ave. The Census data I collected from Social Explorer for my section indicated that during the 1950s there were a lot more people living in each tract than in 2010. Again another huge indication was that most of the residents in these tracts were primarily white. In the 1950s’ there were a total of 100% in tract 76, 86.2% in tract 77, 100% in tract 79, and another 100% in tract 80. The total white population was 97.6% with only a total of black population of 2.4% (all selected Census tracts). The 2.4% consisted of 388 black residents in tract 77, 1 in tract 79, and 1 in tract 80. The total population for black residents was shocking, because in the 2010 census data I collected does not compare with the 1950s data. For 2010, my Census data indicates that the total of white residents is 4.2% and a total of 91.4% of black residents (all selected Census tracts).

Meyer Blvd to 68th

In the 1950’s this area was a primarily (99%) white neighborhood. The median house value was high. No rental information was available because it didn’t apply, and Prospect was zoned and utilized as a vibrant commercial street.  In the following decades the population of black individuals rose steadily, ultimately making the area a primarily black and minority population. Shortly after this population shift, the implementation of 71 highway devastated the east side of Prospect. Homes were demolished in large numbers and the remaining homes lost their property value.  Low property value encourages people  to use once owner occupied homes as rental properties or to simply vacate. Information from 2010 explains that this area is currently in a state of disinvestment.  A higher percentage of rental properties exist; yet, the median rent is $200 under the metropolitan area median. The census tracts associated with these blocks also have a higher vacancy percentage that the KC Metro area.

Census Report at Brush Creek and Prospect

Census Report / UPD 260

Abigail Newsham

*Please excuse the poor graphics… WordPress is not playing nice.

Kansas City’s Prospect corridor has had significant changes in demographics since the 1950s. Since the 1950s, the United States has undergone a series of housing policies and initiatives, aiding in the displacement of city residents (primarily lower-class and minorities), increased incentives for sprawled development, and the changing make-up of residents in the inner-city neighborhoods. This report will cover population, gender, race, age, income, and housing data changes for the years 1950, 2000, and 2010 for census tracts 61, 62, and 63. These tracts are located along Prospect Avenue between 46th Street and Swope Parkway. It is important to note that census tract 62 does not apply to the years 2000 and 2010, as census boundaries have changes since 1950. Tract 62 is, however, included in the report for 1950 data. To analyze the data concisely, totals have been provided for all years.

table1

Table 1. Population Data  over Time

Unsurprisingly, population counts and densities for the areas along Prospect between 46th Street and Swope Parkway was highest in 1950. In 2000, 50 years later, total population counts dropped by more than sixty percent. Population densities have also dropped significantly since the 1950s. These changes may be partially attributed to post-1950s FHA-backed mortgages which aided in new, sprawling housing development in the United States. From 2000 to 2010, population counts and densities appear to be continuously decreasing in this area.

 

table2

Table 2. Gender changes over time

The composition of male and female residents has remained somewhat steady since the 1950s, with historically higher proportion of females. The proportion of females has risen slightly since the 1950s.

table3

Table 3. Race/Ethnicity changes over time

 

The data showing changes in ethnic populations is not as transparent. Practices for collecting racial data for residents has changed since the 1950s, as the 1950s census only collected data for populations identified as “Black”, “White”, and “other”, whereas “other” can be American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, etc. Despite these incongruences, there are not very high proportions of populations identified as any other race but White and Black for the years 2000 and 2010. In the 1950s, this area was almost one-hundred percent white. By the year 2000, less than three percent of the population in this area was White, and almost ninety-five percent was Black. In 2000, there was almost two percent of the population identified as “more than one race”. Census tract 63 has a pattern of being more diverse than the other tracts (“diverse”, being used as loosely as possible), as it held the highest proportion of Black residents in the 1950s, and the highest proportion of White residents in 2000 and 2010. By 2010, the residents in these census tracts are almost completely Black, and there are low proportions of those identifying as two-or-more-races, White, Asian, or “some other race alone”.

table4

Table 4. Age Proportions

In the 1950s, the proportion of age cohorts were relatively higher for people under 64 years of age. The proportions are relatively stable, ranging from around five to eight percent. No cohorts make up more than nine percent of the population. In 2000, there is a shift in age proportionality. There is a lower proportion of populations over 55 years of age, and populations 25-55 years of age make up more than thirty percent of the population.  Since the 1950s, population ages tend to be concentrated within cohorts between 18 to 55 years.

table5

Table 5. Income over time

The dollar amounts for income data has been adjusted to the 2010 value. When adjusted to inflation, the data shows that median household income has decreased in the study area since 1950. Census tract 61 has contained historically higher median household incomes since the 1950s. The most significant change in income is shown in tract 63 between the 1950s and 2000s. This dramatic change may be caused by the changing geographic boundaries for which census data is collected. Tract 62 had very low relative incomes in the 1950s, and the change in census boundaries may have lowered the median income values for the year 2000 and 2010.

