mm AND HOiHOiD DATA TRENDS The preparation of this Manual was nartiallv funded through a Federal Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Develooment of the Federal Government, under the Urban Planning Assistance Program authorized by Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended. This Manual was nrenared as nart of PIUD Contract IND. P-115. i-1 IND-72-5 TITLE AUTHOR SUBJECT DATE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SOURCE OF COPIES FOR REFERENCE HUD PROJECT NUMBER NUMBER OF PAGES Population and Household Data Trends Area Plan Commission For Vigo County, Indiana 1960-1971 Data Compilation and Analysis on Neighborhood Levels. Development of Neighborhood Profiles. Recommendation Priorities for Improvement Programs. April 21, 1972 Area Plan Commission For Vigo County, Indiana Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information Springfield, Virginia 22151 Vigo County Area Planning Department 120 South Seventh Street Terre Haute, Indiana 47807 Housing and Urban Development Indiana Area Office Indianapolis, Indiana 46205 HUD Library Washington, D. C. State Depository Library Indiana University Indianapolis, Indiana 46200 Planning School Libraries Depository Libraries Vigo County Public Libraries Indiana State University Library CPA-IN-05-00-0128 118 1-2 This study provides an examination of population and household data. The entire study area includes all the city of Terre Haute, which was divided into ninety-five neighborhoods. The data examined represents 1960- 1971 population, housing, and land use trends within each neighborhood unit. Both increasing and decreasing trends were identified and ranked according to their relationship to the trends within the other neighborhood units. Profiles of improvement and non- improvement were developed and mapped for each neighborhood unit. Composite profiles were also developed and mapped. Based upon ^hese composite profiles, recommended high, medium, and low priority areas for improvements were identified, followed by a general description of some of the basic neighborhood improvement techniques. LIST OF OFFICIALS AREA PLAN COMMISSION Charles M. Walker II, President Burch Harlan, Vice-President Carl Altman Nelson Cohen Jay W, Dennis Thomas Fitzpatrick Frank Kaperak John K. Lemry Thomas H. Lenahan Jeffrey Lew Marcella Moore Dwane Rogers Lloyd York John M. Hanley, Secretary (Non-Member) COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Kermit Nees, President Frank Kaperak, Secretary Harry Brentlinger, Member CITY ADMINISTRATION Mayor BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS & SAFETY City Controller . . . City Engineer .... City Attorney .... COUNTY COUNCIL Arthur Mann, President Donald Myers, Vice-President Everett S. Branam, Jr. John Brentlinger James Diehl Gordon K. Geckeler Lawrence F. King William Brighton Joan Hetherington, President Jeffrey Lew, Vice-President Verl G. Miller, Secretary i-4 CITY COUNCIL WEST TERRE HAUTE TOWN BOARD Jack Neaderhiser, President Charles Cardinal Pete Chalos, Vice-President Dallas Day Gene Butts John Scott William Jarvis SEELYVILLE TOWN BOARD John S. Lamb Carl Altman Thomas H. Lenahan Arthur Nicholson, Jr. A. C. Malociey Merle Wade Kenneth Thomas C. Eugene Trurainel RILEY TOWtJ BOARD William Lidster Alfred Myers Marvin Pickens AREA PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF Lee Robert Mann Executive Director Sue Ann Bones Executive Secretary John M- Hanley Transportation Planner Mary Etta Stiffey Transportation Statistician L. Douglas Diehl Research Analyst John E. Sheehan, Jr Community Planner Georgia Donnenhoffer Graphic Arts Supervisor Charles Conner Draftsman I Max Tryon Draftsman II Heinz Reiter Cartographer James J. Donnenhoffer. . . Clerk-Secretary PIANNER IN CHARGE John E. Sheehan, Jr. i-5 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I, TITLE i-1 II. ABSTRACT i-2 III. LIST OF OFFICIALS i-4 IV. PLANNING AREA MAP i-6 V. TABLE OF CONTENTS i-7 VI. SECTION I 1. Neighborhood Profiles 1 2. Profiles of Improvement and Nonimprovement 3 3. Composite Profiles 6 4. Basic Inputs Into Neighborhood Improvement Programs 8 5. Subarea Priority Ratings (Table A) 11 VII, SECTION II* Legend 13 Neighborhood 1-1 14 N eighbo rhoo d 1-2 15 Neighborhood 1-3 16 Neighborhood 2-1 17 Neighborhood 2-2 18 Neighborhood 2-3 19 Neighborhood 3-1 20 Neighborhood 3-2 21 Neighborhood 3-3 22 Neighborhood 3-4 23 Neighborhood 3-5 24 Neighborhood 3-6 25 Neighborhood 4-1 26 Neighborhood 4-2 27 Neighborhood 4-3 28 Neighborhood 4-4 29 Neighborhood 4-5 30 Neighborhood 4-6 31 Neighborhood 5-1 32 Neighbo rhoo d 5-2 33 Neighborhood 5-3 34 Neighborhood 5-4 35 Neighborhood 6-1 36 Neighborhood 6-2 37 Neighborhood 6-3 38 Neighborhood 6-4 39 Neighborhood 6-5 40 Neighborhood 7-1 41 i-7 Neighborhood 7-2 42 Neighborhood 7-3 43 Neighborhood 7-4 44 Neighborhood 7-5 45 Neighborhood 8-1 46 Neighborhood 8-2 47 Neighborhood 8-3 48 Neighborhood 8-4 49 Neighborhood 8-5 50 Neighborhood 9-1 51 Neighborhood 9-2 52 Neighborhood 9-3 53 Neighborhood 9-4 54 Neighborhood 9-5 55 Neighborhood 9-6 56 Neighborhood 10-1 57 Neighborhood 10-2 58 Neighborhood 10-3 59 Neighborhood 10-4 60 Neighborhood 10-5 62 Neighborhood 10-6 64 Neighborhood 11-1 65 Neighborhood 11-2 66 Neighborhood 11-3 67 Neighborhood 11-4 68 Neighborhood 12-1 69 Neighborhood 12-2 70 Neighborhood 12-3 71 Neighborhood 12-4 72 Neighborhood 12-5 73 Neighborhood 12-6 74 Neighborhood 12-7 75 Neighborhood 13-1 76 Neighborhood 13-2 77 Neighborhood 13-3 78 Neighborhood 13-4 80 Neighborhood 13-5 81 Neighborhood 13-9 82 Neighborhood 14-1 84 Neighborhood 14-2 85 Neighborhood 14-3 86 Neighborhood 14-4 87 Neighborhood 15-1 88 Neighborhood 15-2 89 Neighborhood 15-3 90 Neighborhood 15-4 91 Neighborhood 15-5 92 Neighborhood 16-1 93 Neighborhood 16-2 94 Neighborhood 16-3 95 Neighborhood 16-4 96 Neighborhood 16-5 97 Neighborhood 17-1 98 Neighborhood 17-2 99 i-8 Neighborhood 17-3 100 Neighborhood 17-4 101 Neighborhood 17-5 102 Neighborhood 17-6 103 Neighborhood 17-7 104 Neighborhood 17-8 105 Neighborhood 18-1 106 Neighborhood 18-2 107 Neighborhood 18-3 108 Neighborhood 18-4 109 Neighborhood 19-1 110 Neighborhood 19-2 111 Neighborhood 19-3 112 Neighborhood 19-4 113 Neighborhood 19-5 114 VIII. MAP APPENDIX III 1. Neighborhood Profiles of Change 1 2. Neighborhood Profiles of Improvement 2 3. Neighborhood Profiles of Nonimprovement 3 4. Neighborhood Composite Profiles 4 *Neighborhood Units contain Map and Comparative Status Chart. i-9 NEIGHBORHOOD PROFILES This study provides an examination of population and household trends in Terre Haute, Indiana, by neighborhoods. The entire study area includes all of the City of Terre Haute, which has been divided into ninety-five neighborhoods and subareas. The data developed by this study represents 1960-1970 population, housing, and land use trends within each neighborhood unit. Both increasing and decreasing trends were identified and ranked according to their relationship to the trends which have occurred within the other neighborhood units. At the top of each pag- a map of each neighborhood is shown along with contiguous neighborhoods. The table at the bottom of each page represents a comparison of certain trends of a given neighborhood unit with the other units. The number at the right show the rank of each activity compared with the same activity in the other units. The degree of rank is from a low of "1" rank to a high of "95". The high rank of "95" is given since the city has been divided into 95 neighborhood units. The rank is determined by comparing a specific activity in a unit with that activity in all other units. For example, neighborhood unit 1-1 ranks 86th for the number of commercial buildings built during the 1960-1970 period. It does not mean that 86 new buildings were constructed, it means that nine neighborhoods had more commercial building construction and eight-five had less building construction. Had area 1-1 been the area in which the largest number of commercial buildings were built, it would have been ranked "95". Had 1-1 been the lowest ranking it would have been designated by the rank of "1". 