City of Richmond 2000 Census Data

Report #8

Demographic Profile of City Council Districts

Prepared by Department of Community Development Division of Comprehensive Planning April 2002

Introduction Examination of Census data provides insight into the demographic character of a community. For the purpose of this report, the communities under examination are City Council Districts and the data provide information regarding population, households and housing units. As Council District boundaries were not altered from 1990 to 2000, it is also possible to accurately assess change in these factors. This report measures change in population and housing units within City Council Districts over the course of the decade and details household composition in the year 20001.

Figure 1 It is the intent of this report to not only assist in decision-making efforts by City Council, but also provide citizens of the City of Richmond with accurate and timely information.

City Council Districts (shown in Figure 1) are delineated every ten years following the release of U.S. Census population data. Therefore, the overall number of persons within each District is comparable, but the composition of the population, households and housing stock may vary greatly from District to District.

Census Data Report #4, Analysis of Population Change, frequently referenced as a source for this report, explores the effect of new construction, adaptive reuse, abandonment and demolition on population within neighborhoods that experienced significant change in total number of persons from 1990 to 2000. By focusing on the neighborhood and sub-neighborhood levels, Report #4 serves as an excellent supplement to this report as it provides the detail needed to understand larger changes that occurred in some Council Districts.

2

1 Source: 1990 Summary Tape File 1 and 2000 Summary File 1. Data aggregated to City Council Districts from the Census Block level. Change statistics for household composition are not provided, as detailed data for households was not released at the Census Block level in 1990.

Overall, the City of Richmond experienced a slight reduction in total population (-2.6%) and housing units (-2.0%) from 1990 to 2000. Figures 2 and 3 below indicate how population and number of housing units changed in the individual Council Districts as compared to the Citywide rates. Those Districts shaded in light gray decreased at a rate greater than that of the City as a whole, while the Districts shaded in dark gray decreased at a rate less than that of the City or increased from 1990 to 2000. While Districts 1, 2, 5 and 9 each decreased at a rate lesser or increased at a rate greater than that of the City, only Districts 1 and 9 experienced increases in both number of persons and housing units. Figure 2 Figure 3

The following pages contain detailed profiles of the City Council Districts, each highlighting some of the significant data

findings. Complete tables for the population, household and housing unit data are found in the appendices at the end of the report.

3

District One The First District is located in the western portion of the City, north of the James River. The District contains neighborhoods from the City’s western boundary to West of Boulevard and from Broad Street south to Windsor Farms. The District is also home to the University of Richmond. • District One, the largest in terms of total population, was one

of two Council Districts which experienced growth in total population from 1990 to 2000 (the Ninth also increased)

• Additional dormitory space at the University of Richmond

appears to have contributed significantly to the increase, as residents at the University jumped by over 500 persons2

• The White population comprised the majority racial category

in 2000, but decreased in number over the course of the decade

• Total housing units only increased by one unit, but the district netted an additional 136 occupied units as vacancies decreased by

24.6% (at 3.7% in 2000, the District had the lowest vacancy rate of any District in the City) • Although owner occupied housing outnumbered renter occupied in 2000, the rental market grew by 222 units from 1990 to 2000 • While families, classified as “one or more persons living together who are related by birth, marriage or adoption,”3 were not the

dominant household type in 2000 (42.1%), over 35% of all households in the District are married couple families

2 Census Data Report #4, Analysis of Population Change. City of Richmond Department of Community Development. Division of Comprehensive Planning. December 2001. 3 1990 Census of Population and Housing (STF1) CD-ROM.

4

District Two The Sherwood Park, Carver and Newtowne West neighborhoods, amongst others, are all contained within the Second District. Also included, are portions of Downtown, Rosedale, Jackson Ward, The Fan and Virginia Commonwealth University. • The data show that population in the Second District

decreased by 2.5%; although, it should be noted that the closing of the State Penitentiary during the 1990s removed 693 persons from the District (deducting those persons from the 1990 total actually creates an increase in population within the District by 126 or 0.6%)

• While the White and African American populations

declined, the District added 451 Asian and Pacific Islander residents (the largest net increase in the City)

• The number of Hispanic residents increased by 55.3% • Although total number of housing units decreased by 28, the district added 86 occupied units through a 9.0% reduction in

vacancies • Overall, the district was heavily renter-occupied (73.0% in 2000), but the number of homeowners (or owner occupied housing

units) increased by 5.8% over the course of the decade (largest percentage increase in number of homeowners of any District) • The Second District was characterized by the largest total number and percentage (7,379 and 70.4%) of non-family households