In 1950, it was less common for the residents in the study area to have educational attainment greater than high school. Most people had “at least some high school”, according to the census data. Only six percent of the population had 4 years of college.

In 2000, less than thirty percent had an educational attainment that did not include the completion of high school. While the proportion of (assumed) high school graduates remains consistently in the mid-thirty percentile, the proportions of residents having at least some college has risen by five percent.

Educational attainment data has not changed much since the 1950s. In 2010, the percentage of high school graduates (only) were in the high thirties, while proportions for people having completed some college remain mostly consistent.

table6

Table 6. Educational Attainment

 

table7

Table 7. Housing Data

 

There was almost no housing vacancy in the study area in 1950. Tract 61 had the highest rate of owner-occupied housing units, at seventy-two percent. Tract 63 showed an almost equal proportion of renter versus owner occupation, and tract 62 was only thirty-percent owner-occupied. Overall, there was a range of housing needs met in this area, possibly reflecting residents’ differing ability and interest in owning a home. This neighborhood catered to both needs. Additionally, vacancy was at its lowest.

By the year 2000, tract 61’s owner-occupancy did not change significantly. Tract 63 does have a significant drop in owner-occupation, containing data which was formally in tract 62, possibly lowering the average value. The proportions of owner versus renter occupancy for the area as a whole, in 2000 and 2010, are about 50/50. However, in 2000, vacancy in this area increased to about twelve-percent since 1950. By 2010, vacancy overall is almost thirty-percent.

 

table8

Table 8. Housing Value

In the 1950s, tract 61 had the highest housing value. However, when values are adjusted to inflation, there is not a significant decrease in housing value shown in the data. The year 2000 appears to be a low-point for housing prices.

 

 

Citations

United States Census Bureau. (2000). MEDIAN VALUE (DOLLARS) FOR SPECIFIED OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS. (Census 2000 Summary File for Tracts: 61, 62, and 63). Retrieved from American Fact Finder. November 2016.

United States Census Bureau. (2010). 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates: Financial Characteristics for Housing Units with a Mortgage. (Census 2000 Summary File for Tracts: 61, 62, and 63). Retrieved from American Fact Finder. November 2016.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). ACS 2000/Comprehensive Report. (Census Tracts 61, 62, and 63). Prepared by Social Explorer. November 2016.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). ACS 2010/Comprehensive Report. (Census Tracts 61, 62, and 63). Prepared by Social Explorer. November 2016.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1950). Census 1950/Comprehensive Report. (Census Tracts 61, 62, and 63). Prepared by Social Explorer. November 2016.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Census 2000/Comprehensive Report. (Census Tracts 61, 62, and 63). Prepared by Social Explorer. November 2016.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Census 2010/Comprehensive Report. (Census Tracts 61, 62, and 63). Prepared by Social Explorer. November 2016.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (1950). 1950 United States Census of Housing. (Vol V, Part 91. Census Tracts: 61, 62, 63). Kansas City, MO Block Statistics. November 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prospect Avenue From Linwood Boulevard to E 34th Street Census

My blocks extend from Linwood Boulevard to E 34th Street on Prospect Avenue.  These blocks lie within the bounds of census tracts 54 and 56.01 (56 in 1950).  These demographics of these census tracts have changed drastically over time.  In 1950, the ethnicity of 99.5% of the residents was white, but by 2000 over 90% of the population was characterized as African American, and by 2010 around 90% of the population was characterized as African American.  At the same time, the median income adjusted for inflation increased for the census tract 54 but decreased in census tract 56 or 56.01.  The bounds of census tract 56 changed from 1950 to 2000, being cut approximately in half.  This may have skewed the data for quantitative data such as the number of dwellings.

Census Data: Prospect Ave. Blocks from E. 28th St – E. 30th St.

I was assigned the blocks from E. 28th St. to E. 30th St and Prospect Ave. The census data that I obtained from Social Explorer coincided with my findings from our last assignment creating the figure ground maps. My section seemed to be thriving as much as it had ever been in 1950 as evidence by a large total population and an average medium income for that time. By 2000 the area had taken a big hit, the population decreased by more than half and continued to decrease in 2010. The median income is at poverty level. When investigating the cause for the decline I found a multitude of factors including crime and lack of resources. The tipping point seemed to be integration and the race riots in 1968 where a large 3 block area of Prospect Ave. was burnt down and white owned businesses had been targeted. Hopefully, in the near future more attention will be given to the area and restore community.