APPENDIX M - Seattle · 2017. 11. 7. · oni on alla llo Noa avnna No aini Fon So a Eala 23 nion...

APPENDIX M CORRELATION BETWEEN NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND VARIOUS HOUSEHOLD GROUPS.

Section 3.1 Housing and Socioeconomics presents an analysis comparing housing development with demographic and socioeconomic changes at a neighborhood (Census tract) scale between roughly 2000 and 2015. This appendix presents the technical data and maps underlying this analysis. This includes a series of statistical correlations to measure the strength and direction of relationships between housing development and other variables of interest. More details about the analysis methodology is presented in Section 3.1 Housing and Socioeconomics.

For each comparison, the results appear first as a map of new housing units overlaying household or population change by census tract. Every dot on these maps represents 20 housing units; their density reflects housing production in each census tract, but their location within the tract is random. On the following page, the results appear as a scatterplot comparing housing development on the horizontal axis and changes in households or population on the vertical axis. Each dot on the scatterplot is a census tract, positioned according to housing development and changes in households or population in that census for the given period. The large scatterplot presents all Seattle census tracts, followed by four smaller scatterplots that categorize census tracts according to their relative level of displacement risk and access to opportunity, as measured in the Seattle 2035 Growth and Equity Analysis (Appendix A). A map illustrating this categorization is included in Exhibit M–1.

What’s changed since the DEIS?Appendix M is new to the FEIS,

and contains some discussion of findings previously in the DEIS (as

noted in Section 3.1 Housing and Socioeconomics)—this includes

DEIS Exhibits 3.1–29 and 3.1-30.

MHA Final EISNov. 2017

M.2

Downtown

S. LakeUnion

UniversityCommunity

Uptown

Ballard

Othello

Northgate

Ravenna

NorthRainier

Fremont

SouthPark

Eastlake

23rd & UnionJackson

ColumbiaCity

Wallingford

RainierBeach

Bitter LakeVillage

CrownHill

Roosevelt

Lake City

AuroraLicton Springs

Admiral

WestwoodHighland Park

GreenLake

MadisonMiller

N. BeaconHill

GreenwoodPhinney Ridge

UpperQueen Anne

MorganJunction

West SeattleJunction

First Hill -Capitol Hill

Urban Centers/Villages

In MHA Study Area

Outside MHA Study Area

High Displacement RiskLow Access to Opportunity

High Displacement RiskHigh Access to Opportunity

Low Displacement RiskHigh Access to Opportunity

Low Displacement RiskLow Access to Opportunity

Categorization of Census Tractsby Displacement Risk andAccess to Opportunity

Source: City of Seattle; U.S. Census 2000 and ACS Five-Year Estimates, 2011–2015; OFM, 2016; BERK, 2017.

Exhibit M–1 Categorization of Census Tracts by Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity


M.3

The appendix is organized in two sections: (1) Housing Development and Change in Low-Income Households; and (2) Housing Development and Change in Racial and Ethnic Minority Populations.

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE IN LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS

This section presents data measuring the relationship between new housing production and the change in number of households, by income level (Exhibit M–2 through Exhibit M–28 on the following pages).

Several income groups relative to Area Median Income (AMI) are tested, including 0 to 50 percent, 50 to 80 percent, 0 to 80 percent, and 80 to 120 percent. For each level of income, two separate correlations are presented. “All housing” compares total new housing units built to total change in households, by income level. “Market-rate only” compares the number of new market-rate units built to an estimate of the change in the number of households living in market-rate units. This estimate is calculated by subtracting the net change in subsidized units from the net change in households, by income level. Information about level of income served for each subsidized housing unit is not available. Therefore the 50 to 80 percent market-rate only correlation very likely over accounts for the number of households in subsidized housing, since many of the units are likely to be reserved for households at lower income levels. As a result, the market-rate only correlations for this income level may be less reliable and more difficult to interpret. The “market-rate only” comparison is not provided for middle- or upper-income households (80 to 120 percent of AMI , >80 percent of AMI, or >120% of AMI), as these households typically do not qualify for housing subsidies.

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE IN RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITY POPULATIONS

This section presents data measuring the relationship between new housing production and change in population among major racial and ethnic categories (Exhibit M–29 through Exhibit M–49 on page M.22–page M.35).