(classified as those households in which the householder lives alone or with non-related persons4) and one person households (5,114 and 48.8%) of any of the Council Districts

5

4 Ibid

District Three Located in the northern portion of the City, the Third District contains the Bellevue, Washington Park and Edgehill neighborhoods, amongst others. The District is also home to Virginia Union University and portions of Ginter Park, Barton Heights and Providence Park. The population change data for 1990 to 2000 for District Three is partially reflective of an error that occurred in the coding of Census Tract 102, Block 214. In 1990, this Block was incorrectly added to City figures, increasing the count of persons by 244. The error was discovered during the 1990s and the Block thus removed from the 2000 count. • Population in the Third District decreased by 4.7% or 1,035

total persons (adjusting for the error, the population decreased by 3.6% or 791 persons)

• The African American and White populations both decreased, by 2.1% and 16.4%, respectively, but Asian and Pacific Islander

and Other race (aggregation of different races reported in one category by the U.S. Census Bureau) residents increased in number • African American residents comprised 72.4% of the total population in 2000 • Total number of housing units decreased by 364, including 286 occupied and 78 vacant units • The reduction in occupied housing units split fairly evenly between owner and renter, each declined by approximately 3% • Of the 9,143 households in the District, 53.4% were family households (a percentage slightly greater than that of the City overall) • District Three had the highest percentage of householders 65 years of age and older living alone (14.0%) of any District in the City

6

District Four Located in the western portion of the City on the southern banks of the James River, the Fourth District contains neighborhoods from Huguenot Farms and Hobby Hill in the west to Forest Hill and Westover Hills in the east. • Total population in the District fell by 2.9%, with the White

population declining by 3,248 persons • Irrespective of these decreases, the District diversified

through the addition of 2,033 African Americans (a 49.2% increase, the largest of any of the Districts)

• Asian and Pacific Islander (+10.2%), Other race (+165.4%)

and Hispanic (+48.7%) residents also gained an increased presence within the District

• Although decreasing in total housing units by one overall, the District netted 220 additional occupied units through a 30.2% decrease in vacancies (the largest percentage reduction in vacant units Citywide)

• Homeowners also gained ground in the District, increasing by 349 (the largest net increase of any of the Districts), while renters

decreased by 2.9% • Although family and non-family households comprised a fairly even proportion of total households (52% to 48%, respectively),

married couples made up nearly 40% of all households within the District (the highest percentage of any District in the City) • Other family households (those comprised of related individuals who are not married5) made up only 12.7% of total households (a

rate roughly half of the Citywide percentage)

7

5 Ibid.

District Five Located in the central portion of the City on both sides of the James River, the Fifth District contains neighborhoods from Oregon Hill, Randolph and Carytown on the northern side of the river to Woodland Heights and Swansboro on the southern side of the river. The District also includes portions of The Fan and Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU). • Total population within the District fell by 1.3%, with

Whites, African Americans and Asians and Pacific Islanders decreasing in number

• Persons classified under the Other race category increased by

nearly 200% (+237) • The Hispanic population also grew, adding over 300 residents

over the course of the decade (a 166.9% increase) • Total number of housing units increased by 40, although coupled with a 9.7% reduction in the number of vacancies, the District

added 141 occupied units • Owner occupied units declined by 0.6%, while renter occupied units increased by 3.3% or 167 units • Families comprised over 48% of all households within the District, with other family households slightly outnumbering married

couples (2,441 to 2,151) • Reflective of its proximity to VCU, the percentage of two or more person non-family households (13.4%) was higher than that of

the City as a whole (10.7%) • Eleven percent of all households within the District were comprised of persons 65 years of age and older living alone

8

District Six The Sixth District, located on both sides of the James River, includes neighborhoods from the northern portion of the City, such as Highland Park, Highland View, Shockoe Hill and Green Park, amongst others, to neighborhoods in the southern portion of the City, including Old Manchester and portions of Bellemeade and Blackwell. The District also contains the Medical College of Virginia, Shockoe Slip and much of Downtown and the Commerce Road industrial corridor. • Total population within the District decreased by 3.8% from 1990 to 2000, a reduction of 852 • Gains in population sustained Downtown over the course of the decade were offset by

concentrations of population decline in other areas, such as Highland Park6 • The White population decreased by 23.1% and the African American population declined by

3.5%, but Asians and Pacific Islander, Other race and Hispanic residents all increased in number • Occupied housing units decreased by 655 (-8.6%) through a reduction of 434 total housing units

and an increase of 221 vacant housing units • Number of homeowners decreased at approximately twice the rate of renters (-12.8% to -6.0%) • With a 25.3% increase in number of vacancies from 1990 (the largest increase of any District),

13.5% of all housing units in the District were vacant in 2000 • Most households within the District were families (64.8%), comprised of nearly 20% married

couples and over 45% other families • The District had the highest percentage of female householders with no spouse and related children

under the age of 18 (30.8%), a rate over twice that of the Citywide percentage (14.5%)

9

6 Census Data Report #4, Analysis of Population Change. City of Richmond Department of Community Development. Division of Comprehensive Planning. December 2001.

