Hao Li_UBPL716--Final Project

UBPL 716 May 7, 2015
1
MEMO
From: Hao Li
To: Kirk McClure
Date: May 7, 2015
RE: Memo of Lawrence Community Development and Revitalization of Neighborhoods
The Housing Market of Lawrence KS is overall stable and soft. However, as time goes, this
little city appears some deteriorating neighborhoods that needs revitalization idea in order to
get back on track. Neighborhoods’ health condition can be measured by using census data,
mathematical analysis. The result is central of Lawrence has the suffering the unhealthy
neighborhoods. Oread neighborhood, Old west Lawrence & Hillcrest neighborhoods, and
University Place neighborhood are three most at risk areas that need help in revitalization.
Further, tracts in Mid-Lawrence are more vulnerable and declining, when compare to West
and East of Lawrence. Therefore, policy recommendations are provided to the unhealthy
neighborhoods in central in order to guide Lawrence development, and revitalize the
unhealthy neighborhoods back to healthy and stable stage.
Introduction
This memorandum is designed to understand Lawrence neighborhoods and communities’
health status by using statistical data, mathematical analysis, and GIS maps over time from
2000 to 2013. It is to examine current situation of Lawrence community development and
neighborhood revitalization, to track down the dynamic impacts of 2008 Housing bubble, and
diagnose Lawrence neighborhood healthy condition. Further, based on the findings, this
memorandum will provide recommendations and theories on guiding community
development and urban revitalization.

UBPL 716 May 7, 2015
2
Methodology
This Memorandum can be split into two parts. Firstly is to analyze socioeconomic
Matrices/Variables that can reflect census tracts health condition, and to provide tables and
maps.
Secondly is to find out the potential and existing at risk census tracts by using variables
Z-scores summation to generate a general index and give out recommendations to improve or
revitalize these unhealthy tracts.
This report calculated data of census tracts within whole Douglas County, but it will
mainly focus on Lawrence City. Douglas County census tracts were divided into two subsets
which are Lawrence City and Rest of Douglas County. Among Lawrence City, using Kasold
Street and Massachusetts Street as feature network boundaries, Lawrence was divided into
three special districts which are West-Lawrence, Mid-Lawrence, and East-Lawrence (Table 1
& Map 1). Special notion is that the census tract—4.00 is the University of Kansas, within
which residents are mainly low-income student renters. Therefore, this KU census tract will
not be included in calculation in order to increase accuracy of Lawrence statues.
Table 1. Douglas County Spatial Division –Census Tracts
West-Lawrence Mid-Lawrence East-Lawrence Rest of Douglas CO
6.03 3.00 1.00 12.01
7.97 5.01 2.00 12.02
8.01 5.02 10.01 12.03
6.00 6.04 10.02 14.00
7.02 15.00
8.02
9.01
9.02
Census Tract 4.00—the University of Kansas census tract is excluded.
Socioeconomic data includes 2000 decennial census, 2009 and 2013 5-year American
Community Survey in census tract level in order the measure the detailed dynamic changing
over time span in each small tract.

UBPL 716 May 7, 2015
3
Map 1. Lawrence Spatial Division Map 2. Households Change from 2000 to 2013
Matrixes Analysis
1. Residents and Households Population
From 2000 to 2013, the trends of resident population and household movement, generally
concluding is that population and households were moving out from the central Lawrence
into West and East Lawrence where new constructed Housing units locate. Father, the
West-Lawrence statistically significant gained population and household during this 14 years
period, when comparing with Mid and East of Lawrence. Mid-Lawrence are losing its
population and household number, especially in the recovery period after house bubble, and it
lost over two and a half thousands of resident population and a thousand households from
2009 to 2013. The main losing population areas are Oread neighborhood, University Place
neighborhood, and census tract 8.02 which locates in the south of the University of Kansas
(Map 2).