M.4

Downtown

S. LakeUnion

UniversityCommunity

Uptown

Ballard

Othello

Northgate

Ravenna

NorthRainier

Fremont

SouthPark

Eastlake

23rd & UnionJackson

ColumbiaCity

Wallingford

RainierBeach

Bitter LakeVillage

CrownHill

Roosevelt

Lake City


Admiral


GreenLake

MadisonMiller

N. BeaconHill


UpperQueen Anne

MorganJunction




In MHA Study Area


Housing Production(Net Change in HousingUnits 2000–2012)

1 Dot = 20 Units

-384 to -300

-299 to 0

1 to 300

301 to 600

601 to 900

901 to 1200

Change in Households withIncome ≤50% AMI, 2000 to2010–2014

Source: City of Seattle; HUD CHAS (based on U.S. Census 2000 and ACS Five-Year Estimates, 2010–2014); OFM, 2016; BERK, 2017.

Exhibit M–2 Change in the Number of Households with Income ≤50% AMI by Census Tract, 2000 to 2010–2014, and Net Housing Production, 2000 to 2012


M.5

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

-500

0

500

1000

1500

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

-200

200

400

600

800

-200 200 400 600 800

200

400

600

800

-300 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Change inHous ing Production








Ch

an

ge

in H

H <

50

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in H

H <

50

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in H

H <

50

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in H

H <

50

% A

MI r = 0.346*

r = 0.515*r = 0.589*

r = 0.628*

Exhibit M–4 Gain or Loss of Households with Income ≤50% AMI and Net Housing Production by Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity Typology, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014


-600

-400

-200

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

-500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Ch

an

ge

in H

H <

50

% A

MI


r = 0.549*

Exhibit M–3 Gain or Loss of Households with Income ≤50% AMI and Net Housing Production by Census Tract, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014


* Indicates a weak, moderate, or strong correlation. All values under ±0.3 indicate no meaningful statistical relationship.


M.6

Downtown

S. LakeUnion

UniversityCommunity

Uptown

Ballard

Othello

Northgate

Ravenna

NorthRainier

Fremont

SouthPark

Eastlake

23rd & UnionJackson

ColumbiaCity

Wallingford

RainierBeach

Bitter LakeVillage

CrownHill

Roosevelt

Lake City


Admiral


GreenLake

MadisonMiller

N. BeaconHill


UpperQueen Anne

MorganJunction




In MHA Study Area


Market-Rate Housing Production(Net Change in Market-RateHousing Units 2000–2012)

1 Dot = 20 Units

-631 to -600

-599 to -300

-299 to 0

1 to 300

301 to 600

601 to 900

Change in Households Living inMarket-Rate Units with Income≤50% AMI, 2000 to 2010–2014


Exhibit M–5 Change in the Number of Households Living in Market-Rate Units with Income ≤50% AMI by Census Tract, 2000 to 2010–2014, and Net Market-Rate Housing Production, 2000 to 2012


M.7

-800

-600

-400

-200

200

400

600

800

-1,000 -500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3.000

Ch

an

ge

in M

ark

et H

H <

50

% A

MI

Change in Market-RateHous ing Production

r = 0.342*

Exhibit M–6 Gain or Loss of Households Living in Market-Rate Units with Income ≤50% AMI and Net Housing Production by Census Tract, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014


-1000

-500

500

1000

-500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Ch

an

ge

in M

ark

et H

H <

50

% A

MI


-1000

-500

500

1000

-500 500 1000

Ch

an

ge

in M

ark

et H

H <

50

% A

MI


-500

500

1000

-500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Ch

an

ge

in M

ark

et H

H <

50

% A

MI


-400

-200

200

400

-200 200 400 600

Ch

an

ge

in M

ark

etH

H <

50

% A

MI






r = 0.257

r = 0.530*

r = 0.406*

r = 0.286

Exhibit M–7 Gain or Loss of Households Living in Market-Rate Units with Income ≤50% AMI and Net Housing Production by Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity Typology, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014




M.8

Downtown

S. LakeUnion

UniversityCommunity

Uptown

Ballard

Othello

Northgate

Ravenna

NorthRainier

Fremont

SouthPark

Eastlake

23rd & UnionJackson

ColumbiaCity

Wallingford

RainierBeach

Bitter LakeVillage

CrownHill

Roosevelt

Lake City


Admiral


GreenLake

MadisonMiller

N. BeaconHill


UpperQueen Anne

MorganJunction




In MHA Study Area



1 Dot = 20 Units

-549 to -300

-299 to 0

1 to 300

301 to 600

601 to 900

901 to 1200

1201 to 1500

Change in Households withIncome ≤80% AMI, 2000 to2010–2014


Exhibit M–8 Change in the Number of Households with Income ≤80% AMI by Census Tract, 2000 to 2010–2014, and Net Housing Production, 2000 to 2012


