sci report: supplemental neighborhood conditions summary

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Ho

usin

g Co

nd

ition

s Sum

mary R

ep

ort: C

ity of A

tlanta – P

age 0

SCI Report: Supplemental Neighborhood Conditions Summary

December 21, 2012


Ho

usi

ng

Co

nd

itio

ns

Sum

mar

y R

ep

ort

: Cit

y o

f A

tlan

ta –

Pag

e 1

Introduction

This report is a supplemental overview of real property conditions in Atlanta. It is as an excerpt from the

forthcoming Strategic Community Investment (SCI) Plan Report. To develop this report the APD

Solutions team was commissioned by the City of Atlanta, Department of Planning and Community

Development, Office of Housing officials to survey and analyze the City’s housing conditions. In

December 2011, a strategic method of approach to assessing the city’s neighborhoods was established.

The scope of work was determined to include two phases:

Phase I - An existing conditions survey of all residential properties within the municipal

limits of the City of Atlanta.

Phase II - An assessment of each neighborhood to determine the investment feasibility.

This report will also review the breakdown of the total housing units and demonstrate the challenging

trends facing the City of Atlanta’s housing stock. The consultant team developed several citywide

condition maps that are inserted throughout the narrative, in addition there are neighborhood specific

maps included in the appendices that illustrate the circumstances that were found. This information

provides a comprehensive and objective assessment of both the positive and negative trends affecting

the City’s neighborhoods, allowing for an accurate view of this snapshot in time. The findings contained

in this report provide critical information on the economic challenges and opportunities regarding the

physical status of structures and lots in neighborhoods throughout the city. This body of work also

provides a valuable reference point to document evidence of investment or disinvestment that is

occurring in the city as we move into the future.

Notwithstanding the various uses of this information, the primary intent of this document is to factually

illustrate the condition of the city properties as a conclusion of the phase I activities. The City of Atlanta

has 160,207 parcels. This project focused on assessing the 143,888 residential parcels only. Through the

visual observations of a windshield survey the team was able to document the status of the City’s

housing stock between December 2011 and August 2012. During the process there were 125,022

structures and 9,664 vacant lots evaluated throughout the city’s 258 neighborhoods. There were also

9,202 parcels that were attempted to be assessed but after various unsuccessful efforts were deemed to

be not surveryable. Those parcels deemed as not surveyable were excluded from the population used in

the statistical analysis to assess overall condition or neighborhood investment viability.


Ho

usin

g Co

nd

ition

s Sum

mary R

ep

ort: C

ity of A

tlanta – P

age 2

Summary of Findings

The citywide conditions data provides crucial information regarding the structures and lots that make up

the existing housing market. This information serves as the physical basis for the overall needs

assessment. Table 1 provides a snapshot of the City of Atlanta’s parcel composition and overall

conditions.

Table 1

Citywide Snapshot

Category Number Percentage

Parcels

Total Parcels Citywide 160,207 100%

Residential Parcels 143,888 89.8%

Non Residential Parcels 16,319 10.2%

Survey Totals

Surveyed Structures 125,022 86.9%

Surveyed Lots 9,664 6.7%

Unsurveyable Parcels (See Table 8) 9,202 6.4%

Residential Structures

Total Structures 125,022 100%

1-2 Unit Structures (Low Density/ Single Family) 123,327 98.6%

3-4 Unit Structures (Medium Density/ Multifamily) 714 0.6%

5+ Unit Structures (High Density/ Multifamily) 981 0.8%

Multi-Family


Ho

usi

ng

Co

nd

itio

ns

Sum

mar

y R

ep

ort

: Cit

y o

f A

tlan

ta –

Pag

e 3

Structure Occupancy (Tenure)

Number Percentage

Occupied Structures 117,048 93.6%

Vacant Structures 7,974 6.4%

Total Vacancy

Vacant Structures and Vacant Lots

17,638 ---------------

Citywide Vacancy Percentage

------------ 12.3%

Structure Condition (Total 125,022)

Good 97,623 78.1%

Fair 22,362 17.9%

Poor 2,498 2.0%

Deteriorated 1,352 1.1%

Not Visible 1,187 0.9%

Lot Condition (Total 9,664)

Good 1,237 12.8%

Fair 6,175 63.9%

Poor 1,329 13.8%

Not Visible 923 9.5%

Source: APD Solutions Field Evaluation

Structural Conditions

As outlined in Table 1, the City of Atlanta is comprised of 160,207 individual parcels. Of this number,

16,319 parcels are non-residential, and 143,888 are residential. Distributed amongst these parcels, there

are 125,022 total residential structures, of which 7,974 or approximately 6.4% appear to be vacant or

abandoned.

