Views
2 years ago

PennIUR-Policy-Brief-Landis

PennIUR-Policy-Brief-Landis

San Francisco Bay Area

San Francisco Bay Area Chicago Washington, DC San Francisco B Washing 4 Penn IUR Policy Brief | Tracking and Explaining Neighborhood Socio-Economic Change in U.S. Seattle Metropolitan Areas between 1990 and 2010 New York City Dallas-Ft Tampa Miami Boston EXHIBIT 1: Houston Top 10 U.S. Metro Areas Ranked by Number of 1990 Residents of Upgrading, Gentrifying, and Declining Census Tracts 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 New Y New 0 500,000 1990 CORE 1,000,000 AREA RESIDENTS 1,500,000IN UPGRADING 2,000,000 TRACTS 1990 SUBURBAN RESIDENTS IN UPGRADING TRACTS Los Angeles Los Angeles San Francisco Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area Chicago Chicago Washington, DC Washington, DC Seattle Seattle New York City New York City Tampa Tampa Miami Miami Boston Boston Houston Houston 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Chicago San Francisco Chicago Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area Detroit Washington, DC Washington, DC Seattle Tampa Minneapolis Tampa Dallas-Ft. Worth Dallas-Ft. Worth Boston Miami Miami Atlanta New York City New York City Tampa New Orleans New Dallas-Ft. Orleans Worth Seattle Seattle Cleveland 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 0 0 100000 200000 200000 400000 300000 600000 400000 800000 500000 1000000 Los Los Los Ang New Y San Francisco New York B L Las Ve San Francisco San Francisco Bay A Pi Dallas-Ft Pittsbu St. L Minn Pho Sa M B Baltim Dallas-F Dallas-Ft. Pit W 1990 CORE AREA RESIDENTS IN GENTRIFYING TRACTS 1990 SUBURBAN RESIDENTS IN GENTRIFICATION TRACTS 000 800000 0 800000 Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Chicago San Francisco Chicago Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area Detroit Detroit Washington, DC Washington, DC Seattle Seattle Tampa Minneapolis Tampa Minneapolis Dallas-Ft. Worth Dallas-Ft. Worth Boston Boston Miami Miami Atlanta Atlanta New York City New York City Tampa Tampa New Orleans New Dallas-Ft. Orleans Worth Dallas-Ft. Worth Seattle Seattle Cleveland Cleveland 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 0 0 100000 200000 200000 400000 300000 600000 400000 800000 500000 1000000 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 Los Angeles Los Los Angeles Angeles Los Angeles New York City San Francisco New York Bay CityArea San Francisco Bay Area Las Vegas Las Vegas Seattle Seattle San Francisco Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area Detroit Detroit Pittsburgh Dallas-Ft. Pittsburgh Worth Dallas-Ft. Worth St. Louis St. Louis Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Minneapolis Minneapolis Miami San Miami Diego San Diego Baltimore Baltimore Tampa Tampa Dallas-Ft. Worth Dallas-Ft. Pittsburgh Worth Pittsburgh 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 0 0 100000 100000 200000 200000 300000 300000 400000 400000 500000 500000 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 Chic Hou Dallas-F Dallas-Ft. W Los Los Ang St. L Atl De M San Francisco San Francisco Bay A Sea 1990 CORE AREA RESIDENTS IN DECLINING TRACTS 1990 SUBURBAN RESIDENTS IN DECLINING TRACTS 500000 1000000 1000000 Los Los Angeles Angeles Los Angeles San Francisco New York Bay CityArea San Francisco Bay Area Las Vegas Seattle Seattle San Francisco Bay Area Detroit Detroit Dallas-Ft. Pittsburgh Worth Dallas-Ft. Worth St. Louis Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Minneapolis Minneapolis San Miami Diego San Diego Baltimore Tampa Tampa Dallas-Ft. Pittsburgh Worth Pittsburgh 0 0 100000 100000 100000 200000 200000 200000 300000 300000 300000 400000 400000 400000 500000 500000 500000 Chicago Chicago Houston Houston Dallas-Ft. Worth Dallas-Ft. Worth Los Angeles Los Angeles St. Louis St. Louis Atlanta Atlanta Detroit Detroit Miami Miami San Francisco Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area Seattle Seattle 0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 Chicago Houston Dallas-Ft. Worth