M.9

-1,000

-500

500

1,000

1,500

-500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Ch

an

ge

in H

H <

80

% A

MI


r = 0.544*

Exhibit M–9 Gain or Loss of Households with Income ≤80% AMI and Net Housing Production by Census Tract, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014


-400

-200

200

400

600

500300 1000 1500 2000 2500

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

-600

-400

-200

200

400

600

800

-120 200 400 600 800





Ch

an

ge

in H

H <

80

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in H

H <

80

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in H

H <

80

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in H

H <

80

% A

MI





r = 0.513*

r = 0.630*

r = 0.581*

r = 0.306*

Exhibit M–10 Gain or Loss of Households with Income ≤80% AMI and Net Housing Production by Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity Typology, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014




M.10

Downtown

S. LakeUnion

UniversityCommunity

Uptown

Ballard

Othello

Northgate

Ravenna

NorthRainier

Fremont

SouthPark

Eastlake

23rd & UnionJackson

ColumbiaCity

Wallingford

RainierBeach

Bitter LakeVillage

CrownHill

Roosevelt

Lake City


Admiral


GreenLake

MadisonMiller

N. BeaconHill


UpperQueen Anne

MorganJunction




In MHA Study Area



1 Dot = 20 Units

-883 to -600

-599 to -300

-299 to 0

1 to 300

301 to 600

601 to 900

901 to 1200

Change in Households Living inMarket-Rate Units with Income≤80% AMI, 2000 to 2010–2014


Exhibit M–11 Change in the Number of Households Living in Market-Rate Units with Income ≤80% AMI by Census Tract, 2000 to 2010–2014, and Net Market-Rate Housing Production, 2000 to 2012


M.11

-1,000

-500

500

1,000

1,500

-1,000 -500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Ch

an

ge

in M

ark

et H

H <

80

% A

MI


r = 0.370*

Exhibit M–12 Gain or Loss of Households Living in Market-Rate Units with Income ≤80% AMI and Net Housing Production by Census Tract, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014


-1000

-500

500

1000

-500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

-1000

-500

500

-500 500 1000

-1000

-500

500

1000

1500

-500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

-600

-400

-200

200

400

-200 200 400 600

Ch

an

ge

in M

ark

et

HH

<8

0%

AM

I

Ch

an

ge

in M

ark

et

HH

<8

0%

AM

IC

ha

ng

e in

Ma

rke

t H

H <

80

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in M

ark

et

HH

<8

0%

AM

I









r = 0.389*

r = 0.625*

r = 0.408*

r = 0.042

Exhibit M–13 Gain or Loss of Households Living in Market-Rate Units with Income ≤80% AMI and Net Housing Production by Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity Typology, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014




M.12

Downtown

S. LakeUnion

UniversityCommunity

Uptown

Ballard

Othello

Northgate

Ravenna

NorthRainier

Fremont

SouthPark

Eastlake

23rd & UnionJackson

ColumbiaCity

Wallingford

RainierBeach

Bitter LakeVillage

CrownHill

Roosevelt

Lake City


Admiral


GreenLake

MadisonMiller

N. BeaconHill


UpperQueen Anne

MorganJunction




In MHA Study Area



1 Dot = 20 Units

-714 to -600

-599 to -300

-299 to 0

1 to 300

Change in Householdswith Income 50-80% AMI,2000 to 2010–2014


Exhibit M–14 Change in the Number of Households with Income 50–80% AMI by Census Tract, 2000 to 2010–2014, and Net Housing Production, 2000 to 2012


M.13

-800

-600

-400

-200

200

400

-500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Ch

an

ge

in H

H 5

0-8

0%

AM

I


r = 0.129

Exhibit M–15 Gain or Loss of Households with Income 50–80% AMI and Net Housing Production by Census Tract, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014


-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

100

200

500300 1000 1500 2000 2500

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

100

200

200100 400 600 800





Ch

an

ge

in H

H 5

0-8

0%

AM

I

Ch

an

ge

in H

H 5

0-8

0%

AM

IC

ha

ng

e in

HH

50

-80

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in H

H 5

0-8

0%

AM

I





r = 0.285

r = 0.276

r = 0.180

r = -0.203

Exhibit M–16 Gain or Loss of Households with Income 50–80% AMI and Net Housing Production by Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity Typology, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014