District Seven Located in the eastern portion of the City on the north side of the James River, the Seventh District contains neighborhoods from Fairfield in the north to Church Hill and Chimborazo in the south to Fulton in the east. The District also contains portions of Shockoe Bottom, including Tobacco Row. • The District experienced a 4.6% reduction in total population

from 1990 to 2000, despite population gains in Tobacco Row and Fulton Manor7

• The decline was lead by a decrease of 1,428 African

Americans, although African Americans remained the majority racial category in the District (85.5% in 2000)

• White population increased by 3.3%, making the Seventh the

only District to experience an increase in the number of White residents

• The District increased its housing stock by 61 units, while vacancies decreased by 12.8% • Owner occupied units declined by 4.7%, but renter occupied units expanded by 439 (the largest increase of any District) • Nearly 58% of the 8,686 households in District Seven were family households, the majority of which were other family

households • Females with no spouse present and related children under the age of 18 headed nearly 25% of the households within the District

7 Ibid.

10

District Eight The Eighth District is located in the southeastern portion of the City and includes neighborhoods from Oak Grove and portions of Blackwell in the north; to Brookbury and Belmont Woods in the south; to Green Acres, Throckmorton Estates, Woodhaven and Woodstock in the west; to Davee Gardens and portions of Bellemeade in the east. • The Eighth District experienced the largest decrease in total

population (-2,192) and housing units (-1,238) from 1990 to 2000 of any District in the City

• Demolitions completed in Blackwell and Bellemeade

contributed to the decrease in both population and housing units, although new construction occurring currently at these locations as part of a HOPE VI project should substantially increase the count of persons and housing units8

• While the White population declined by –41.3%, the Other race and Hispanic populations in the District dramatically increased, by

291.1% and 266.5%, respectively • An 11.4% decrease in total housing units included 991 occupied and 247 vacant units • Of the 991 unit reduction in occupied housing, the majority were renter occupied (624) • The Eighth District had the highest percentage of family households of any District in the City; of those 5,739 families, over 48%

were married couples

8 Ibid.

11

District Nine Located in the southern central portion of the City, the Ninth District includes, amongst others, the neighborhoods of Beaufont Hills in the north; Worthington Farms, Berkeley Square and Greenridge in the central portion of the District; and Brookhaven Farms, Fawnbrook and Endicott in the south. • The largest increase in total population of any City Council

District from 1990 to 2000 occurred in the Ninth (+4.6% or 940 total persons)

• While the number of White residents decreased (-39.3%),

African American residents increased by 19.0% • Other race and Hispanic populations expanded by 842 and

1,176 persons, respectively, giving the Ninth District the largest concentration of Other race and Hispanic residents in 2000 of any District

• Adding to the diversification of the District, 428 residents classified themselves as two or more races in 2000 (the most of any

District) • The Ninth District claimed the largest increase in total number of housing units in 2000, adding 104 total units (a 1.1% increase

over the 1990 figure) • Vacancies declined by 23.8%, a rate nearly twice that of the Citywide reduction • The number of homeowners increased by nearly 5% from 1990 to 2000 • Over 60% of all households in the District were families in 2000, while 14.4% of all households were married couples with related

children under the age of 18 (the highest percentage of any District)

12

District 1 22,511 21,531 787 140 53 N/A 183 426 -237 172 106 93 N/A 145

District 2 22,602 14,084 7,907 448 163 N/A 253 1.9% -1.1% 21.9% 75.7% 175.5% N/A 79.2%

District 3 22,171 6,395 15,620 62 94 N/A 131 -567 -604 -869 451 53 N/A 140

District 4 23,069 18,479 4,133 324 133 N/A 298 -2.5% -4.3% -11.0% 100.7% 32.5% N/A 55.3%

District 5 22,253 7,171 14,673 290 119 N/A 181 -1,035 -1,051 -328 32 42 N/A 76

District 6 22,568 1,661 20,718 105 84 N/A 131 -4.7% -16.4% -2.1% 51.6% 44.7% N/A 58.0%