Table 1 (continued)

City- wide Residential Structure Occupancy

City-wide Residential Structure Conditions

City-wide Lot Condition


Ho

usin

g Co

nd

ition

s Sum

mary R

ep

ort: C

ity of A

tlanta – P

age 4

Single family housing which is comprised of 1-2 unit structures, are the prominent composition of the

city’s housing stock, representing 98.6% of the data set. Multifamily structures numbered 1,695, due to

having three (3) or more living units. It is important to note that the presence of multifamily housing

within Atlanta cannot be ignored. Although the proportion of city’s high density housing represented by

981 structures may not seem like a disproportionate number of multifamily housing, these less than

1,000 addresses encompass approximately 52,243 units of housing, as tabulated from data supplied by

MetroStudy.

Survey results find that, from an aesthetic prospective, the City of Atlanta has a high measure of curb

appeal. 97,623 structures were found to be in “Good” condition, comprising 78% of the total. The

remaining structures were either categorized as “Fair” (22,362), “Poor” (2,498), Deteriorated (1,352) or

Not Visible (1,187), encompassing the remaining 22%.

Lot Conditions

Surveyors identified 9,664 vacant residential lots citywide. Of these vacant lots, the majority, or 63.9%,

was determined to be in Fair condition. However, results show that surveyors noted a much higher

incidence of Poor quality lots than structures, with 13.8% of vacant lots falling into this category. This

indicates that areas with higher instances of vacant lots are more likely to suffer from an overall

aesthetic categorization of blight or dilapidation.

When combining the number of vacant lots and structures, the City of Atlanta has 17,638 total vacant

parcels, lending to an overall vacancy rate of 12.3%. As illustrated in the Vacancy map below. While that

total may not seem statistically significant, the neighborhood level analysis will show that vacant lots

and structures tend to be clustered and isolated within specific neighborhoods, particularly those closer

to the City’s southern boundaries.

Existing Housing Conditions-By Neighborhood

When considering overall housing conditions, it is important to conduct a neighborhood level analysis to

recognize variations and unique dynamics affecting each community. The neighborhood tables and map

booklet located within the Appendices of this report, provide a profile of each neighborhood’s

conditions composition (Appendix B) as well as a neighborhood existing condition visual analysis

(Appendix C).


Ho

usi

ng

Co

nd

itio

ns

Sum

mar

y R

ep

ort

: Cit

y o

f A

tlan

ta –

Pag

e 5


Ho

usin

g Co

nd

ition

s Sum

mary R

ep

ort: C

ity of A

tlanta – P

age 6

Lot and Structural Conditions

Table 2

Curb Appeal

Neighborhood Name

Total Parcels

Residential Parcels

Structures and Lots in "Good"

Condition Percentage

1 Memorial Park 124 124 123 99.2%

2 East Ardley Road 108 108 107 99.1%

3 Buckhead Village 936 757 744 98.3%

4 Collier Hills North 119 119 116 97.5%

5 Sherwood Forest 250 244 237 97.1%

6 Buckhead Heights 517 515 500 97.1%

7 Collier Hills 284 278 268 96.4%

8 Argonne Forest 213 212 204 96.2%

9 Peachtree Battle Alliance 538 534 511 95.7%

10 Wildwood (NPU-C) 333 300 286 95.3% Source: APD Solutions Field Evaluation

For the purposes of this study, curb appeal is defined as the number of lots and structure categorized as

Good by the field evaluation team using the evaluation criteria outlined above. With this as a basis, the

majority of neighborhoods appear to have little to no blight and are in Good or Fair structural condition.