M.14

Downtown

S. LakeUnion

UniversityCommunity

Uptown

Ballard

Othello

Northgate

Ravenna

NorthRainier

Fremont

SouthPark

Eastlake

23rd & UnionJackson

ColumbiaCity

Wallingford

RainierBeach

Bitter LakeVillage

CrownHill

Roosevelt

Lake City


Admiral


GreenLake

MadisonMiller

N. BeaconHill


UpperQueen Anne

MorganJunction




In MHA Study Area



1 Dot = 20 Units

-1269 to -1200

-1199 to -900

-899 to -600

-599 to -300

-299 to 0

1 to 300

Change in Households Living inMarket-Rate Units* with Income50-80% AMI, 2000 to 2010–2014

*This estimate is calculated by subtracting the net change in subsidized units from the net change in households by income level. Information about level of income served for each subsidized housing unit is not available. Therefore, the 50-80 percent market-rate only correlation very likely over accounts for the number of households in subsidized housing, since many of the units are likely to be reserved for households at lower income levels.Note: Information about level of income served for each subsidized housing unit is not available. Therefore the 50-80 percent market-rate only correlation very likely over accounts for the number of households in subsidized housing, since many of the households in subsidized units are likely to have income levels below 50 percent AMI. As a result, the market-rate only correlations for this income level may be less reliable and more difficult to interpret.Source: City of Seattle; HUD CHAS (based on U.S. Census 2000 and ACS Five-Year Estimates, 2010–2014); OFM, 2016; BERK, 2017.

Exhibit M–17 Change in the Number of Households Living in Market-Rate Units with Income 50–80% AMI by Census Tract, 2000 to 2010–2014, and Net Market-Rate Housing Production, 2000 to 2012


M.15

-1,400

-1,200

-1,000

-800

-600

-400

-200

200

-1,000 -500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Ch

an

ge

in M

ark

et H

H 5

0-8

0%

AM

I


r = -0.006

Exhibit M–18 Gain or Loss of Households Living in Market-Rate Units with Income 50–80% AMI and Net Housing Production by Census Tract, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014


-800

-600

-400

-200

200

-500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

-1500

-1000

-500

500

-500 500 1000

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

200

-500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

-200 200 400 600

-800

-600

-400

-200

200









Ch

an

ge

in M

ark

et

HH

50

-80

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in M

ark

et

HH

50

-80

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in M

ark

et

HH

50

-80

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in M

ark

et

HH

50

-80

% A

MI r = 0.077

r = 0.555*

r = -0.196

r = -0.069

Exhibit M–19 Gain or Loss of Households Living in Market-Rate Units with Income 50–80% AMI and Net Housing Production by Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity Typology, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014




M.16

Downtown

S. LakeUnion

UniversityCommunity

Uptown

Ballard

Othello

Northgate

Ravenna

NorthRainier

Fremont

SouthPark

Eastlake

23rd & UnionJackson

ColumbiaCity

Wallingford

RainierBeach

Bitter LakeVillage

CrownHill

Roosevelt

Lake City


Admiral


GreenLake

MadisonMiller

N. BeaconHill


UpperQueen Anne

MorganJunction




In MHA Study Area



1 Dot = 20 Units

-330 to -300

-299 to 0

1 to 300

301 to 600

Change in Householdswith Income 80-120% AMI,2000 to 2010–2014


Exhibit M–20 Change in the Number of Households with Income 80–120% AMI by Census Tract, 2000 to 2010–2014, and Net Housing Production, 2000 to 2012


M.17

-400

-300

-200

-100

100

200

300

400

-500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Ch

an

ge

in H

H 8

0-1

20

% A

MI


r = 0.466*

Exhibit M–21 Gain or Loss of Households with Income 80–120% AMI and Net Housing Production by Census Tract, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014


-400

-300

-200

-100

100

200

300

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

-400

-200

0

200

400

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

-400

-300

-200

-100

100

200

300

-120 200 400 600 800





Ch

an

ge

in H

H 8

0-1

20

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in H

H 8

0-1

20

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in H

H 8

0-1

20

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in H

H 8

0-1

20

% A

MI





r = 0.289

r = 0.325*

r = 0.499*

r = 0.496*

Exhibit M–22 Gain or Loss of Households with Income 80–120% AMI and Net Housing Production by Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity Typology, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014