UBPL 716 May 7, 2015
4
Table 2. Population and Household in Lawrence, Kansas
Year Number Change
2000 2009 2013 2000-2009 2009-2013 2000-2013
Population 74,569 84,454 84,685 9,885 231 10,116
West-Lawrence 16,493 23,067 25,947 6,574 2,880 *9,454
Mid-Lawrence 40,991 43,694 41,141 2,703 -2,553 150
East-Lawrence 17,085 17,693 17,597 608 -96 512
0
Households 30721 34433 34,395 3,712 -38 3,674
West-Lawrence 6,608 9,373 10,327 2,765 954 *3,719
Mid-Lawrence 17298 17932 16850 634 -1,082 -448
East-Lawrence 6815 7128 7218 313 90 403
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Source: U.S Census Bureau: 2000 Census,2009 and 2013 5-year-American Community Survey
2. Tenure
From 2000 to 2013, comprehensively summarizing, Lawrence has a share of 52.7% to
59.2% of households do not own homes and are renters, which is higher than national
distribution of households by tenure. Looking into spatial division, West and East
Lawrence both have renter percentage rates around forty percentages, while
Mid-Lawrence has a higher renter percentage 64.5% in 2013 which indicates the large
share of residents are renters in Mid-Lawrence. In addition, the renter percentage of three
spatial divisions did not change obviously and just increase a little from 2000 to 2013.
The census tracts where concentrate more than 60 percent of renters are Oread
neighborhood, University Place neighborhood, Old west Lawrence & Hillcrest
neighborhood, census tract 7.02 locates in north of the University of Kansas, and census
tract 8.01 in South-West corner of Lawrence (Map 3).

UBPL 716 May 7, 2015
5
Table 3. Renter Tenure
Year Number Change
2000 2009 2013 2000-2009 2009-2013 2000-2013
Lawrence Renterhouseholds 16,197 17,794 18,361
Percentage 52.7% 51.7% 59.2% -1.0% 7.6% 6.5%
West-Lawrence 2,756 3,683 4,460
RenterPercentage 41.7% 39.3% 43.2% -2.4% 3.9% 1.5%
Mid-Lawrence 10,619 11,366 10,866
RenterPercentage 61.4% 63.4% 64.5% 2.0% 1.1% 3.1%
East-Lawrence 2,822 2,745 3,035
RenterPercentage 41.4% 38.5% 42.0% -2.9% 3.5% 0.6%
Map 3. Percentage of Renter 2013 Map 4. Percentage of Poverty 2013
3. Poverty
In 2000, 2009, and 2013, Lawrence has an average poverty rates of 18%, 25%, and 19%,
which shows that the poverty increased to 25% because of the impact of 2008 housing bubble,
but recovered and backed to the 19 % like before. However, the poverty rate in central

UBPL 716 May 7, 2015
6
Lawrence is statically significant higher than the West and East in 2013, which suggests that
Mid-Lawrence, especially within Oread neighborhood and University place neighborhood,
concentrated large number of the poor population. As Galster 2005 threshold theory, sixty
percent of poverty concentration will bring a substantial negative impact to these
neighborhoods, and the damages were done and hardly can be converted. Further, during the
housing bubble thriving and breaking period from 2000 to 2009, the Mid-Lawrence has
obvious 12 percentage point increased poverty rate.
Table 4. Poverty Status
Year Number Change
2000 2009 2013 2000-2009 2009-2013 2000-2013
Lawrence Total Poverty 18% 25% 19% 7% -6% 1%
West-Lawrence 11% 14% 9% 4% -6% -2%
Mid-Lawrence 23% 35% *29% 12% -6% 6%
East-Lawrence 12% 14% 12% 3% -3% 0%
4. Aggregate Income and Housing Value Ratio & Average Property Value
In 2013, the average aggregate income and property value ratio of Lawrence 2.15 which
pretty much parallels with the national ration 2.3, which represents that Lawrence Housing
Marking are generally affordable, and is not a hot market. The higher ratio census tracts
appeal in the north central of Lawrence. In 2009, housing bubble caused the ratio go up.
From 2009 to 2013, the ratio went down to 2.15 which increase about 22 percent from 2000.
During bubble thriving and breaking period (2000-2009), housing price raised notably
that Lawrence average value went up about 48 percent of the 2000 value. What’s more,
within Lawrence, West-Lawrence housing value is statistical significant higher than Mid and
East of Lawrence. West-Lawrence mainly locates new constructed large size housing stock,
with new infrastructures and well amenities in big lots, so that the price are higher than the
Mid and East old neighborhoods.