District 7 22,243 2,597 19,569 22 55 N/A 108 -675 -3,248 2,033 33 220 N/A 145

District 8 25,077 8,719 15,941 171 246 N/A 373 -2.9% -17.6% 49.2% 10.2% 165.4% N/A 48.7%

District 9 20,562 7,391 12,774 225 172 N/A 240 -294 -342 -550 -20 237 N/A 302

City Total 203,056 88,028 112,122 1,787 1,119 N/A 1,898 -1.3% -4.8% -3.7% -6.9% 199.2% N/A 166.9%

-852 -383 -724 7 47 N/A 121

-3.8% -23.1% -3.5% 6.7% 56.0% N/A 92.4%

Race -1,017 86 -1,428 42 58 N/A 77

-4.6% 3.3% -7.3% 190.9% 105.5% N/A 71.3%

-2,192 -3,604 254 45 716 N/A 994

-8.7% -41.3% 1.6% 26.3% 291.1% N/A 266.5%

District 1 22,937 21,294 959 246 146 292 328 940 -2,901 2,426 145 842 N/A 1,176

District 2 22,035 13,480 7,038 899 216 402 393 4.6% -39.3% 19.0% 64.4% 489.5% N/A 490.0%

District 3 21,136 5,344 15,292 94 136 270 207 -5,266 -12,284 986 841 2,308 N/A 3,176District 4 22,394 15,231 6,166 357 353 287 443 -2.6% -14.0% 0.9% 47.1% 206.3% N/A 167.3%

District 5 21,959 6,829 14,123 270 356 381 483

District 6 21,716 1,278 19,994 112 131 201 252

District 7 21,226 2,683 18,141 64 113 225 185

District 8 22,885 5,115 16,195 216 962 397 1,367

District 9 21,502 4,490 15,200 370 1,014 428 1,416

City Total 197,790 75,744 113,108 2,628 3,427 2,883 5,074

Asian/ Pacific

Islander Alone1

Other Race

Alone2

Two or More

Races3

City Council District

Total Population White

Alone

African-American

Alone

City Council District

Total Population

Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

3"Two or more races" was not a reporting option for the 1990 Census, although please note that change in total population reported in the table reflects the addition of this category.

District 5

District 1

District 2

District 3

City Total

Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

1990

2000

Race

Other Race

Alone2

White Alone

African-American

Alone

Asian/ Pacific

Islander Alone1

Other Race

Alone2

Two or More

Races3

District 4

1990 to 2000 Change in Population and Race by City Council DistrictAppendix A

Total Population

Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

Race

White Alone

African-American

Alone

Asian/ Pacific

Islander Alone1

City Council District

Gain/LossPercent Change

2The 1990 figures include responses categorized under: "Other race" and "American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut." The 2000 figures include responses categorized under: "Some other race" and "American Indian and Alaska Native."

1Asian and Pacific Islander was a combined category for 1990 Census reporting. These race types were reported separately in the 2000 Census, but the categories were merged in this report for comparison purposes.