M.18

Downtown

S. LakeUnion

UniversityCommunity

Uptown

Ballard

Othello

Northgate

Ravenna

NorthRainier

Fremont

SouthPark

Eastlake

23rd & UnionJackson

ColumbiaCity

Wallingford

RainierBeach

Bitter LakeVillage

CrownHill

Roosevelt

Lake City


Admiral


GreenLake

MadisonMiller

N. BeaconHill


UpperQueen Anne

MorganJunction



Source: City of Seattle; HUD CHAS (based on U.S. Census 2000 and ACS Five-Year Estimates, 2010-2014); OFM, 2016.


In MHA Study Area



1 Dot = 20 Units

-233 to 0

1 to 400

401 to 800

801 to 1200

1201 to 1600

1601 to 2000

Change in Householdswith Income >80% AMI,2000 to 2010–2014


Exhibit M–23 Change in the Number of Households with Income >80% AMI by Census Tract, 2000 to 2010–2014, and Net Housing Production, 2000 to 2012


M.19

2,500

-500

500

1000

1500

2000

-500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Ch

an

ge

in H

H >

80

% A

MI


r = 0.805*

Exhibit M–24 Gain or Loss of Households with Income >80% AMI and Net Housing Production by Census Tract, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014


-500

500

1000

1500

2000

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

-200

200

400

600

800

-180 200 400 600 800





Ch

an

ge

in H

H >

80

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in H

H >

80

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in H

H >

80

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in H

H >

80

% A

MI





r = 0.811*

r = 0.263

r = 0.897*

r = 0.574*

Exhibit M–25 Gain or Loss of Households with Income >80% AMI and Net Housing Production by Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity Typology, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014




M.20

Downtown

S. LakeUnion

UniversityCommunity

Uptown

Ballard

Othello

Northgate

Ravenna

NorthRainier

Fremont

SouthPark

Eastlake

23rd & UnionJackson

ColumbiaCity

Wallingford

RainierBeach

Bitter LakeVillage

CrownHill

Roosevelt

Lake City


Admiral


GreenLake

MadisonMiller

N. BeaconHill


UpperQueen Anne

MorganJunction



Source: City of Seattle; HUD CHAS (based on U.S. Census 2000 and ACS Five-Year Estimates, 2010-2014); OFM, 2016.


In MHA Study Area



1 Dot = 20 Units

-95 to 0

1 to 400

401 to 800

801 to 1200

1201 to 1600

1601 to 2000

Change in Householdswith Income >120% AMI,2000 to 2010–2014


Exhibit M–26 Change in the Number of Households with Income >120% AMI by Census Tract, 2000 to 2010–2014, and Net Housing Production, 2000 to 2012


M.21

-500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

-500

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

Ch

an

ge

in H

H >

12

0%

AM

I


r = 0.736*

Exhibit M–27 Gain or Loss of Households with Income >120% AMI and Net Housing Production by Census Tract, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014


-500

500

1000

1500

2000

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

0

100

200

300

400

500

2000 400 600 800 1000 1200

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

200

400

600

800

-180 2000 400 600 800





Ch

an

ge

in H

H >

12

0%

AM

I

Ch

an

ge

in H

H >

12

0%

AM

IC

ha

ng

e in

HH

>1

20

% A

MI

Ch

an

ge

in H

H >

12

0%

AM

I





r = 0.776*

r = 0.132

r = 0.847*

r = 0.372*

Exhibit M–28 Gain or Loss of Households with Income >120% AMI and Net Housing Production by Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity Typology, 2000 Compared to 2010–2014




M.22

Downtown

S. LakeUnion

UniversityCommunity

Uptown

Ballard

Othello

Northgate

Ravenna

NorthRainier

Fremont

SouthPark

Eastlake

23rd & UnionJackson

ColumbiaCity

Wallingford

RainierBeach

Bitter LakeVillage

CrownHill

Roosevelt

Lake City


Admiral


GreenLake

MadisonMiller

N. BeaconHill


UpperQueen Anne

MorganJunction




In MHA Study Area



1 Dot = 20 Units

-1222 to -1000

-999 to -500

-499 to 0

1 to 500

501 to 1000

1001 to 1500

1501 to 2000

Change in Black/African American Population,2000 to 2011–2015


Exhibit M–29 Change in Black/African American Population by Census Tract, 2000 to 2011–2015, and Net Housing Production, 2000 to 2013