UBPL 716 May 7, 2015
7
Table 4. Aggregate Income & Value Ration and Average Value
Year Number Change
2000 2009 2013 2000-2009 2009-2013 2000-2013
Aggregate
Income&ValueRatio
West-Lawrence 1.94 2.40 2.18 24% -9% 15%
Mid-Lawrence 1.74 2.25 2.15 30% -5% 25%
East-Lawrence 1.70 2.28 2.14 34% -7% 28%
Average PropertyValue
West-Lawrence 185,970 262,403 *262,613 41% 0% 41%
Mid-Lawrence 118,561 179,333 172,492 51% -4% 47%
East-Lawrence 88,691 136,342 139,476 54% 2% 56%
5. Total Jobs and Low income Jobs
Total Jobs statistically significant locate in East Lawrence, especially in the northeast
corner. Although population and households’ movement pattern were going to west and east
where are the new housing stock, jobs did not follow the moving pattern and still stay in East
Lawrence. In addition, high percentages of low-income jobs locate in the center and North
West corner of Lawrence (Map).
Map 5. Percentage of Low-income Job 2013 Map 6. Vacancy Rate 2013

UBPL 716 May 7, 2015
8
6. Vacancy Rate
Using vacancy rate can exam the housing stock consumption situation and measure the
occupancy status in Lawrence. Overall speaking, Lawrence has average vacancy rate 2.7% in
renter and 1.2% in owner in 2013, which indicates that Lawrence has a tight housing market
and effective growth management. The vacancy map combined owner and renter into one
vacancy rate, and shows that in Universtiy place and census tract 8.02 have high vacant
occupied units. Specifically, University place has just 6.5% vacancy rate in rental side, and
tract 8.02 has 6.7% in rental and 7.7% in owner-occupied.
Index for measuring the general health condition in Lawrence Neighborhood
To gain an general index for reflect neighborhood health, it calculated the Z score of five
variables which are Poverty rate, Cost burden, Vacancy rate, Low-income jobs (under $1250)
rate, College graduate rate of each census tract of Lawrence, then summed up these Z scores
except College graduate rate which is subtracted because high Z score of graduation rate
represents positive thing. After summing up Z scores of five variables, this is the index to tell
the story of current Lawrence. Higher Z score indicates unhealthier the tract was, while low
score stands for healthy tract.
Categorizing and Identifying Stages (Downs 1981, Chapter 5)
Stage 1 (Health): With a negative Z score, it will be the healthy Tracts.
Stage 2 (minor declining): Tracts with Z score above zero but under 2 standard deviation are
minor decline.
Stage 3 (Vulnerable): Tracts with Z score above 2 standard deviation but under 4 standard
deviation are clearly and significantly declining.
Stage 4 (At risk): Tracts with Z score above 4 standard deviation are suffering heavily
deteriorating and declining.
Stage 5 (Distressed): Lawrence does not have stage 5 which is totally abandoned and never
come back (There is no tract has zero loan originated and 100 percent loan denial rate, which
mean there are activities in each tracts of Lawrence and no stage 5 abandon neighborhood).

UBPL 716 May 7, 2015
9
As summing up Z score, there are three stage 4 at risk tracts showed in Map 2013 in red, one
stage 3 vulnerable tract in orange, and three stage 2 slight declining tracts in yellow. The rest
of tracts are in stage 1 in healthy condition (Map 7).
Map 7. Lawrence Neighborhood Health

UBPL 716 May 7, 2015
10
Following are four census tracts with unhealthy neighborhood problem.
Oread Neighborhood— is a at risk stage 4 neighborhood within which there is high
percentage of renter and poverty population concentrated. Also, the housing burden is
notable here with high percentage of low-income jobs. Population and Households kept
moving out of this neighborhood since 2000. In conclusion, Oread neighborhood has a
extremely high index score above 9, and should be placed at the top priority of receiving
help and revitalization.
Old West Lawrence Neighborhood & Hillcrest Neighborhood—is a at risk stage 4
neighborhood has a 4.41 index score adjacent to Oread. Old west Lawrence has relatively
high aggregate income and value ratio of 2.59 in 2013, 2.89 in 2009, and high average
property price that is less affordable housing sub-market. Further, high percentage of
Low-income jobs within this neighborhood indicates income from these low-income jobs
may cause housing paying burdens. These two neighborhoods has about 4.3 percentage
vacancy rate on rental side.
University Place Neighborhood—is a at risk stage 4 neighborhood has a 4.62 index score.
This neighborhood has high 79 percentage renters and notable 30 percentage poverty,
with 6.5 percent rental vacancy rate. Population and household moved out this
neighborhood since 2000, and now majority of the housing units are leased to KU
students. Very few jobs exist in this neighborhood, moreover, about 56 percentage of
total jobs are low-income jobs.
Census Tract 8.02—is a vulnerable stage 3 tracts includes several neighborhoods with
3.78 index score. This tract over time was one of the most losing its resident population
and households area from 2000-2013. The most catching attention issue here is high
vacancy rate in both rental and owner-occupied sides, 6.7 percent in rental and 7.7
percent in owner-occupied. In addition, 51 percentage of jobs here are low-income jobs.
When looking into average value, except the one vulnerable tract 8.02, the rest of tracts
of Lawrence acted the same that average value increased from 2000 to 2009, but reduced
after the bubble burst (Chart). On renter concentration consideration, the most three at risk
tracts keep increasing the share of renters in their neighborhoods. Besides the at risk tracts,

