INDIANAPOLIS REGION - University of Minnesota Law School · INDIANAPOLIS REGION . Gentrification is...

INDIANAPOLIS REGION

Gentrification is effectively nonexistent in the Indianapolis metropolitan area, while the region – and especially the city of Indianapolis itself – suffers from widespread and ongoing poverty concentration and neighborhood abandonment.

About 57 percent of Indianapolis city residents live in strongly declining neighborhoods, as do about 72 percent of low-income residents. While the overall population of these areas has fallen modestly since 2000 – about 4 percent – the low-income population has grown over 50 percent. These changes have been accompanied by racial change, as the black and Hispanic population of those neighborhoods has grown by 49,000, and the white population has dropped by nearly 80,000, indicating significant white flight. In suburban Indianapolis, about a quarter of population, and four out of ten low-income residents, live in a strongly declining area.

In the central city, poverty concentration coincide with outright neighborhood abandonment, in a series of districts encircling downtown. These locations include Fountain Square, Englewood, Woodruff Place, Highland, and Crown Hill.

Regional Total Population: 1,968,768

Regional Low-Income Population: 614,068

Regional Nonwhite Population: 516,365

Central City Population: 832,476

Central City Low-Income Population: 345,518

Central City Nonwhite Population: 357,133

NET DISPLACEMENT (Low-Income Change in Tracts with Strong Expansion, 2000-2016)

Central City: -1,250

Suburbs: -159

NET CONCENTRATION (Low-Income Change in Tracts with Strong Decline, 2000-2016)

Central City: 83,876

Suburbs: 39,832

1

DETAILS ON TABLES

The following tables depict aggregated population and housing change in two categories of neighborhoods across the metropolitan area, its central cities, and its suburbs. The categories are:

• Economically expanding neighborhoods, which are those experiencing the kind of population changes associated with growth and displacement. These are neighborhoods where the low-income* share of population has fallen since 2000 (indicating that an area has grown less poor overall) and the absolute number of non-low-income residents has grown since 2000 (indicating that middle-income residents see the area as an attractive place to live).

• Economically declining neighborhoods, which are those experiencing the kind of population changes associated with abandonment and poverty concentration. These are neighborhoods where the low-income share of population has grown since 2000 (indicating that an area has more less poor overall) and the absolute number of non-low-income residents has fallen since 2000 (indicating that middle-income residents do not see the area as an attractive place to live).

Two variants of this measure exist, and a separate table is provided for each. They are:

• In the upper set of tables, a strong, narrow measure, which only includes census tracts that have a change of +/-5 percent or greater in low-income population share, and a change of +/-10 percent for non-low-income population. This approach classifies fewer neighborhoods overall, excluding areas with only small changes in their income profile. This is the more robust and preferred measure. It is also the measure used in the accompanying maps.

• In the lower set of tables, a weak, broad measure, which includes all census tracts with any change that meet the criteria for the two categories above, with no cutoffs for scale. This approach classifies more neighborhoods overall, but is noisier, because it includes tracts with very small population changes. In addition, because this report relies on American Community Survey sampling data with margins of error, this measure is more likely to include erroneously classified tracts. However, this broad measure can provide a useful outer estimate of the scale of neighborhood economic expansion and decline.

Three sets of tables are provided. They are:

• Figures for the entire metropolitan region, aggregating central cities and suburbs into one set of tables. • Figures for central cities. • Figures for suburban areas, defined as any area in the metropolitan region not included in a central city.

This includes incorporated and unincorporated communities.

Each table depicts the number of people in each of the two neighborhood categories, both overall and in various population subsets. It also shows the number of housing units of various types in each neighborhood category.

• 2016 Share indicates what share of the regional, city, or suburban population of a given group live in expanding or declining tracts. The box is shaded in accordance with the size of the share.

• 2016 Total indicates the absolute number of individuals in a given group that live in expanding or declining census tracts.

