Visual Property Nuisances

The Visual Property Nuisances indicator measures the proportion of properties that are deteriorated, dilapidated and overgrown in a neighborhood. This includes properties in which either minor repairs are needed, the structural integrity has been compromised, and there are signs of littering and unmaintained vegetation. Deteriorated, dilapidated and overgrown properties create budgetary challenges to municipalities and other government entities, as these properties reduce tax revenues that are used to support important government services. Studies show that residents report that vacant overgrown land impacts “physical health through injury, the buildup of trash, and attraction of rodents, as well as mental health through anxiety and stigma.” Furthermore, there is a relationship between deteriorated and dilapidated properties and poor health outcomes, including sexually transmitted infections, specifically gonorrhea, pre-mature mortality, diabetes, and suicides, and fire-related injuries. This indicator is important to measure neighborhood conditions, specifically blight. Data for the Visual Property Nuisances indicator comes from the Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham and the City of Birmingham Property Conditions Assessment.

Neighborhood Indicator Value Ranksort descending
Oxmoor 0.5% 1
Sun Valley 0.7% 2
Redmont Park 0.8% 3
Spring Lake 1.3% 4
Overton 1.4% 5
West Goldwire 1.4% 5
Forest Park 1.6% 7
Echo Highlands 1.7% 8
Crestline 1.8% 9
Highland Park 1.8% 9
Huffman 2.0% 11
Roebuck Springs 2.1% 12
Bridlewood 2.2% 13
Green Acres 2.3% 14
Glen Iris 2.5% 15
Smithfield Estates 2.8% 16
Killough Springs 2.8% 16
Crestwood South 3.0% 18
Brummitt Heights 3.5% 19
Zion City 4.5% 20
Five Points South 4.9% 21
Liberty Highlands 5.1% 22
Southside 5.6% 23
Eastwood 6.4% 24
Pine Knoll Vista 6.6% 25
Garden Highlands 6.8% 26
Apple Valley 6.9% 27
Roebuck 7.2% 28
West End Manor 7.3% 29
Belview Heights 7.9% 30
Rising - West Princeton 7.9% 30
South Pratt 8.5% 32
Oak Ridge 8.6% 33
Maple Grove 9.0% 34
Graymont 9.7% 35
Germania Park 9.8% 36
Penfield Park 9.9% 37
Sandusky 10.1% 38
Bush Hills 10.8% 39
Central City 11.1% 40
Crestwood North 11.2% 41
South East Lake 12.1% 42
Brownsville Heights 12.6% 43
Airport Highlands 13.0% 44
North Avondale 13.0% 44
Woodland Park 13.2% 46
Tuxedo 13.3% 47
Sherman Heights 13.3% 47
Powderly 13.5% 49
Industrial Center 13.6% 50
Mason City 14.1% 51
South Titusville 14.7% 52
East Thomas 14.9% 53
Thomas 15.2% 54
East Lake 15.4% 55
Dolomite 15.9% 56
Ensley Highlands 16.8% 57
East Avondale 17.0% 58
Harriman Park 17.2% 59
North Pratt 17.6% 60
College Hills 18.0% 61
Tarpley City 18.2% 62
Druid Hills 18.3% 63
Hillman Park 18.8% 64
Evergreen 19.4% 65
North East Lake 19.5% 66
Jones Valley 19.6% 67
Norwood 20.1% 68
Grasselli Heights 20.2% 69
Enon Ridge 20.6% 70
Fairmont 21.5% 71
Hooper City 22.4% 72
Inglenook 22.5% 73
Roosevelt 22.9% 74
Acipco-Finley 23.5% 75
Wylam 23.5% 75
West Brownville 23.9% 77
Arlington - West End 24.8% 78
Central Park 24.9% 79
Fairview 25.0% 80
Smithfield 25.3% 81
Collegeville 25.7% 82
Riley 26.3% 83
Brown Springs 26.8% 84
East Brownville 27.5% 85
Oakwood Place 27.8% 86
Oak Ridge Park 28.1% 87
Hillman 28.1% 87
Central Pratt 28.7% 89
Ensley 28.8% 90
North Birmingham 29.1% 91
Fountain Heights 29.8% 92
South Woodlawn 31.1% 93
North Titusville 31.3% 94
Kingston 33.7% 95
Wahouma 36.7% 96
Woodlawn 37.3% 97
Gate City 37.4% 98
East Birmingham 42.5% 99

Key Citations:
1. Garvin, Eugenia, Charles Branas, Shimrit Keddem, Jeffrey Sellman, and Carolyn Cannuscio. 2013. “More than Just an Eyesore: Local Insights and Solutions on Vacant Land and Urban Health.” Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 90(3):412–26.
2. Cohen, Deborah A. et al. 2003. “Neighborhood Physical Conditions and Health.” American journal of public health 93(3):467–71.
3. Shai, Donna. 2006. “Income, Housing, and Fire Injuries: A Census Tract Analysis.” Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974) 121(2):149–54.