M.23

-1,500

-1,000

-500

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

-500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Ch

an

ge

in B

lac

k/A

fric

an

Am

eric

an

Po

pu

lati

on


r = 0.190

Exhibit M–30 Gain or Loss of Black/African American Population and Net Housing Production by Census Tract, 2000 Compared to 2011–2015


-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

200

400

-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1000 2000 3000 4000

-800

-600

-400

-200

200

400

600

-200 200 400 600 800 1000





Ch

an

ge

in B

lac

k/A

fric

an

Am

eric

an

Po

pu

lati

on

Ch

an

ge

in B

lac

k/A

fric

an

Am

eric

an

Po

pu

lati

on

Ch

an

ge

in B

lac

k/A

fric

an

Am

eric

an

Po

pu

lati

on

Ch

an

ge

in B

lac

k/A

fric

an

Am

eric

an

Po

pu

lati

on





r = 0.197

r = 0.480*

r = 0.134

r = 0.262

Exhibit M–31 Gain or Loss of Black/African American Population and Net Housing Production by Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity Typology, 2000 Compared to 2011–2015




M.24


In MHA Study Area



1 Dot = 20 Units

-879 to -500

-499 to 0

1 to 500

501 to 1000

1001 to 1500

1501 to 2000

2001 to 2500

2501 to 3000

Change in Populationof Color, 2000 to2011–2015


Exhibit M–32 Change in Population of Color by Census Tract, 2000 to 2011–2015, and Net Housing Production, 2000 to 2013

Downtown

S. LakeUnion

UniversityCommunity

Uptown

Ballard

Othello

Northgate

Ravenna

NorthRainier

Fremont

SouthPark

Eastlake

23rd & UnionJackson

ColumbiaCity

Wallingford

RainierBeach

Bitter LakeVillage

CrownHill

Roosevelt

Lake City


Admiral


GreenLake

MadisonMiller

N. BeaconHill


UpperQueen Anne

MorganJunction




M.25

-1,500

-1,000

-500

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

-500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Ch

an

ge

in P

op

ula

tio

n o

f C

olo

r


r = 0.485*

Exhibit M–33 Gain or Loss of Population of Color and Net Housing Production by Census Tract, 2000 Compared to 2011–2015


-1000

-500

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

-500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

-1000

-500

500

1000

1500

2000

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

-1000

-500

500

1000

1500

-200 200 400 600 800 1000









Ch

an

ge

inP

op

ula

tio

n o

f C

olo

r

Ch

an

ge

inP

op

ula

tio

n o

f C

olo

rC

ha

ng

e in

Po

pu

lati

on

of

Co

lor

Ch

an

ge

inP

op

ula

tio

n o

f C

olo

r r = 0.480*

r = 0.538*

r = 0.535*

r = 0.325*

Exhibit M–34 Gain or Loss of Population of Color and Net Housing Production by Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity Typology, 2000 Compared to 2011–2015




M.26

Downtown

S. LakeUnion

UniversityCommunity

Uptown

Ballard

Othello

Northgate

Ravenna

NorthRainier

Fremont

SouthPark

Eastlake

23rd & UnionJackson

ColumbiaCity

Wallingford

RainierBeach

Bitter LakeVillage

CrownHill

Roosevelt

Lake City


Admiral


GreenLake

MadisonMiller

N. BeaconHill


UpperQueen Anne

MorganJunction




In MHA Study Area



1 Dot = 20 Units

-233 to -200

-199 to 0

1 to 200

201 to 400

401 to 600

601 to 800

801 to 1000

1001 to 1200

Change in Hispanic/Latino Population,2000 to 2011–2015


Exhibit M–35 Change in Hispanic/Latino Population by Census Tract, 2000 to 2011–2015, and Net Housing Production, 2000 to 2013


M.27

-400

-200

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

-500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Ch

an

ge

in H

isp

an

ic/L

ati

no

Po

pu

lati

on


r = 0.109

Exhibit M–36 Gain or Loss of Hispanic/Latino Population and Net Housing Production by Census Tract, 2000 Compared to 2011–2015