• Net Change since 2000 indicates the change of population of a subgroup in expanding or declining tracts since 2000, both in percentage and in absolute terms. These have been colored to indicate the type of change. In economically expanding tracts, green indicates net growth while blue indicates net displacement. In economically declining tracts, red indicates net poverty concentration while purple indicates net abandonment. Darker shades indicate larger percentage changes.

* For the purposes of this report, “low-income” is classified as individuals at 200 percent of poverty line or less.

2

DETAILS ON MAPS

Neighborhood change has also been mapped by individual census tracts, incorporating the same data used to create the tables above.

The map incorporates the strong measure of neighborhood change used to create the tables. In the maps, tracts have been subdivided into four categories:

• Economically expanding areas with low-income displacement, indicated in blue, where a neighborhood’s income profile is improving while low-income population declines on net. These are typically places undergoing changes traditionally associated with gentrification, in which economic pressures push out lower incomes while higher income residents arrive.

• Economically expanding areas with overall growth, indicated in green, where a neighborhood’s income profile is improving while low-income population increases on net. These are typically places with significant new housing construction, where residents across the income spectrum are arriving.

• Economically declining areas with abandonment, indicated in purple, where a neighborhood’s income profile is worsening while low-income population declines on net. These are typically places experiencing the worst neighborhood economic decline, with people across the income spectrum leaving and outright depopulation occurring.

• Economically declining areas with poverty concentration, indicated in red, where a neighborhood’s income profile is worsening while low-income population increases on net. These are typically places where higher-income flight and eroding housing stocks are causing rapid demographic and economic transition, contributing to the impoverishment of the area.

The categories are also shaded to indicate the scale of low-income population change within the census tracts.

The maps allow intra-regional comparisons of observed neighborhood change. However, because these classifications have been made using American Community Survey data with margins of error, precise measures are not possible and it is likely that some individual tracts are erroneously classified. As a consequence, readers are advised to focus more on clusters of tracts undergoing similar changes rather than individual outliers, particularly outliers with smaller-scale changes.

3

1.7% 33,378 33.7% +8,406 38.2% 751,257 -4.7% -37,0070.9% 5,369 -20.8% -1,409 58.7% 360,310 52.3% +123,7081.0% 2,629 -11.7% -347 64.2% 175,198 90.3% +83,1581.0% 1,194 -24.2% -381 64.1% 79,405 87.7% +37,0950.3% 10 -72.2% -26 47.2% 1,661 -26.6% -6021.1% 601 362.3% +471 28.0% 14,826 82.0% +6,6811.5% 4,458 -23.1% -1,339 65.4% 189,640 10.2% +17,5570.8% 1,063 135.2% +611 59.8% 74,913 172.4% +47,4101.8% 26,274 44.9% +8,143 31.1% 451,484 -20.2% -114,1902.7% 11,273 120.7% +6,166 23.6% 98,384 5.8% +5,3621.3% 11,629 0.5% +59 44.6% 391,991 -4.7% -19,1451.6% 3,980 23.5% +758 36.2% 89,110 -18.9% -20,8280.7% 272 -33.7% -138 66.2% 26,821 74.4% +11,4401.8% 3,708 31.9% +896 30.3% 62,289 -34.1% -32,2680.7% 174 -41.0% -121 67.4% 17,274 62.3% +6,6291.5% 7,229 14.5% +916 38.0% 188,648 -8.6% -17,8211.8% 8,329 51.9% +2,847 40.3% 183,186 -7.7% -15,2431.9% 14,488 40.9% +4,204 36.5% 282,382 -1.6% -4,4671.4% 3,332 15.2% +439 39.9% 97,041 0.5% +4801.7% 32,115 31.5% +7,697 37.5% 691,688 -8.8% -66,6331.0% 1,263 128.0% +709 47.4% 59,569 98.9% +29,6221.7% 8,480 47.4% +2,726 32.2% 155,928 -18.8% -35,9851.5% 3,951 36.7% +1,060 52.7% 139,603 9.9% +12,6292.1% 1,785 50.5% +599 59.8% 51,982 63.2% +20,121