Columbia, SC Tampa Chicago Portland 5 Penn IUR Policy Brief | Tracking and Explaining Neighborhood Socio-Economic Change in U.S. Metropolitan Areas between 1990 and 2010 San Francisco Ne New Orleans Atlanta Stockton EXHIBIT 2 Los Angeles Top 10 U.S Metropolitan Areas by Share of 1990 Urban and Suburban Residents of Upgrading, Gentrifying, 0.00 and 0.05 Declining 0.10Census 0.15 Tracts 0.20 0.25 0.30 Lo Wash 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 PCT. OF 1990 CORE AREA RESIDENTS LIVING IN UPGRADING TRACTS PCT. OF 1990 SUBURBAN RESIDENTS LIVING IN UPGRADING TRACTS Seattle Seattle Columbia, Columbia, SC SC Tampa Tampa Chicago Chicago Portland Portland San Francisco San Francisco New New Orleans Orleans Atlanta Atlanta Stockton Stockton Los Angeles Los Angeles 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.30 Columbia, Columbia, Bakersfield SC SC Tampa McAllen Tampa Seattle Seattle Tulsa Baton Stockton Stockton Rouge Greensboro Chicago Chicago New New Orleans Rochester Orleans Portland Portland Dayton Los Grand Angeles Los Rapids Angeles Washington, Washington, Syracuse DC DC Minneapolis Atlanta Atlanta 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.100.15 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.20 0.25 LasB Grand Gr O Green G Ch Alb Jacks J Albuqu AJa Raleigh-D Lo Oklahom Char PCT. OF 1990 CORE AREA RESIDENTS LIVING IN GENTRIFYING TRACTS PCT. OF 1990 SUBURBAN RESIDENTS LIVING IN GENTRIFYING TRACTS Columbia, Columbia, Bakersfield Bakersfield SC SC McAllen Tampa McAllen Tampa Seattle Seattle Tulsa Tulsa Baton Baton Stockton Stockton Rouge Rouge Greensboro Greensboro Chicago Chicago New New Rochester Orleans Rochester Orleans Portland Portland Dayton Dayton Grand Los Grand Los Angeles Angeles Rapids Rapids Washington, Washington, Syracuse Syracuse DC DC Minneapolis Minneapolis Atlanta Atlanta .25 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.100.150.15 0.15 0.20 0.150.20 0.20 0.250.20 Bakersfield Las Bakersfield Las Vegas Vegas Grand Grand McAllen Rapids McAllen Rapids Orlando Orlando El Paso El Paso Greensboro Greensboro Tulsa Tulsa Albuquerque Charlotte Albuquerque Charlotte Jacksonville Jacksonville Fresno Fresno Albuquerque Albuquerque Jacksonville Jacksonville Raleigh-Durham Raleigh-Durham Los Angeles Los Angeles Oklahoma Oklahoma Dayton City Dayton City Charleston Charleston Orlando Orlando 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.1 0.03 0.03 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.06 0.060.40.4 0.09 0.5 0.09 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.12 0.12 0.7 0.7 0.15 0.8 0.8 0.15 Las Char SacraS T St Ho Colorado Colora S O KansK Rich PCT. OF 1990 CORE AREA RESIDENTS LIVING IN DECLINING TRACTS PCT. OF 1990 SUBURBAN RESIDENTS LIVING IN DECLINING TRACTS Las Bakersfield Bakersfield Vegas Grand Rapids McAllen McAllen Orlando El Paso El Paso Greensboro Tulsa Tulsa Charlotte Albuquerque Albuquerque Jacksonville Fresno Fresno Albuquerque Jacksonville Jacksonville Raleigh-Durham Los Los Angeles Angeles Oklahoma City Dayton Dayton Charleston Orlando Orlando 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.0 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.2 0.03 0.03 0.3 0.4 0.06 0.06 0.5 0.09 0.09 0.6 0.7 0.12 0.12 0.8 0.15 0.15 Las Las Vegas Vegas Charleston Charleston Sacramento Sacramento Tucson Tucson St. Louis St. Louis Houston Houston Colorado Colorado Springs Springs Omaha Omaha Kansas Kansas City City Richmond Richmond 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 Las Vegas

PennIUR-Policy-Brief-Landis
Policy Briefing - Office for Social Inclusion
Housing-Policy-Briefing
Housing-Policy-Briefing
Philippine Broadband A Policy Brief
Policy Brief No - Rhodes University
to download Policy Brief - SAfAIDS