1 The "+" or signs depict either an increasing or decreasing trend. For example, area 1-1 ranks 15th for a change in negro population. This means that 14 units ranked below and 80 units ranked eibove neighborhood unit 1-1. The plus indicates that the change is an increase in negro population. In the case of total renters in Unit 1-1 the minus represents a decrease in the number of renters in 1970 as compared to 1960. Following the compilation of the 1960-1970 trends for each of the twelve indices by neighborhood units, the degree of neighborhood change was calculated. This degree of change was calculated by com¬ bining the twelve different ranks of each neighborhood unit and com¬ paring the results with that of the other neighborhood units. The resulting rank illustrates the rate of change that has transpired in the neighborhood as a whole. The values were then plotted on Map #1 found in the Appendix. This particular process does not indicate the type of change. It does, however, reveal the overall steibility or instability of the specific unit in relation to the other neighborhood units or subzones. The data derived from this study should be analyzed in conjunction with the Neighborhood Analysis Study performed by the Area Planning De¬ partment. The Neighborhood Analysis data relating to the neighborhood's physical and social conditions should, when examined with the data on population, housing, and land use generated by this study, provide a means whereby subarea plans could be formulated to achieve: (1) main¬ taining an areas status quo, (2) guiding natural changes, (3) halting detrimental trends, and (4) initiating and formulating needed changes. The purpose of this study is to generate the necessary inputs required to produce such programs or plans. 2 NEIGHBORHOOD PROFILES OF IMPROVEJffiNT AND NONIMPROVEMENT The 1960-1970 population and housing trends were also analyzed to determine each neighborhood's "profile of improvement" and "profile of noniraprovement". Each of the twelve neighborhood characteristics studied were identified as having either an upgrading or downgrading effect upon a typical residential environment. The upgrading charac¬ teristic values were then compiled by neighborhoods to arrive at that particular neighborhood's "profile of improvement". The downgrading characteristic values were also compiled to arrive at the neighborhood's "profile of nonimprovement". The following trends were selected as having upgrading effects upon residential environments: Residential Demolitions New Residential Units Increase in Total Population Increase in Owner Occupied Units Increase in Contract Rent Decrease in Total Renters Increase in Value ^f Residential Units Decrease in Units Lacking Plumbing Facilities Under 25th Rank in Industrial Buildings Decrease in Number of Units With 1.01 or More Persons Per Room Under 25th Rank in Commercial Buildings 3 The following trends were selected as having downgrading effects upon residential environments: Increase in New Commercial Buildings Over 25th Rank Decrease in Total Population Decrease in Number of Owner Occupied Units Decrease in Contract Rent Increase in Total Renters Decrease in Value of Residential Units Increase in Units Lacking Plumbing Facilities Increase in New Industrial Buildings Over 25th Rank Increase in Units Having More Than 1.01 Persons Per Room The measurement of the "profiles of improvement or nonimprovement" were based upon each neighborhood's improvement or nonimprovement in relation to the other 94 neighborhood units. Therefore, a neighborhood that has more or less remained stable or has maintained its status quo from 1960-1972 will not show as significant "profile of improvement or nonimprovement" as those neighborhoods exhibiting a high degree of change. It must also be recognized that although a neighborhood or sub- zone unit may possess an overall high or moderate "profile of improve¬ ment" it may still be experiencing some activities that are undesirable or that result in a degeneration of a residential environment. Such problems within specific subzones or neighborhoods appearing to have high "profiles of improvement" may be identified by a close examin¬ ation of that area's comparative chart and by field studies. 4 These profiles provide an indication as to what type of treatment each neighborhood requires in order to make it a sound residential area of the community. Neighborhoods possessing a high profile of improve¬ ment may require only slight assistance from local government while a neighborhood having a moderate profile of improvement may require added treatment, the nature of which could be determined by this study and further examinations. A neighborhood possessing a very low profile of improvement may require a stimulus to provide impetus to the improve¬ ment gradually taking place. All neighborhoods exhibiting a "profile of nonimprovement" would require significant determined action in order to halt detrimental trends and to produce a trend toward improving its residential environment. This study provides only a basis upon which neighborhood improve¬ ment programs may be built and implemented. Further investigation at the neighborhood level is required to develop specific methods of treatment. It also, provides an indication of community wide problems. Problems of this nature can be identified simply by examining the number of neighborhoods that are experiencing the problems, the greater the number of neighborhoods,the greater the geographical coverage of that problem. The results of this measurement of improvement and nonimprovement profiles were placed into three basic categories high, medium and low and plotted on Map #2 and #3 found in the Appendix. 5 COMPOSITE PROFILES Following the determination of each subareas "profile of improvement and nonimprovement" a composite analysis was com¬ pleted for each area. This analysis utilized three components for each subarea: profiles of improvement, profile of non- improvement, and the neighborhood analysis category developed and documented by this Department in 1968. While the profiles developed by this study were based upon primarily physical characteristics, the neighborhood analysis categories relate primarily to social and economic characteristics. Therefore, a comparative analysis of the three elements covers thirty-five (35) neighborhood characteristics, thereby providing a thorough interpretation of a subareas complete environment and deserving priority for redevelopment, rehabilitation, and con¬ servation programs. The subarea priorities were arrived at by examining the relationship of the three elements. For example, a subarea exhibiting a high profile of nonimprovement, a low profile of improvement, and indicated by the updated 1968 Neighborhood Analysis as requiring redevelopment, was judged as deserving high priority. While a subarea possessing a high profile of improvement, a low profile of nonimprovement, and a neighborhood analysis category of requiring conservation received a low priority. Twenty-five (25) relationships were examined and given a level of priority. 