9.3% 182,754 49.2% +60,295 50.2% 988,964 -2.8% -28,2883.6% 21,881 11.7% +2,293 68.3% 419,420 53.0% +145,3123.5% 9,640 26.3% +2,006 72.1% 196,815 88.3% +92,2833.9% 4,803 18.0% +731 72.0% 89,250 85.4% +41,0984.3% 150 -37.5% -90 56.4% 1,986 -29.7% -838

13.2% 7,009 373.6% +5,529 37.0% 19,593 83.9% +8,9393.3% 9,531 -3.0% -298 74.2% 215,196 13.6% +25,6903.4% 4,227 177.4% +2,703 67.3% 84,305 167.7% +52,807

10.8% 156,930 46.0% +49,424 44.4% 644,567 -16.0% -122,50213.8% 57,487 134.3% +32,948 37.0% 154,213 10.7% +14,9407.1% 62,382 13.8% +7,578 56.8% 499,337 -3.3% -16,8299.9% 24,471 44.8% +7,575 46.7% 115,171 -18.4% -25,9132.4% 982 0.1% +1 73.3% 29,689 73.9% +12,617

11.4% 23,489 47.6% +7,574 41.5% 85,482 -31.1% -38,5302.2% 560 -12.2% -78 73.9% 18,930 61.9% +7,2379.5% 47,306 43.6% +14,357 48.2% 239,539 -9.3% -24,4538.6% 39,128 44.3% +12,010 52.8% 239,933 -4.5% -11,393

10.0% 77,330 50.7% +26,018 48.7% 377,287 -0.4% -1,4827.8% 18,990 77.6% +8,297 54.3% 132,205 7.2% +8,8589.4% 173,226 45.2% +53,899 49.8% 918,633 -6.3% -62,0137.6% 9,528 205.0% +6,404 55.9% 70,331 92.1% +33,720

10.4% 50,641 53.6% +17,664 45.7% 221,776 -14.2% -36,7525.2% 13,789 62.3% +5,291 63.0% 166,804 11.1% +16,6436.0% 5,218 82.8% +2,363 69.6% 60,574 62.3% +23,253

*The figures in the lower set of tables may include many neighborhoods with very sl ight demographic changes, and are especially sensitive to sampling error. These tables are best understood as depicting an aggressive outer estimate of population shifts, as compared to the estimates in the upper set of tables, which are more robustly observed.

Data: U.S. Census.

Owner Units Owner UnitsRenter Units Renter UnitsVacant Units Vacant Units

Seniors (65 and up) Seniors (65 and up)U.S.-Born U.S.-Born

Foreign-Born Foreign-Born

Children (Under 18) Children (Under 18)Young Adults (18-34) Young Adults (18-34)

Adults (35 to 64) Adults (35 to 64)

Families in Poverty Families in PovertyNon-Poor Families Non-Poor Families

Single Mothers Single Mothers

College-Educated College-EducatedNon-College Non-College

Families Families

Black BlackHispanic Hispanic

White White

Extreme Poverty Extreme PovertyAmerican Indian American Indian

Asian Asian

TOTAL TOTALLow-Income Low-Income

Poverty Poverty

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods with Any Indicators of Economic Expansion*

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods with Any Indicators of Economic Decline*

(Indianapolis Metro) (Indianapolis Metro)

2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000 2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000









Families Families


White White


Asian Asian


Poverty Poverty


TABLES FOR METROPOLITAN AREA - Indianapolis Region

ECONOMICALLY EXPANDING NEIGHBORHOODS ECONOMICALLY DECLINING NEIGHBORHOODS

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods Experiencing Strong Economic Expansion

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods Experiencing Strong Economic Decline

(Indianapolis Metro) (Indianapolis Metro)