In sum, the city has an overall high measure of curb appeal which is in line with the citywide statistics

explored earlier in the report.

Table 3

Blight

Neighborhood Name

Total Parcels Residential

Parcels

Structures and Lots in "Poor" or "Deteriorated"

Condition

Percentage

1 Bankhead/Bolton 168 122 83 68.0%

2 English Avenue 1,530 1,161 309 26.6%

3 Center Hill 1,283 1,177 208 17.7%

4 Carroll Heights 625 581 102 17.6%

5 Pittsburgh 1,821 1,571 233 14.8%

6 Lakewood Heights 1,135 962 135 14.0%

7 Campbellton Road 546 481 65 13.5%

8 Grove Park 2,604 2,396 315 13.1%

9 Oakland City 1,724 1,517 192 12.7%

10 Rebel Valley Forest 183 174 22 12.6% Source: APD Solutions Field Evaluation


Ho

usi

ng

Co

nd

itio

ns

Sum

mar

y R

ep

ort

: Cit

y o

f A

tlan

ta –

Pag

e 7

Blight is defined as the combination of structures categorized as “Poor” and “Deteriorated” and lots

categorized as “Poor”. However, there is a select concentration of neighborhoods such as Bankhead

Bolton, English Avenue, Center Hill, Carroll Heights and Pittsburgh that have a high occurrence of

structures that received a Poor or Deteriorated rating from field surveyors, lending to an overall

perception of blight and decay in these areas.

Tenure

Table 4

Vacant Lot Count

Neighborhood Name

Total Parcels

Total Residential

Parcels Vacant Lots Percentage

1 Carey Park 585 546 264 48.4%

2 Niskey Lake 154 148 54 36.5%

3 Almond Park 508 471 170 36.1%

4 Bakers Ferry 120

112 38 33.9%

5 Fairburn 217 213 69 32.4%

6 Atlanta University Center 424 252 74 29.4%

7 Ben Hill 504 485 138 28.5%

8 Bush Mountain 197 173 47 27.2%

9 Vine City 1,315 1,040 272 26.2%

10 Boulder Park 141 134 35 26.1% Source: APD Solutions Field Evaluation

The ten neighborhoods outlined in Table 4 have the highest percentage of vacant lots in the City of

Atlanta.1 These findings are possibly evidence of business flight and stalled development. Though it is

not unusual to see vacant lots within a neighborhood in the current market due to stalled real estate

development, concentrated areas of vacancy can provide deeper insight into a lack of commercial

investment into specific communities. Additionally, a high number of areas that are not occupied or put

to use within a neighborhood can signal a declining demand for goods and services from residents

within and immediately surrounding target areas. Vacant lots are also generally more susceptible to

become sites for code issues related to landscaping overgrowth or excess debris, lending to the overall

perception of blight or decay in a neighborhood.

1 Please note that calculations have been included only for neighborhoods that have 100 or more parcels to ensure

percentages are representative.


Ho

usin

g Co

nd

ition

s Sum

mary R

ep

ort: C

ity of A

tlanta – P

age 8

Table 5

Vacant Structures (Total: 9,664)

Neighborhood Name

Total Parcels

Total Residential

Parcels

Vacant Structures

Percentage


2 Bankhead 921 714 233 32.6%

3 English Avenue 1,530 1,161 371 32.0%

4 Pittsburgh 1,821 1,571 495 31.5%

5 Rebel Valley Forest 183 174 51 29.3%

6 Ashview Heights 699 607 147 24.2%

7 South Atlanta 773 642 154 24.0%


9 Dixie Hills 969 877 186 21.2%

10 Grove Park 2,604 2,396 488 20.4% Source: APD Solutions Field Evaluation

Table 5 outlines the top ten neighborhoods with the highest percentage of vacant structures. On a

neighborhood analysis level, it appears that the majority of the high vacancy neighborhoods are located

south of Interstate 20 or west of Interstate 75.