6 Map # 4 illustrates the geographical distribution of the priorities; while Table A provides a tabular listing of tlie priority for each subarea. A high priority subarea is an area of the community re¬ quiring relatively intensive and significant forms of improvement. A medium priority subarea is an area requiring either a significant improvement program for a particular problem and/or an overall moderate form of rehabilitation programs. A low priority subarea is an area requiring either a moderate improvement progreim for a particular problem and/or an overall conservation program. The preceding text describes some of the basic forms of neighborhood improvement programs that may be used to resolve the more common problems confronting our residential neighborhood environment. 7 BASIC INPUTS INTO NEIGHBOPJIOOD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS PROBLEM: SOLUTION; New Commercial Facilities 1. Halt Spot Zoning Practicies. 2. Halt Unplanned Strin Commercial Zoning Practicies. 3. Restrict Commercial activities to clusters or centers of commerce through strict zoning Dolicies. 4. Enforce existing ordinances and codes relating to the ooerations of commercial facilities i.e. signs, screening, displays, etc. New Industrial Facilities Enforce the present zoning per¬ formance standards relating to industrial activities. Restrict, through zoning, indust¬ rial activities to areas non¬ residential in character, indust¬ rial parks, or in well buffered areas. Existing Commercial And Industrial Facilities Enforce existing regulations con¬ cerning : a. parking b. signs c. screening d. lighting e. display of merchandise f. ingress-egress Provide new regulations concerning; a. Revision or strengthening of existing regulations. b. Proper regulations of non-con¬ forming uses. c. Issuance of occupancy permits. 8 Condemnation Of Facilities 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Use Of Land Preceding Demolition 1. 2. 3. Need Condemnation 1. 2. 3. 4. Actively support and assist in developing a community Workable Program. Formation of a demolition program. Develoo a code enforcement and code assistance program. Apply for Federal funds under HUD's Section 117 program. Apply for Federal funds under HUD's Section 116 demolition assistance program. Evaluation of the particular neigh¬ borhood's needs and goals. Determine the best use of the avail¬ able land such as: a. Provision of a series of block or vest pocket parks for active or passive ooen soace. b. Stimulate develooers and non¬ profit sponsors to utilize the Federal governments housing oro- grams and such lots. A development plan should be formed in conjunction vrith the demolition program to insure proper reuse of the land. Formation of a central relocation agency to assist relocated families find standard dwellings. Develop a through code enforcement and inspection program. Undertake a pre-inspection informal tional program to inform and educate property owners and tenants of the program objectives. Expand the inspection department manpower to the extent needed to administer the program. 5. Conduct an organized program of allied social services that would operate hand-in-hand with the inspection and code enforcement program. 6. Apply for 116 and 117 Federal grants. Residential Construction 1. Through prooer administration of the zoning and subdivision regu¬ lations protect neighborhoods from detrimental or incompatible residential land uses. a. Prevent soot residential zoning. b. A more discreet administration of the R-3 zoning classification. c. Development of an apartment zoning policy. d. Application of the Planned Unit Development zoning classification. 2. Form an areawide housing coalition to stimulate and develop solutions to housing problems. a. Provide a working relationship x»7ith citizens, private enterprise, and government. b. Develop the techniques available to a coalition, land banking, sponsorship, seed money, etc. c. Formulate a systematic housing plan and its implementation program in conjunction with all facets of the community. d. Relate the provision of homes to the overall environment bv coordinating the housing plan with the various elements needed to shape a desirable residential environment i.e. an urban beau- tification and public improve¬ ment program. A number of areas within the community are in such a state that improvement or rehabilitation programs would only have a superficial influence. In such areas, improvement programs may function as an interim device to lessen the problems impact, but complete urban renewal must be forthcoming to actually solve the problem. 10 SUBAREA PRIORITY RATINGS SUBAREA PRIORITY 1-1 High 1-2 High 1-3 Medium 2-1 Medium 2-2 Low 2-3 Medium 3-1 Medium 3-2 High 3-3 High 3-4 Hi^h 3-5 High 3-6 High 4-1 High 4-2 Medium 4-3 Medium 4-4 Medium 4-5 Medium 4-6 High 5-1 Medium 5-2 High 5-3 Medium 5-4 Medium 6-1 Medium 6-2 Medium 6-3 High 6-4 Medium 6-5 Medium 7-1 High 7-2 Medium 7-3 Medium 7-4 High 7-5 High 8-1 Low 8-2 Low 8-3 Low 8-4 Low 8-5 Low SUBAREA PRIORITY 9-1 Low 9-2 Low 9-3 High 9-4 High 9-5 High 9-6 High 10-1 Low 10-2 Low 10-3 High 10-4 Low 10-5 Low 10-6 Low 11-1 High 11-2 High 11-3 Low 11-4 Low 12-1 High 12-2 High 12-3 Medium 12-4 High 12-5 High 12-6 High 12-7 High 13-1 Medium 13-2 High 13-3 High 13-4 Medium 13-5 Medium 13-9 Low 14-1 Low 14-2 Low 14-3 High 14-4 Medium 15-1 Medium 15-2 Low 15-3 Medium 15-4 Medium 15-5 Medium 11 SUBAREA PRIORITY 16-1 Low 16-2 Low 16-3 Medium 16-4 Medium 16-5 Medium 17-1 Medium 17-2 Medium 17-3 Medium 17-4 High 17-5 Medium 17-6 Medium 17-7 High 17-8 Medium 18-1 Medium 18-2 Medium 18-3 Low 18-4 Medium 19-1 Low 19-2 Medium 19-3 Medium 19-4 Medium 19-5 Meditim 12 THIS LEGEND IS FOR THE FOLLOWING NEIGHBORHOOD ^APS CLUSTER NUmER CLUSTER BOUNDARIE NEIGHBORHOOD 13 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 86 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 35 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 71 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 70 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 63 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 22 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 1 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 15 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RESIDENTIAL) 70 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 27 TREND + + + + + 14 MULBC RRY 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 95 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 38 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 7 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 35 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 61 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 39 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 71 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 53 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 65 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RESIDENTIAL) 88 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 86 TREND + + + + 15 1960-1970 TRENDS NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM RANK 60 72 7 95 1 35 91 1 54 95 39 95 TREND + + + + + 16 TIPPECANOE 1 'A l/ I T1 . m 1 1 -^1 UO . > .■ y-z 1 1 ! ' 1 /> ^ M 1; 1^ 1 cJ •J 1 . 