4

1.2% 9,820 5.3% +494 57.3% 477,355 -4.3% -21,3430.9% 3,132 -28.5% -1,250 72.7% 251,151 50.1% +83,8761.1% 1,819 -24.1% -577 75.6% 126,480 84.3% +57,8581.1% 894 -32.7% -435 74.5% 58,097 77.8% +25,4170.5% 10 -72.2% -26 52.7% 992 -39.4% -6450.5% 116 123.1% +64 52.3% 12,282 109.6% +6,4231.7% 3,814 -34.1% -1,972 74.2% 168,797 7.9% +12,3970.6% 477 51.9% +163 73.0% 59,281 160.8% +36,5541.1% 5,081 75.1% +2,180 46.8% 222,685 -26.4% -79,9101.7% 2,671 292.8% +1,991 39.4% 62,760 4.8% +2,8751.2% 4,636 -18.0% -1,017 63.2% 243,095 -4.2% -10,6920.6% 597 -26.8% -219 59.2% 56,033 -19.9% -13,8920.8% 184 -44.4% -147 79.6% 18,979 60.5% +7,1540.6% 413 -14.8% -72 52.4% 37,054 -36.2% -21,0460.8% 125 -45.2% -103 79.1% 12,385 45.3% +3,8610.6% 1,241 -32.9% -608 60.7% 124,594 -6.5% -8,5931.8% 4,005 33.9% +1,014 55.3% 121,914 -6.8% -8,8741.3% 4,013 14.0% +494 56.6% 176,902 -0.4% -6720.6% 561 -42.0% -406 57.5% 53,945 -5.4% -3,0701.2% 9,364 3.2% +291 56.5% 429,586 -9.5% -45,2650.6% 456 80.2% +203 66.2% 47,769 100.3% +23,9230.9% 1,554 23.9% +300 50.1% 87,281 -22.5% -25,3491.3% 1,908 8.3% +147 64.6% 98,281 9.3% +8,3802.3% 1,174 23.2% +221 72.4% 36,358 61.3% +13,818

2.3% 18,809 5.9% +1,044 70.7% 588,464 -2.4% -14,5931.5% 5,103 -10.8% -619 80.9% 279,572 53.1% +96,9792.0% 3,418 8.2% +258 82.2% 137,525 84.0% +62,7802.8% 2,180 24.6% +431 81.7% 63,759 77.9% +27,9220.5% 10 -86.1% -62 64.1% 1,208 -34.8% -6443.2% 753 195.3% +498 65.0% 15,261 108.0% +7,9252.0% 4,543 -41.6% -3,240 84.1% 191,451 11.0% +18,9271.0% 831 59.2% +309 80.3% 65,218 158.7% +40,0122.5% 12,073 38.9% +3,384 62.9% 299,093 -22.3% -85,7594.6% 7,312 104.9% +3,743 61.1% 97,374 8.9% +7,9291.6% 6,213 -29.4% -2,585 73.8% 283,965 -3.2% -9,4711.2% 1,124 -11.0% -139 71.4% 67,530 -19.1% -15,9010.8% 198 -47.5% -179 85.1% 20,295 60.6% +7,6571.3% 926 4.5% +40 66.7% 47,235 -33.3% -23,5580.9% 139 -47.9% -128 84.6% 13,243 45.5% +4,1401.0% 2,084 -20.9% -549 71.7% 147,344 -6.7% -10,6304.1% 8,982 28.4% +1,989 69.4% 153,108 -2.7% -4,3102.1% 6,650 1.8% +118 70.0% 218,979 0.1% +2931.2% 1,093 -32.0% -514 73.6% 69,033 0.4% +2792.3% 17,494 2.3% +395 70.1% 533,208 -7.2% -41,5891.8% 1,315 97.4% +649 76.6% 55,256 95.5% +26,9991.7% 2,932 11.7% +306 67.1% 116,873 -18.1% -25,8973.3% 5,019 32.4% +1,228 74.4% 113,201 9.9% +10,1553.1% 1,540 21.0% +267 81.7% 41,009 61.3% +15,579


Data: U.S. Census.









