Vacancy Rates

The Vacancy Rates indicator measures the share of vacant residential properties within a neighborhood. Physical disorder related to blight and vacant properties is associated with many negative health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease and mental illness. Vacant residential properties are linked with higher levels of crime and illegal activity such as prostitution, drug sales, and drug use by adolescents, as well as increased risk of fire injury. Vacancy rates are also associated with worse maternal and infant health outcomes. High levels of “boarded-up housing” have been found to be a predictor of gonorrhea, premature mortality, diabetes, homicide, and suicide. Vacant housing is also a predictor of high blood lead levels in children. It is important to keep in mind that vacancy is not abandonment. Vacant properties are spaces that are not occupied but may still be maintained, so a vacant property does not automatically mean a blighted one. An abandoned property is a space that no longer has a steward. In some cases, vacancy can eventually lead to abandonment. The Vacancy Rates indicator is an “inverse” measure: the higher the proportion of vacant homes in a neighborhood, the lower the community health. Posted under the Housing domain, the Vacancy Rates indicator also impacts the Blight, Economic Health, Social Cohesion, Health Systems and Public Safety, and Neighborhood Characteristics domains. Data on housing vacancy is available from the U.S. Census.

Neighborhoodsort descending Indicator Value Rank
Acipco-Finley 18.7% 42
Airport Highlands 40.5% 98
Apple Valley 7.6% 7
Arlington - West End 22.5% 62
Belview Heights 20.4% 49
Bridlewood 20.0% 47
Brown Springs 13.2% 27
Brownsville Heights 39.9% 97
Brummitt Heights 10.0% 15
Bush Hills 25.7% 78
Central City 15.6% 37
Central Park 23.2% 64
Central Pratt 19.9% 45
College Hills 28.4% 84
Collegeville 25.4% 75
Crestline 11.2% 20
Crestwood North 12.1% 23
Crestwood South 9.0% 11
Dolomite 14.4% 32
Druid Hills 36.8% 96
East Avondale 20.1% 48
East Birmingham 33.6% 91
East Brownville 8.9% 10
East Lake 21.9% 57
East Thomas 26.8% 81
Eastwood 8.8% 9
Echo Highlands 13.7% 30
Enon Ridge 33.8% 92
Ensley 21.1% 53
Ensley Highlands 19.1% 43
Evergreen 19.9% 45
Fairmont 24.4% 69
Fairview 30.9% 90
Five Points South 22.3% 60
Forest Park 17.6% 40
Fountain Heights 22.7% 63
Garden Highlands 10.5% 19
Gate City 14.6% 33
Germania Park 21.0% 52
Glen Iris 23.6% 65
Grasselli Heights 6.5% 3
Graymont 17.4% 39
Green Acres 22.3% 60
Harriman Park 23.6% 65
Highland Park 13.9% 31
Hillman 57.4% 99
Hillman Park 9.0% 11
Hooper City 25.6% 77
Huffman 12.7% 24
Industrial Center 9.7% 13
Inglenook 30.2% 88
Jones Valley 30.8% 89
Killough Springs 18.3% 41
Kingston 25.5% 76
Liberty Highlands 7.4% 6
Maple Grove 22.0% 58
Mason City 24.7% 73
North Avondale 2.7% 2
North Birmingham 19.5% 44
North East Lake 23.9% 68
North Pratt 24.4% 69
North Titusville 35.4% 95
Norwood 34.8% 94
Oak Ridge 1.2% 1
Oak Ridge Park 16.7% 38
Oakwood Place 29.0% 86
Overton 10.0% 15
Oxmoor 13.5% 28
Penfield Park 22.2% 59
Pine Knoll Vista 10.0% 15
Powderly 28.5% 85
Redmont Park 12.0% 22
Riley 26.1% 80
Rising - West Princeton 25.9% 79
Roebuck 11.6% 21
Roebuck Springs 14.9% 36
Roosevelt 20.5% 50
Sandusky 21.6% 56
Sherman Heights 7.6% 7
Smithfield 24.5% 71
Smithfield Estates 6.9% 5
South East Lake 21.4% 54
South Pratt 33.8% 92
South Titusville 20.6% 51
South Woodlawn 27.6% 83
Southside 6.7% 4
Spring Lake 13.5% 28
Sun Valley 14.7% 34
Tarpley City 9.9% 14
Thomas 23.8% 67
Tuxedo 27.1% 82
Wahouma 29.0% 86
West Brownville 25.0% 74
West End Manor 21.5% 55
West Goldwire 10.3% 18
Woodland Park 14.7% 34
Woodlawn 24.5% 71
Wylam 12.8% 25
Zion City 12.8% 25

Key Citations:
1. Center for Community Progress, Turning Vacant Spaces into Vibrant Places. Available at: http://www.communityprogress.net/the-help-you-need-pages-7.php
2. Cohen, Deborah A., et al. “Neighborhood physical conditions and health” (2003). American Journal of Public Health.
3. Garvin, Eugenia, et al. "More Than Just An Eyesore: Local Insights And Solutions on Vacant Land And Urban Health" (2012). Journal of Urban Health.
4. Pettit K, Kingsley T, Coulton C, Cigna J. 2003. Neighborhoods and Health: Building Evidence for Local Policy. US Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/neighborhoods-health03/report.pdf. Accessed May 23, 2013.
5. Reagan PB, Salsberry PJ. Race and ethnic differences in determinants of preterm birth in the USA: broadening the social context. Soc Sci Med. 2005 May; 60(10):2217-28. Epub 2004 Dec 7.Accessed May 23. 2013.
6. Sargent JD, Bailey A, Simon P, Blake M, Dalton MA. Census tract analysis of lead exposure in Rhode Island children. Environ Res. 1997; 74(2):159-68.
7. Wilson, James Q., and George L. Kelling. “Broken Windows” (1982). The Atlantic Online.
8. Whitaker S. 2011. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Foreclosure Related Vacancy Rates. Accessed May 23, 2013. Available at: http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2011/2011-12.cfm.