-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

-500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1000 2000 3000 4000

-200

-100

100

200

300

400

500

-200 200 400 600 800 1000









Ch

an

ge

in H

isp

an

ic/

Lati

no

Po

pu

lati

on

Ch

an

ge

in H

isp

an

ic/

Lati

no

Po

pu

lati

on

Ch

an

ge

in H

isp

an

ic/

Lati

no

Po

pu

lati

on

Ch

an

ge

in H

isp

an

ic/

Lati

no

Po

pu

lati

on r = 0.152

r = -0.245

r = 0.212

r = 0.202

Exhibit M–37 Gain or Loss of Hispanic/Latino Population and Net Housing Production by Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity Typology, 2000 Compared to 2011–2015




M.28


In MHA Study Area



1 Dot = 20 Units

-838 to -800

-799 to -400

-399 to 0

1 to 400

401 to 800

801 to 1200

1201 to 1600

1601 to 2000

Change in AsianPopulation, 2000 to2011–2015


Exhibit M–38 Change in Asian Population by Census Tract, 2000 to 2011–2015, and Net Housing Production, 2000 to 2013

Downtown

S. LakeUnion

UniversityCommunity

Uptown

Ballard

Othello

Northgate

Ravenna

NorthRainier

Fremont

SouthPark

Eastlake

23rd & UnionJackson

ColumbiaCity

Wallingford

RainierBeach

Bitter LakeVillage

CrownHill

Roosevelt

Lake City


Admiral


GreenLake

MadisonMiller

N. BeaconHill


UpperQueen Anne

MorganJunction




M.29

-1,000

-500

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

-500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Ch

an

ge

in A

sia

n P

op

ula

tio

n


r = 0.450*

Exhibit M–39 Gain or Loss of Asian Population and Net Housing Production by Census Tract, 2000 Compared to 2011–2015


-1000

-500

500

1000

1500

-500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

-500

0

500

1000

1500

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

-600

-400

-200

200

400

600

800

1000

-200 200 400 600 800 1000









Ch

an

ge

inA

sia

n P

op

ula

tio

n

Ch

an

ge

inA

sia

n P

op

ula

tio

nC

ha

ng

e in

As

ian

Po

pu

lati

on

Ch

an

ge

inA

sia

n P

op

ula

tio

n r = 0.382*

r = 0.466*

r = 0.642*

r = -0.088

Exhibit M–40 Gain or Loss of Asian Population and Net Housing Production by Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity Typology, 2000 Compared to 2011–2015




M.30

Downtown

S. LakeUnion

UniversityCommunity

Uptown

Ballard

Othello

Northgate

Ravenna

NorthRainier

Fremont

SouthPark

Eastlake

23rd & UnionJackson

ColumbiaCity

Wallingford

RainierBeach

Bitter LakeVillage

CrownHill

Roosevelt

Lake City


Admiral


GreenLake

MadisonMiller

N. BeaconHill


UpperQueen Anne

MorganJunction




In MHA Study Area



1 Dot = 20 Units

-112 to -100

-99 to -50

-49 to 0

301 to 50

601 to 100

101 to 150

Change in American Indian/Alaska Native Population,2000 to 2011–2015


Exhibit M–41 Change in American Indian/Alaska Native Population by Census Tract, 2000 to 2011–2015, and Net Housing Production, 2000 to 2013


M.31

-150

-100

-50

50

100

150

-500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Ch

an

ge

in A

mer

ica

n I

nd

ian

/A

las

ka N

ati

ve P

op

ula

tio

n


r = 0.186

Exhibit M–42 Gain or Loss of American Indian/Alaska Native Population Population and Net Housing Production by Census Tract, 2000 Compared to 2011–2015


-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

-100

-50

0

50

100

1000 2000 3000 4000

-100

-50

50

100

-200 200 400 600 800 1000

-100

-50

50

100

-500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500









Ch

an

ge

in A

me

ric

an

In

dia

n/

Ala

ska

Na

tive

Po

pu

lati

on

Ch

an

ge

in A

me

ric

an

In

dia

n/

Ala

ska

Na

tive

Po

pu

lati

on

Ch

an

ge

in A

me

ric

an

In

dia

n/

Ala

ska

Na

tive

Po

pu

lati

on

Ch

an

ge

in A

me

ric

an

In

dia

n/

Ala

ska

Na

tive

Po

pu

lati

on r = 0.498*

r = 0.301*

r = 0.098

r = -0.448

Exhibit M–43 Gain or Loss of American Indian/Alaska Native Population Population and Net Housing Production by Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity Typology, 2000 Compared to 2011–2015