1' ®1' ■ :6T: : — '■"^77 1 It ■ 1 1 E f lo 1 ,1 6 X. \ , ,, JL 1960-1970 TRENDS NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM RANK 86 35 7 83 91 62 68 1 41 24 39 ^95 TREND + + + + + + 17 TIPPECANOE 1960-1970 TRENDS NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM RANK 95 38 20 93 80 70 87 1 61 95 20 95 TREND + + + + + + + 18 1^60-1970 TRENDS NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM RANK 60 72 7 95 77 52 95 1 63 94 20 89 TREND + + + + + 19 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 9 + RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 20 + NEW RES ID: ENTIAL UNITS 7 + CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 5 4 - CHANGE IN TOTAL OWTNER OCCUPANCY 7 - CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 82 + CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 4 - CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 6 + CHA.NGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 19 + LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 53 - NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 + 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 47 - 20 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 18 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 49 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 7 CHA.NGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 59 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY iS CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 30 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 19 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 83 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 55 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 28 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 24 TREND + + + + + 21 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 35 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 83 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 7 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 43 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPA.NCY 7 0 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 47 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 1 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 62 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 59 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 39 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 20 1,01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 26 22 eth AVI 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 9 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 49 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 74 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 64 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 42 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 44 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 14 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPUIATION 2 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 80 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MOFiE PERSONS PER ROOM 7 4 TREND + + + 23 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 52 + RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 89 + NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 "T* CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 91 - CHANGE IN TOTAL OVvNER OCCUPANCY CO CO ~ CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 9 - CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 59 - CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 1—1 + CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 64 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 92 - NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS N. A. 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 78 - 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 69 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 80 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 94 CHANGE IN TOTAL OVvTxlER OCCUPANCY 81 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 45 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 91 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 78 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPUIATION 95 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RliS.) 6 0 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS N.A. 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 77 TREND + + + 25 1960-1970 TRENDS NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RESIDENTIAL) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM PANK 1 32 13 85 75 18 53 49 91 37 1 62 TREND + + + + + 26 1960-1970 TRENDS NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM RANK 9 6 13 50 12 41 11 70 74 51 1 56 TREND + + + , + -f- + 1960-1970 TRENDS NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM RANK 1 12 13 19 25 5 36 30 18 40 1 9 TREND + + + + + + + 23 A.'E 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 9 + RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 6 + NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 13 + CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 52 - CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 36 - CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 31 + CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 14 + CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 67 + CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 38 + LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 33 - NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 + 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 9 - 1960-1970 TRENDS NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 30 1960-1970 trends new commercial buildings residential demolitions new residential units change in total population change in total owner occupancy change in contract renters change in total renters CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM rank 52 40 20 70 59 29 29 11 27 61 1 45 TREND + + + + + + + 31 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 1 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 46 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 32 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 20 CHA14GE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 16 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 51 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 6 5 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 43 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 95 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RESIDENTIAL) 20 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 20 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 5 TREND + + + + + + + 32 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 1 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 12 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 83 CHANGE IN TOTAL OVJNER OCCUPANCY 4 6 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 59 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 50 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 32 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 78 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RESIDENTIAL) 14 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 8 33 TREND + + + + + + + + 3 4 1960-1970 TRENDS R.Z\NK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 1 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 55 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 13 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 44 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 54 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 15 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 2 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 89 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 77 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 5 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 9 1960-1970 TRENDS NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM RANK TREND 52 + 43 + 7 + 89 + 90 + 9 + 77 + UNITS 30 + 34 + 13 39 + 72 35 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 26 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 58 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 56 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 5 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 