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.

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

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.