District 6

District 7

District 8

District 9

Two or More

Races3

13

1 136 -135 -86 222

0.0% 1.3% -24.6% -1.3% 5.4%

-28 86 -114 154 -68

-0.2% 0.8% -9.0% 5.8% -0.9%

-364 -286 -78 -142 -144

-3.5% -3.0% -9.1% -3.0% -3.1%

-1 220 -221 349 -129

0.0% 2.0% -30.2% 5.5% -2.9%

40 141 -101 -26 167

0.4% 1.5% -9.7% -0.6% 3.3%

-434 -655 221 -371 -284

-5.1% -8.6% 25.3% -12.8% -6.0%

61 269 -208 -170 439

0.6% 3.2% -12.8% -4.7% 9.2%

-1,238 -991 -247 -367 -624

-11.4% -10.1% -23.1% -7.1% -13.5%

104 292 -188 152 140

1.1% 3.3% -23.8% 4.9% 2.5%

-1,859 -788 -1,071 -507 -281

-2.0% -0.9% -12.2% -1.3% -0.6%

Appendix B

City Council District

1990 2000Percent Change

1990 to 2000 Change in Housing Units by City Council District

Total Housing

Units

Occupied Housing

Units

Owner Occupied Housing

Units

Total Housing

Units

92,282 84,549 7,733 39,00885,337 8,804 39,515 45,822

District 1 11,172

City Total 94,141

District 5 10,409

District 9 9,512

District 2 11,659

Occupied Housing

Units

Vacant Housing

Units

Owner Occupied Housing

Units

Renter Occupied Housing

Units

Gain/Loss

10,624 548 6,501 4,123 11,173 10,760 413 6,415 4,345

10,391 1,268 2,672 7,719 11,631 10,477 1,154 2,826 7,651

District 3 10,287 9,429 858 4,715 4,714 9,923 9,143 780 4,573 4,570

District 4 11,631 10,898 733 6,399 4,499 11,630 11,118 512 6,748 4,370

9,365 1,044 4,377 4,988 10,449 9,506 943 4,351 5,155

District 6 8,527 7,654 873 2,890 4,764 8,093 6,999 1,094 2,519 4,480

District 7 10,040 8,417 1,623 3,647 4,770 10,101 8,686 1,415 3,477 5,209

District 8 10,904 9,837 1,067 5,203 4,634 9,666 8,846 4,836 4,010

9,014 602 3,263 5,7518,722 790 3,111 5,611

45,541

Vacant Housing

Units

Renter Occupied Housing

Units

Total Housing

Units

Occupied Housing

Units

Vacant Housing

Units

Owner Occupied Housing

Units

Renter Occupied Housing

Units

9,616

820

14

10,760 10,477 9,143 11,118 9,506 6,999 8,686 8,846 9,014 84,549

4,525 3,098 4,885 5,781 4,592 4,532 5,008 5,739 5,489 43,649

3,784 1,753 2,513 4,367 2,151 1,368 1,650 2,761 2,551 22,898

1,372 530 956 1,418 856 665 679 1,233 1,295 9,004

741 1,345 2,372 1,414 2,441 3,164 3,358 2,978 2,938 20,751

175 238 426 296 432 414 452 585 464 3,482

with related children under 18 52 86 202 132 207 213 218 333 268 1,711

566 1,107 1,946 1,118 2,009 2,750 2,906 2,393 2,474 17,269

with related children under 18 262 796 1,217 661 1,331 2,158 2,133 1,746 1,945 12,249

6,235 7,379 4,258 5,337 4,914 2,467 3,678 3,107 3,525 40,900

1,413 2,265 697 906 1,273 458 710 661 694 9,077

4,822 5,114 3,561 4,431 3,641 2,009 2,968 2,446 2,831 31,823

1,171 1,039 1,284 1,527 1,045 637 1,007 728 813 9,251

1.88 1.85 2.19 1.98 2.19 2.71 2.41 2.57 2.39 2.21

2.67 2.75 2.92 2.65 2.97 3.33 3.10 3.10 2.97 2.95

42.1% 29.6% 53.4% 52.0% 48.3% 64.8% 57.7% 64.9% 60.9% 51.6%

35.2% 16.7% 27.5% 39.3% 22.6% 19.5% 19.0% 31.2% 28.3% 27.1%

12.8% 5.1% 10.5% 12.8% 9.0% 9.5% 7.8% 13.9% 14.4% 10.6%

6.9% 12.8% 25.9% 12.7% 25.7% 45.2% 38.7% 33.7% 32.6% 24.5%

1.6% 2.3% 4.7% 2.7% 4.5% 5.9% 5.2% 6.6% 5.1% 4.1%

with related children under 18 0.5% 0.8% 2.2% 1.2% 2.2% 3.0% 2.5% 3.8% 3.0% 2.0%

5.3% 10.6% 21.3% 10.1% 21.1% 39.3% 33.5% 27.1% 27.4% 20.4%

with related children under 18 2.4% 7.6% 13.3% 5.9% 14.0% 30.8% 24.6% 19.7% 21.6% 14.5%

57.9% 70.4% 46.6% 48.0% 51.7% 35.2% 42.3% 35.1% 39.1% 48.4%

13.1% 21.6% 7.6% 8.1% 13.4% 6.5% 8.2% 7.5% 7.7% 10.7%

44.8% 48.8% 38.9% 39.9% 38.3% 28.7% 34.2% 27.7% 31.4% 37.6%

10.9% 9.9% 14.0% 13.7% 11.0% 9.1% 11.6% 8.2% 9.0% 10.9%

City Council District

Non-Family Households

Married Couples

with related children under 18

Other Families

Other Families

Total Householders 65+ Living Alone

Average Household Size

Average Family Size

Family Households

Married Couples

with related children under 18

District 9

District 8

District 9

2000 Total Households

District 7

District 4

Male Householder, No Spouse Present

Female Householder, No Spouse Present

District 8

District 2

District 3

District 1

District 5

District 6

City Total

City Total

Family Households

2 or more persons

Total Householders 65+ Living Alone

District 6

District 7

Non-Family Households

Female Householder, No Spouse Present

Male Householder, No Spouse Present

Appendix C - Households and Families by City Council District

One person

2 or more persons

One person

Percent of 2000 Total Households District 1

District 2

District 3

District 4

District 5

15