6 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 79 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 35 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 66 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 22 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 39 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 21 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 9 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 18 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 34 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 37 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 7 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 33 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 70 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 57 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 32 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 36 37 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 1 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 3 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 7 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 62 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 57 CHANGE IN CONTRACT■RENTERS 50 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 7 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 30 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 30 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 7 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 22 TREND + + + + + + + + 3: 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 95 + RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 86 + NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 7 + CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 73 + CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 75 + CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 45 + CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 74 + CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 81 + CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 50 + LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 17 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 20 + 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 71 3 9 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 35 + RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 78 + NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 13 + CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 86 + CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 84 + CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 17 + CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 85 + CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 9 + CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 47 + LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 11 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 39 + 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 30 + 40 1960-1970 TRENDS R7VNK TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 35 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 35 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 35 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWl>iER OCCUPANCY 5 0 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 10 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 5 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 30 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 94 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 16 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 49 + + + 4* + + + + 41 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 18 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 38 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 7 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 58 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 14 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 37 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 47 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 51 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 87 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 26 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 18 TREND + + + + + 42 POP L A R S T 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 1 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 26 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 68 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 3 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 54 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 39 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 78 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 73 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 25 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 41 TREND + + + + + + + 43 1960-1970 TRENDS NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 4 1 RANK 9 35 7 55 55 86 40 95 83 19 1 1 TREND + + + 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 95 + RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 92 + NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 13 + CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 79 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 82 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 26 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 50 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 73 + CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 85 + LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 64 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 95 + 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 18 + 1960-1970 TRENDS NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHAITGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWvIER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM RANK TREND 35 T 32 + 1 + 31 19 18 + 23 + 17 + 37 + 50 1 + 68 46 1960-1970 TRENDS NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION ChlVNGE IN TOTAL OTOER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 47 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 35 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 52 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 17 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 72 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 33 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 47 CHANIGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 48 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 23 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 91 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 57 43 + + + + 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 95 + RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 69 + NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 58 + CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 43 + CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 66 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 69 + CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 8 + CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. U.JITS 89 + CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 6 + LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 66 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 + 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 26 + 49 Ohic ST 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 77 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 55 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 26 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION N.A. CHANGE IN TOTAL O^VNER OCCUPANCY N.A. CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 1 