Code Issues

Table 6

Code Issues

Neighborhood Name

Total Parcels

Total Residential

Parcels

No. Properties w/ Multiple Code Issues

Percentage


2 English Avenue 1,530 1,161 208 17.9%

3 Carroll Heights 625 581 102 17.6%

4 Center Hill 1,283 1,177 199 16.9%

5 Pittsburgh 1,821 1,571 213 13.6%


7 Campbellton Road 546 481 63 13.1%

8 South Atlanta 773

642 81 12.6%

9 Westview 1,404 1,317 154 11.7%

10 English Park 133 121 14 11.6% Source: APD Solutions Field Evaluation


Ho

usi

ng

Co

nd

itio

ns

Sum

mar

y R

ep

ort

: Cit

y o

f A

tlan

ta –

Pag

e 9

Neighborhood Code Issues


Ho

usin

g Co

nd

ition

s Sum

mary R

ep

ort: C

ity of A

tlanta – P

age 10

Blight varies greatly among neighborhoods, with core city and southern neighborhoods bearing the

brunt of decline. Examples of extreme blight, however, are plentiful as you traverse the western and

southern ring outside of the downtown business district; we documented 3,788 parcels with excessive

code issues. Properties with 4 or more visual code issues totaled 3.0% of total housing stock.

Visual code issues include weed overgrowth, dumping, dilapidated porches, water damage, dumpster

overflow, improper storage issues, inoperable vehicles, non-conforming commercial activity at

residential addresses and yard parking. As multiple issues were often present, for the purposes of this

study we did not delineate if the code issues were structural, environmental, or aesthetic.

Extreme dilapidation was documented at 1,352 parcels. Properties in this category include structures

most likely in need of demolition. Our visual assessment determined that these properties would most

often require more investment to rehabilitate and make livable than to demolish. The current declining

market values also make this a special challenge in this environment. These properties are defined by

missing roofs, doors, windows and/or walls, and partially demolished properties. Although survey

activity did not allow for interior inspection there were some instances where overgrowth was visibly

gathering on the structure, both internally and externally.

Method of Approach

The method of analysis used to obtain the findings contained in this report was a Windshield Survey. For

research purposes, a Windshield Survey is a visual assessment of the community being researched and a

record of those observations. A survey of this type relies strictly on observations for data and other

information rather than directing questions to participants. The windshield survey got its name because

these projects are often done while the observer sits in a car and is designed to answer questions

including, but not limited to:

What is the condition of the housing structures? Are

they in a state of disrepair?

Is there open space available, such as parks, paths, etc.?

Are there noticeable signs of decay? Trash, abandoned

structures, junk vehicles?

Are lots accessible by sidewalks? Is the area

“walkable”?


Ho

usi

ng

Co

nd

itio

ns

Sum

mar

y R

ep

ort

: Cit

y o

f A

tlan

ta –

Pag

e 1

1

Approximately 50 field surveyors were assembled to survey every viewable residential parcel within the

city limits. The field data collected by windshield survey was acquired with a new approach. APDS has

utilized technology in an innovative way with creation of a proprietary customized application, or “App”

compatible with all Apple Devices. As windshield surveys are typically done in hardcopy and then

transferred to a database, this app allowed windshield surveyors to efficiently assess all residential

parcels in the City of Atlanta serving to drastically increase data collection accuracy. The App allowed

surveyors to take pictures of lots and parcels that were saved on the device and directly correlated with

the property address.

Location of Parcels

The field evaluation was guided with parcel data

provided by the City of Atlanta’s GIS department.

The city was split into four (4) quadrants for

assignment of surveyors, and each quadrant was

appointed a Field Marshall responsible for

overseeing assessment in that area. While

evaluating the parcels during the assignment phase,

a high number of parcels without a street number

included in the address were identified. Rather than

relying solely on addresses to identify parcels,

surveyors were provided with neighborhood maps

inclusive of a Parcel Identification Number (PIN) to

assist them in locating their assigned surveillance

areas.

Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation criteria used in this proprietary app was customized to best meet the goals and

objectives of the Strategic Community Investment (SCI) study as outlined in the scope of work. This

criterion includes property tenure, lot condition, structure condition, presence of sidewalks, and

identification of city code issues. Table 1 provides an outline of the data fields used to conduct the

windshield survey.


