2000115-Strengthening-Communities-with-Neighborhood-Data

332 Strengthening Communities with Neighborhood Data
Table 7.1.1. (Continued)
Port of Entry: Subtypes
Type 4-A:
Young
Adults
Type 4-B:
Regional
Shopping
Type 4-C:
Local
Shops
Type 4-D:
Stable
Residents
Neighborhoods in type 4-A are inhabited by a younger, more mobile
population. About 78 percent of the population has changed residences
over the past five years, compared with 60 percent for the overall cluster,
while only 12 percent have lived in the same home for over 10 years.
Residents are also less likely to have a high school diploma, and about
39 percent have jobs in construction, production, or transportation
occupations. An above-average percentage of the land is vacant, and
business presence is lower than the average for this cluster, suggesting
that as a whole, this subtype is less developed than the other Port
of Entry neighborhoods. Despite the high mobility of its residents, this
group does not often change type.
Neighborhoods in type 4-B are characterized by the presence of larger
businesses and have the highest concentration of retail within the Port
of Entry type. These neighborhoods are more likely to transition to
higher income clusters, perhaps due to lower crime rates, a high
concentration of retail amenities and entertainment venues, and
proximity to downtown.
These communities are characterized by the presence of smaller, local
businesses. As in the case of type 4-B, these neighborhoods are more
likely to transition to higher income clusters.
Type 4-D typically includes older, more established communities.
About 30 percent of the housing stock is composed of single-family
homes, and 39 percent of households own their unit. Median incomes
are higher, and residents enjoy the greatest diversity of business types
within this cluster. Consistent with the more stable character of these
communities, this subtype is much less likely to transition to other
neighborhood types.
Centers). Using the typology, peer neighborhoods can be identified across
the entire city (figure 7.1.4). Based on the RSI, 13 the growth rate in this
tract between 1990 and 2006 was 33 percent, which is much lower than the
average for its type (approximately 100 percent over the same period),
revealing that this neighborhood is not doing as well as its peers.
The typology can also be used to go much further than this initial
diagnostic. In fact, it points at some factors that might be particularly