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS N.A. CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS N.A. CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 62 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 93 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 53 50 TREND + + + + + + + + + + 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 9 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 3 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 7 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 25 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 17 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 39 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 34 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 22 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 1 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 77 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 64 1960-1970 TRENDS NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OmsIER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES- UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR iMORE PERSONS PER ROOM RANK 1 6 7 63 73 66 26 11 13 42 1 69 TREND + + c -) 1960-1970 TRENDS NEVJ COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWInIER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MOPT] PERSONS PER ROOM RANK 35 66 7 77 48 49 31 33 5 55 20 32 TREND + + + + + + 1960-1970 TRENDS RA-JK TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 60 + RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 86 -t- HEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 20 + CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 21 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 63 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 53 + CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 66 + CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 78 + CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 26 + LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 68 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 + 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 17 54 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 18 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 26 + NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 13 + CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 28 + CHANGE IN TOTAL OVJNER OCCUPANCY 5 7 + CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 35 + CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 57 + CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 83 E CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 1 + LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (PLS.) 47 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 + 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 24 J' Z> 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 35 + RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 40 + NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 20 + CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 86 - CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 79 - CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 43 + CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 78 + CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 89 + CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 3 + LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 67 - NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 P J.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 74 - 56 HAYTHORNE AVE 0 1 ilk If |__?J !Avli —I AVtl i ST! > !— - ^! i ^ 1 '"iiTi iL^ 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 1 + RE SIDENTIAL DErlOLI TI QMS 1 + IIEL RESIDENTIAL LijlTS 51 + CRANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 17 + CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPAi^CY 41 + CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 90 + CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 51 4 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 25 + CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULA.TION 11 4- LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 1 + NEC INDUSTRIAL EUILDI:.;GS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 35 _ 57 HAYTHORNE 1- eoi cn _ !iLy 1 .'J 7 RANK TREND 35 + 12 + 20 + 4 6 + 35 + FLORIDA 1960-1970 TRENDS NEW COlUvIERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 68 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 9 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 29 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 20 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 73 CHANGE IK TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 19 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 77 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 32 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 70 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 1 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 65 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS i 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 32 69 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 9 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 40 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 47 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 86 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 1 CHAlviGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 10 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES- UNITS 51 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 1 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 3 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 20 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 29 70 1960-19/O TRENDS RANK TREND + NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 9 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 2 0 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 2 6 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 29 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 22 CHAInIGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 1 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 4l CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 19 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 1 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 43 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 + 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 24 + + 4- + + 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEW COIvMERCIAL BUILDINGS 1 + RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 9 + NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 26 + CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 37 - CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 45 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 74 + CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 53 + CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES, UNITS 51 + CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 42 + LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 55 - NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 + 1,01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 33 - 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 18 + RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 15 + NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 7 + CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 53 - CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 34 - CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 2 + CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 13 - CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 27 + CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 70 + LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 52 - NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 + 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 2 73 1960-1970 TRENDS NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM RANK 18 66 1 13 27 25 63 27 81 10 39 23 i-REND + + + 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 9 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 29 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 13 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 61 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 10 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 23 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENDERS 19 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 54 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION N.A. LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 41 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 39 75 RANK 35 12 26 40 49 23 1 91 71 86 58 45 TREND + -r + + + + + + + HAYTHORNE 1960-1970 TRENDS N'EW C017MERCIAL BUILDINSS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY CHAiiGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS I. 01 OR MORE PERSOl^S PEP. ROOM 76 HAYTHORNE AVE RANK TREND 9 + 26 + 1 + 67 39 38 + 16 59 + 12 + 12 20 + 48 1960-1970 TRENDS NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 77 1960-1970 trends rani: trend new commercial buildings 35 + residential demolitions 12 + new residential units 26 + change in total population 14 change in total owner occupancy 25 + change in contract renters 91 + change in total renters 75 + change in average value of res. units ,92 + change in negro population 51 + lacking plumbing facilities (residential) 31 new industrial buildings 58 + 1.01 or more persons per room 44 79 maple AVE TREND + + + + + + + + + 1960-1970 TRENDS NEVJ C0i'4MERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OVJNER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (PvES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM RANK 9 15 4 5 21 43 1 28 35 10 75 20 13 1960-1970 TPvENDS RANK NEW COm-lERCIAL BUILDINGS 9 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 15 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 20 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 7 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 1 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 46 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 65 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 62 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 33 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (PvES.) 35 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 20 1.01 OR MORE PERSON PER ROOM 50 81 TREND 1960-1970 TRENDS TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 18 + RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 6 HI- NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 + CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 1 + CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY N.A. CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 1 + CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS N.A. CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 1 + CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 1 -»■ LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RESIDENTIAL) 1 -»■ NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 77 -»■ 1.01 OR MOPH: PERSONS PER ROOM 95 83 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMI-'ILRCI/NL BUILDINGS 4 3 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 15 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 51 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 66 CHANGE IN TOTAL OVJNER OCCUPANCY 6 2 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 11 CilANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 3 7 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 67 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 33 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 15 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 62 TREND + + + + + + + 84 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMl^RCIAL BUILDINGS 4 3 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 12 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 26 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 7 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 78 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 60 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 83 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 95 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 43 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 82 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 43 TREND + + + + + + + + + 85 1950-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMI^ERCIAL BUILDINGS 52 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 20 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 32 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 49 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 33 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 87 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 92 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 3 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 1 LACKING PLUMUING FACILITIES (RES.) 95 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 73 TREND + + + + + + + + + + + 86 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK' TREND NEW COfMERCIAL BUILDINGS 60 + RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS N.A. NEV^ RESIDENTIAL UNITS N.A. CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION N.A. CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY N.A. CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS N.A. CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS N.A. CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS N.A. CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION N.A. LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 7 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 + 1,01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 81 + 87 POPLAR ST 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEV7 COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 26 + RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 9 + NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 77 + CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 8 - CHANGE IN TOTAL OWIJER OCCUPANCY 9 - CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 95 + CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 82 + CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 79 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 5 ■ LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 87 - NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 + 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 5 6 + 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND -lEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEVl RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION IHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS SRANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 9 + 12 + 39 + 4 + CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 6 + 81 + 59 + CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 27 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) I lNEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS J + 1 + + 1 + ..01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 1 + 89 1960-1970 TRENDS NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM RANK 9 1 51 23 11 6 9 17 38 17 75 1 62 TREND + + + + + + + + 