Ho

usin

g Co

nd

ition

s Sum

mary R

ep

ort: C

ity of A

tlanta – P

age 12

Table 7

City of Atlanta SCI Plan Windshield Survey Evaluation Criteria*

Structure

Occupancy

Lot Aesthetic

Condition

Structure Aesthetic

Condition

Sidewalks

Present

4 or More Code

Issues Present

Occupied Good Good Yes Yes

Vacant Fair Fair No No

No Structure Poor Poor - Not Visible

Not Visible Not Visible Deteriorated - -

- - No Structure - -

- - Not Visible - -

*Definitions of all windshield survey evaluation criteria are available in the Glossary of Key Terms.


Field Evaluation of Structural Condition

Field surveyors were instructed to complete an analysis of structures using the following criteria to make

observations of aesthetic conditions: Good, Fair, Poor, and Deteriorated. Surveyors were also provided

with sample photos of structures that fell into each category as an added point of clarification. These

efforts were made to ensure consistency amongst surveyor observations and to ensure structure

evaluations remained objective. Additionally, for areas where structures were not clearly visible,

surveyors were also able to choose the field “Not Visible” as a classification.


Ho

usi

ng

Co

nd

itio

ns

Sum

mar

y R

ep

ort

: Cit

y o

f A

tlan

ta –

Pag

e 1

3

Field Evaluation of Lot Condition

Field surveyors were instructed to complete an analysis of lots using the following criteria to make

observations of aesthetic conditions: Good, Fair, and Poor. Surveyors were also provided with sample

photos of lots that fell into each category as an added point of clarification. These efforts were made to

ensure consistency amongst surveyor observations and to ensure evaluations remained objective.

Additionally, for areas where lots are not clearly visible, surveyors were also able to choose the field

“Not Visible” as a classification.

Observation

CategoryDefinition Photo

Good

A structure that is well maintained, with little to no aesthetic

issues. Focuses strictly on the condition of the house, not the

architectural style.

Fair

A structure that is mostly maintained with few minor aesthetic

issues i.e., an overgrown lawn or faded or chipping paint. These

should be cosmetic issues that do not appear to affect the

structural integrity of the house.

Poor

A structure that is not well maintained, but enough structural

integrity remains that it need not be demolished. The condition

of paint or building materials will be lacking, and the landscaping

is likely overgrown. Cracked windows may also be present.

Deteriorated

A structure that, because of years of neglect, would likely be

demolished because it would be less expensive than

renovation. A dilapidated roof, extensive rotting, and clear

structural issues are good indicators or a deteriorated property.

A structure that appears to have suffered from years of

neglected repairs to the exterior: A dilapidated roof, extensive

rotting, and visible structural decay are all indicators of a

deteriorated property.


Ho

usin

g Co

nd

ition

s Sum

mary R

ep

ort: C

ity of A

tlanta – P

age 14


Field Evaluation of Tenure

For the purposes of this study, vacancy is inclusive of both vacant lots and unoccupied structures. In an

effort to determine tenure during field evaluation, surveyors were instructed to identify telltale signs of

vacancy and abandonment, to include the following:

Overgrown landscaping

Full or overflowing mailbox

Boarded doors and/or windows

Broken windows

Vacancy notices posted on doors and/or windows

As information was collected and uploaded in the device, it was automatically transferred to the APDS

server and downloaded to a database where it is easily assembled and analyzed. The app also allowed

surveyors to take a photograph of each structure and/or lot evaluated and then downloaded to the

database as well. As a result, our team was able to track the number of parcels surveyed, information

collected, and productivity of windshield surveyors in real time.

Observation

CategoryDefinition Photo

GoodA lot that appears to be well maintained. Grass appears to be cut

and landscaping is properly manicured.

FairA lot that has not recently been maintained. Some litter or

debris may be present.

PoorA lot that is not maintained. Overgrown vegetation and/or

significant amounts of debris or trash are visible.