UBPL 716 May 7, 2015
11
the vulnerable and minor declining tracts are still have about 50% share of renters in their
neighborhood. The healthy tracts reduced their renter proportion from 45% to 25% from 2009
to 2013.
Chart 1. Average Property Value Trend 2000, 2009, 2013
Chart 2. Renter Percentage Trend 2000, 2009, 2013
$133,632
$205,777
$199,478
$114,700
$154,472
$164,813
$182,235
$255,035
$240,798
$125,684
$187,828 $181,953
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
$200,000
$220,000
$240,000
$260,000
2000 2009 2013
Average PropertyValue 2000, 2009, 2013
At Risk Tracts
Vulnerable Tract
Minor Decling Tracts
Healthy Tracts
76.94%
80.01% 80.40%
47.83%
54.15%
50.29%
45.31%
48.61% 48.88%
41.39%
45.30%
24.47%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
2000 2009 2013
Renter Percentage 2000, 2009, 2013
At Risk Tracts
Vulnerable Tract
Minor Decling Tracts
Healthy Tracts

UBPL 716 May 7, 2015
12
Policy Recommendations
Implementing policy is for guiding community development and neighborhood
revitalization. The recommendations will give advises mainly focus on the neighborhood
existing problems which are poverty and renter concentration, notable vacancy rate,
insufficient employment, cost burden, population and household losing and other factors that
will make neighborhood unsustainable and decline in quick pace.
Goal
For Lawrence neighborhood health, the general goal is for keeping the healthy neighborhoods
thriving, maintaining the stable but with slight declining neighborhoods in good shape,
helping the vulnerable and at risk neighborhoods revitalize and returning them back to
healthier stage earlier before situation is getting worst and costly.
General Recommendations
Smart Growth Management—Lawrence has normal housing market which is different
from the hot markets as the big cities along the West and East coast. Thus, Lawrence
should have an effective growth management in order to lead neighborhood development
in conscious sense. Especially, Lawrence should not allow over build stock exceed the
true demand, and over built will only filter out the deteriorated units, increase vacant
units, and do harm to the average housing value. Further, Lawrence should be aware,
lead and control development happen, for example, should be control the new
development happened in west and east of Lawrence that results into attracting
population out of the central city and leaving central neighborhood behind deteriorating.
Poverty and Renter Deconcentration—As poverty and renter concentrated over some
threshold percentage, it will trigger severer negative impact to the neighborhood, because
of Poverty and it impact follows non-liner pattern (Galster 2005). Further, the starting
harming threshold is above 10-15% poverty, and upper threshold is about 40%. The
central Lawrence neighborhoods are most significant with a high poverty and renter rate
which will bring negative impact to neighborhood such as high crime rate, insufficient
public service. Moreover, high poverty and renter concentration in central Lawrence also

UBPL 716 May 7, 2015
13
bring burden and cost to government. Therefore, policies should consider on how to
deconcentrate poverty and renter population for them to seek better opportunity and
services.
Employment—Lawrence should consider the central and West Lawrence where are
lacking of employments (or good income employments). The main jobs locate in East of
Lawrence, which represent a uneven allocation of sources. Further, the transit system
does not cover the at risk neighborhood where locate the poor with high percentage
low-income jobs, so that the poor do not have good employment and also the
accessibility to good opportunity. Therefore, Lawrence should bring and encourage
employment into the at risk neighborhood, improve the transit system make the central
dose not leave behind.
Resources and Efforts—Lawrence should build up an efficient inspection standard, and
strong administrative mechanism, which can monitor end detect the problems or
deterioration in neighborhoods earlier and maintain the neighborhoods condition in
earlier stage. In addition, Lawrence should help neighborhood by using Federal, State, or
local programs, raise substantial resources to do real thing for revitalizing the unhealthy
neighborhoods, such as Moving to Opportunity Voucher, CDBD, HOME, and etc.

Hao Li_UBPL716--Final Project

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Hao Li_UBPL716--Final Project

Similar to Hao Li_UBPL716--Final Project (10)

Hao Li_UBPL716--Final Project