Families Families


White White


Asian Asian


Poverty Poverty



(Indianapolis) (Indianapolis)










Families Families


White White


Asian Asian


Poverty Poverty


TABLES FOR CENTRAL CITY ONLY - Indianapolis




(Indianapolis) (Indianapolis)

5

2.1% 23,558 50.6% +7,912 24.1% 273,902 -5.4% -15,6640.8% 2,237 -6.6% -159 40.6% 109,159 57.5% +39,8320.8% 810 39.7% +230 46.1% 48,718 108.0% +25,3000.7% 300 22.0% +54 46.4% 21,308 121.3% +11,6780.0% 0 0.0% 0 40.9% 669 6.9% +431.6% 485 521.8% +407 8.6% 2,544 11.3% +2581.0% 644 5754.5% +633 33.4% 20,843 32.9% +5,1601.3% 586 324.6% +448 35.4% 15,632 227.3% +10,8562.2% 21,193 39.2% +5,963 23.4% 228,799 -13.0% -34,2803.3% 8,602 94.3% +4,175 13.8% 35,624 7.5% +2,4871.4% 6,993 18.2% +1,076 30.1% 148,896 -5.4% -8,4532.2% 3,383 40.6% +977 21.8% 33,077 -17.3% -6,9360.5% 88 11.4% +9 47.0% 7,842 120.5% +4,2862.4% 3,295 41.6% +968 18.7% 25,235 -30.8% -11,2220.5% 49 -26.9% -18 49.0% 4,889 130.5% +2,7682.1% 5,988 34.1% +1,524 22.0% 64,054 -12.6% -9,2281.8% 4,324 73.6% +1,833 26.2% 61,272 -9.4% -6,3692.3% 10,475 54.8% +3,710 22.9% 105,480 -3.5% -3,7951.9% 2,771 43.9% +845 28.8% 43,096 9.0% +3,5502.1% 22,751 48.3% +7,406 24.2% 262,102 -7.5% -21,3681.5% 807 168.1% +506 22.0% 11,800 93.4% +5,6992.2% 6,926 53.9% +2,426 22.1% 68,647 -13.4% -10,6361.8% 2,043 80.8% +913 36.7% 41,322 11.5% +4,2491.7% 611 162.2% +378 42.5% 15,624 67.6% +6,303

14.4% 163,945 56.6% +59,251 35.2% 400,500 -3.3% -13,6956.2% 16,778 21.0% +2,912 52.1% 139,848 52.8% +48,3335.9% 6,222 39.1% +1,748 56.1% 59,290 99.0% +29,5035.7% 2,623 12.9% +300 55.6% 25,491 107.0% +13,1768.6% 140 -16.7% -28 47.6% 778 -20.0% -194

21.2% 6,256 410.7% +5,031 14.7% 4,332 30.6% +1,0148.0% 4,988 143.8% +2,942 38.0% 23,745 39.8% +6,7637.7% 3,396 238.9% +2,394 43.3% 19,087 203.4% +12,795

14.8% 144,857 46.6% +46,040 35.4% 345,474 -9.6% -36,74319.5% 50,175 139.3% +29,205 22.0% 56,839 14.1% +7,01111.4% 56,169 22.1% +10,163 43.6% 215,372 -3.3% -7,35815.4% 23,347 49.3% +7,714 31.4% 47,641 -17.4% -10,0124.7% 784 29.8% +180 56.3% 9,394 111.9% +4,960

16.7% 22,563 50.1% +7,534 28.3% 38,247 -28.1% -14,9724.2% 421 13.5% +50 57.0% 5,687 119.6% +3,097