M.32


In MHA Study Area



1 Dot = 20 Units

-168 to -150

-149 to -100

-99 to -50

-49 to 0

1 to 50

51 to 100

101 to 150

151 to 200

201 to 250

251 to 300

Change in Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific IslanderPopulation, 2000 to 2011–2015


Exhibit M–44 Change in Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Population by Census Tract, 2000 to 2011–2015, and Net Housing Production, 2000 to 2013

Downtown

S. LakeUnion

UniversityCommunity

Uptown

Ballard

Othello

Northgate

Ravenna

NorthRainier

Fremont

SouthPark

Eastlake

23rd & UnionJackson

ColumbiaCity

Wallingford

RainierBeach

Bitter LakeVillage

CrownHill

Roosevelt

Lake City


Admiral


GreenLake

MadisonMiller

N. BeaconHill


UpperQueen Anne

MorganJunction




M.33

-200

-100

100

200

300

400

-500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Ch

an

ge

in N

ati

ve H

aw

aii

an

/Pa

cif

ic I

sla

nd

er


r = -0.090

Exhibit M–45 Gain or Loss of Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Population and Net Housing Production by Census Tract, 2000 Compared to 2011–2015


-80

-60

-40

-20

20

40

60

80

100

-500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

1000 2000 3000 4000

-200

-100

100

200

300

400

-200 200 400 600 800 1000









Ch

an

ge

in N

ati

veH

aw

aii

an

/Pa

cif

icIs

lan

de

r P

op

ula

tio

n

Ch

an

ge

in N

ati

veH

aw

aii

an

/Pa

cif

icIs

lan

de

r P

op

ula

tio

n

Ch

an

ge

in N

ati

veH

aw

aii

an

/Pa

cif

icIs

lan

de

r P

op

ula

tio

n

Ch

an

ge

in N

ati

veH

aw

aii

an

/Pa

cif

icIs

lan

de

r P

op

ula

tio

n r = -0.138

r = -0.165

r = -0.051

r = -0.133

Exhibit M–46 Gain or Loss of Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander Population and Net Housing Production by Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity Typology, 2000 Compared to 2011–2015




M.34


In MHA Study Area



1 Dot = 20 Units

-2138 to -500

-499 to 0

1 to 500

501 to 1000

1001 to 1500

1501 to 2000

2001 to 2500

2501 to 3000

Change in Non-HispanicWhite Population,2000 to 2011–2015


Exhibit M–47 Change in Non-Hispanic White Population by Census Tract, 2000 to 2011–2015, and Net Housing Production, 2000 to 2013

Downtown

S. LakeUnion

UniversityCommunity

Uptown

Ballard

Othello

Northgate

Ravenna

NorthRainier

Fremont

SouthPark

Eastlake

23rd & UnionJackson

ColumbiaCity

Wallingford

RainierBeach

Bitter LakeVillage

CrownHill

Roosevelt

Lake City


Admiral


GreenLake

MadisonMiller

N. BeaconHill


UpperQueen Anne

MorganJunction



Source: City of Seattle; ACS Five-Year Estimates, 2011-2015); OFM, 2016.


M.35

-3,000

-2,000

-1,000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

-500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Ch

an

ge

in N

on

-His

pa

nic

Wh

ite

Po

pu

lati

on


r = 0.561*

Exhibit M–48 Gain or Loss of Non-Hispanic White Population and Net Housing Production by Census Tract, 2000 Compared to 2011–2015


-3000

-2000

-1000

1000

2000

-500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

-500

0

500

1000

1500

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

-1000

-500

500

1000

-200 200 400 600 800 1000









Ch

an

ge

inN

on

-His

pa

nic

Wh

ite

Po

pu

lati

on

Ch

an

ge

inN

on

-His

pa

nic

Wh

ite

Po

pu

lati

on

Ch

an

ge

inN

on

-His

pa

nic

Wh

ite

Po

pu

lati

on

Ch

an

ge

in N

on

-H

isp

an

ic W

hit

eP

op

ula

tio

n r = 0.347*

r = 0.306*

r = 0.712*

r = 0.508*

Exhibit M–49 Gain or Loss of Non-Hispanic White Population and Net Housing Production by Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity Typology, 2000 Compared to 2011–2015




M.36

« intentionally blank »

APPENDIX M - Seattle · 2017. 11. 7. · oni on alla llo Noa avnna No aini Fon So a Eala 23 nion...

Documents

Transcript of APPENDIX M - Seattle · 2017. 11. 7. · oni on alla llo Noa avnna No aini Fon So a Eala 23 nion...