90 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COM>ffiRCIAL BUILDINGS 18 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 6 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 13 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 16 CHANGE IN TOTAL 0V7NER OCCUPANCY 1 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 95 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 4 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 38 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 4 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 30 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 95 TREND + + + + + + + 91 POPL AR ST 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND + NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 9 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 12 + NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 26 + CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 80 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 32 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 75 + CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 35 + CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 22 + CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 45 + LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 85 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 + 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 60 92 ,WgOOB>^ BERKtEY HR .GAROEN-DAtE: RSRar jDoeas: :f>AR-x BY-P 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 9 + RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 1 + NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 89 + CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 56 + CHANGE IN TOTAL 0W17ER OCCUPANCY N.A. CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 86 + CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS N.A, CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS N.A. CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 1 + LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 1 + NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 + 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 80 + 93 POPLA R 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 1 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 6 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 95 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 56 CHANGE IN TOTAL OW'NER OCCUPANCY 51 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 78 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 34 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 89 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 33 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 15 NEVJ INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 77 TREND + + + 94 MAKS&RET 1960-1970 TRENDS NEV7 COMI'lERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 95 ASHINGTOr; AVE 1 1 1 put nam f 1 st 1 HULMAN WAL LACE :kU$5N-£:« RANK 1 1 64 41 19 94 81 11 1 8 5 1 77 TREND :: :ave. jHWG^ HARRISON AVE PUT NAM HULMAN WALLACE MM AV£^ USSN ST AVE SH AV MA RGA RE 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEVJ COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 18 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 1 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 77 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 38 CHANGE IN TOTAL 0V7NER OCCUPANCY N. lA CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 77 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 48 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 19 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 1 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (PEIS.) 1 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 5 96 TREND 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEV\? COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 18 + RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 9 + NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 32 + CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 5 - CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY N. A. CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 1 - CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS CO ro + CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 19 + CHANGE IK NEGRO POPULATION 1 + LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (PES.) 69 - NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 20 + 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 11 97 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BlilLDINGS 9 + RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS z3 + NEV; RESIDE NTIAL UNITS 13 + CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 92 - CHANGE IN TOTAL 0V7UER OCCUPANCY 28 - CHANGE IK CONTRACT RENTERS 58 + CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 27 + CHANGE IN A.VERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 62 4- CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 31 + LACKING PHJI4BING FACILITIES (RES.) 4 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 12 98 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 9 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 3 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 64 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 95 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 87 CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS 92 CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 90 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 86 CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 1 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (RES.) 53 NEVJ INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 64 TPTEND + + + + _L + + + + + + 1960-1970 TRENDS RANK TREND NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 9 RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS 12 + NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 83 CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION 88 CHANGE IN TOTAL OWNER OCCUPANCY 92 CHANGE IN CONTPxACT RENTERS 6 7 -f CHANGE IN TOTAL RENTERS 68 CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE OF RES. UNITS 9 -t- CHANGE IN NEGRO POPULATION 53 LACKING PLUMBING FACILITIES (PES.) 62 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 1 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM 54 100 HARRISON nr npnr 1960-1970 TRENDS NEVJ COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE IN TOTAL GETTER OCCUPANCY CHANGE IN CONTRACT RENTERS ChAI 1 e 4/72 bATf y| /-»»> r»€ "10 J. S. AWtOvfO ** J S 4/7*: 4/72 0W« HO 1"= 2400' tto I LEGEND: SUB AREA PROFILES OF IMPROVEMENT I ^ I _ j r~~i i___j SUB AREA BOUNDARY •SUB AREA NUMBER HIGH PROFILE OF IMPROVEMENT MEDIUM PROFILE OF IMPROVEMENT LOW PROFILE OF IMPROVEMENT MAP * 2 wevtup bask: sowce Area Planning Department Vigo County, Ind OMMIN CharLee CMtfKtO 3' J.S. r J s. sc*t.e I = 2400 -7^ 5 - 4 - 72 5-4- 72 •<*OjecT HO 2 LEGEND: SUB AREA PROFILES OF NONIMPROVEMENT "7~ SUB AREA BOUNDARY SUB AREA NUMBER r —n J HIGH PROFILE OF NONIMPROVEMENT MEDIUM PROFILE OF NONIMPROVEMENT LOW PROFILE OF NONIMPROVEMENT MAP 3 Area Planning Department Vigo County, Ind ACVISED BA«C MURCE I9Z9 «,9. «HU> w ' H.R. 5-4-7 2 HO - CMfClctO 3^ g • •> , Q 5-4-72 5-4 - 72 y.r V •. $CAL£ M I = 2400 . y T T f c • P^OjfC* »»o 3 1 LEGEND: , @1- SUB AREA COMPOSITE PROFILES -SUB AREA BOUNDARY -SUB AREA NUMBER ■n 1 I 1 1 L --.J 1 1 1 1 L__ 1 1 HIGH PRIORITY SUB AREA I MEDIUM PRIORITY SUB AREA LOW PRIORITY SUB AREA MAP <*4 Area Planning Department Vigo County, Ind REVISED BASK SOUBCE t«ro U.S. ciNsus - ■ Char Lee 5-4-72 HO CHfCKfD 3* J 5 • 0 1 C 5-4-72 SCAL£ ^ _ 1 1 1 = 2400 5-4-72 PWJjfCT HO