15.5% 45,222 49.2% +14,906 31.6% 92,195 -13.0% -13,82312.9% 30,146 49.8% +10,021 37.1% 86,825 -7.5% -7,08315.3% 70,680 57.8% +25,900 34.3% 158,308 -1.1% -1,77512.0% 17,897 97.0% +8,811 42.2% 63,172 15.7% +8,57914.4% 155,732 52.3% +53,504 35.6% 385,425 -5.0% -20,42415.3% 8,213 234.1% +5,755 28.1% 15,075 80.5% +6,72115.4% 47,709 57.2% +17,358 33.8% 104,903 -9.4% -10,8557.8% 8,770 86.3% +4,063 47.5% 53,603 13.8% +6,488

10.0% 3,678 132.5% +2,096 53.2% 19,565 64.5% +7,674


Data: U.S. Census.









Families Families


White White


Asian Asian


Poverty Poverty



(Indianapolis Suburbs) (Indianapolis Suburbs)










Families Families


White White


Asian Asian

TABLES FOR REGIONAL SUBURBS - Indianapolis Region


Poverty Poverty





(Indianapolis Suburbs) (Indianapolis Suburbs)

6

465

865

65

BOONE

SHELBYMARION

MADISON

MORGAN

HAMILTON

HENDRICKS

JOHNSON

HANCOCK

65

74

69

70

465

36

31 37

36

74

653137

70

Indianapolis

Center (t)

Carmel

Adams (t) Jackson (t)

Liberty (t)

Fishers

Marion (t)

Center (t)

Moral (t)

Clark (t)

White River (t)

Noblesville

Wayne (t)

Avon

Clinton (t)

Middle (t)

White River (t)

WestfieldUnion (t)

Jackson (t)

Monroe (t)

Plainfield

Buck Creek (t)

Madison (t)

Brown (t)

Sugar Creek (t)

Vernon (t)Lawrence

VanBuren (t)

Greenwood

Perry (t)

Stony Creek (t)

Washington (t)

Worth (t)

Brandy-wine (t)

Brown (t)

Sugar Creek (t)

Guilford (t)

Brandywine (t)

Greenfield

Lebanon

Green (t)

Clay (t)

Zionsville

Eagle (t)

BrownsburgLincoln (t)

Noblesville (t)

Washington (t)

Pleasant (t)

Speedway

Whitestown

Beech Grove

Cicero

Whiteland

Mooresville

Fortville

McCordsville

Fall Creek (t)

Sheridan

Ingalls

Lapel

Monrovia

Bargersville

Pittsboro

Cumberland

Meridian Hills

NewWhiteland

Clermont

New Palestine

Delaware (t)

Southport

Crows Nest

Warren Park

Rocky Ripple

Homecroft

Williams Creek

Fairland

Wynnedale

Ulen

Spring Lake

Spring Hill

North Crows Nest

INDIANAPOLIS (CENTRAL) REGION:Gentrification and Economic Decline by Census Tractwith Net Change in Low Income Population, 2000-2016

Data Sources: Geolytics, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 SF3; U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey (5-year data).

MADISON 69

Anderson

Lafayette (t) Richland (t)

Union(t)

Chester-field

CountryClub

Heights

WoodlawnHeights

Miles0 3

Abandonment:(0)< -700 Low Income

Economic Decline:

(24)-1 to -699 Low IncomeLow Income Concentration:

(110)1 to 699 Low Income(68)> 700 Low Income

Low Income Displacement:(0)< -700 Low Income

Economic Expansion:

(6)-1 to -699 Low IncomeOverall Growth:

(1)1 to 699 Low Income(0)> 700 Low Income

Economic expansion/decline is definedif a tract has a +/- 10% change in middle-high-income population and a -/+ 5%change in low-income population share, respectively.

7

INDIANAPOLIS REGION - University of Minnesota Law School · INDIANAPOLIS REGION . Gentrification is...

Documents

Transcript of INDIANAPOLIS REGION - University of Minnesota Law School · INDIANAPOLIS REGION . Gentrification is...