Ho

usi

ng

Co

nd

itio

ns

Sum

mar

y R

ep

ort

: Cit

y o

f A

tlan

ta –

Pag

e 1

5

Challenges

Unsurveyable Parcels

Of the 143,888 total residential parcels, 9,202 or 6.4% were deemed to be unsurveyable during our field

evaluation process. After analyzing the observations made by field surveyors regarding the unsurveyable

parcels, several recurring obstructions were noted as to why windshield surveys could not be

conducted. Table 2 provides an outline of each reason code and corresponding definition.

Table 8

Unsurveyable Parcel Reason Codes (9,202 parcels)

Reason Code Definition

Address Error Parcels reported or recorded improperly; address present in device, but no longer physically present.

Landlocked Parcels located adjacent to other parcels in a manner that did not allow for surveyor access; buildings that consisted of more than one unit in the structure, such as basement apartment or rear entry that did not allow access.

Physical Obstruction Gated communities; areas where security, police, or residents threatened and/or requested surveyors to discontinue surveying.

Vegetative Obstruction

Single or multiple parcels not visible from the sidewalk due to overgrown trees, shrubbery, etc.

Undetermined Infrastructure in place; however, no structure due to stalled development or incomplete building.


Land Use Codes

While analyzing the data, it has become apparent the city’s land use code structure has distinct

limitations when conducting a windshield survey of this type. Parcels from both Fulton and DeKalb

counties are included within city boundaries, leading to conflicting categorization when cross

referencing the three different sources of land use codes: Fulton County’s tax digest, DeKalb County’s

tax digest, and the zoning designations provided by the City of Atlanta. While Fulton County’s tax digest

provided the most robust documentation, there was no way to solely use that document as a guide as it

did not take into account the land use designation of the approximately 10,923 parcels located in DeKalb

County. Due to this, land use designations for all parcels were cross referenced from all three sources

and recoded into “SCI Land use Codes” for the purposes of this study. Those codes are as follows:

Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Exempt, Office Institutional, Other Residential, Utility, and Vacant.


Ho

usin

g Co

nd

ition

s Sum

mary R

ep

ort: C

ity of A

tlanta – P

age 16

Data Association

Following the field collection of the data as outlined above, it was then imported into the ARC GIS

system so that each parcel could be correctly associated with a neighborhood for comprehensive

analysis. Please note that during the data association process, the margin of error estimated for the

association of a parcel shape with the neighborhood shape in the GIS is estimated at 3.5%. In sum, after

using geospatial tools to identify the neighborhood within which each parcel is located, we can expect

that 96.5% of the time an accurate mapping between the City of Atlanta parcel data record geospatial

file with the City of Atlanta neighborhood geospatial file occurred.

Windshield Survey Conclusions

From a housing conditions viewpoint, the City of Atlanta has relatively stable physical housing stock,

with a good general aesthetic appeal. However, results show that surveyors noted a much higher

incidence of poor quality lots than structures, with 13.8% of vacant lots falling into the poor category.

This indicates that areas with higher instances of vacant lots, such as those in Table 4, are more likely to

suffer from an overall aesthetic categorization of blight or dilapidation. A complete alphabetical listing

of all 258 City of Atlanta neighborhoods as they have been evaluated based on the above mentioned

conditions criteria can be found in the following Appendix B. Within this listing, neighborhoods named

for demolished or redeveloped Atlanta Housing Authority properties are highlighted in bold text to

denote the unique redevelopment characteristics and changing naming conventions over time.

Though the city’s 12.3% vacancy rate may not seem startling, the majority of vacant lots and structures

are concentrated within a few neighborhoods, many of them comprising a “band” of communities

beginning in northwest Atlanta and sprawling to the southeastern portion of the city. These areas not

only have high structural vacancy numbers, but also represent some of the most blighted areas in

Atlanta. The city must have targeted plans for managing these areas of vacancy and abandonment in an

effort to target commercial and residential development. These vacant structures may represent prime

homeownership and rental opportunities while the market stabilizes. As a result, the impacted

neighborhoods may be considered for public subsidy and other development incentives to spur future

growth for these areas and to attract investment. The forthcoming Strategic Community Investment

(SCI) Report further explores these condition issues combined with additional demographic and socio-

economic analysis.


Ho

usi

ng

Co

nd

itio

ns

Sum

mar

y R

ep

ort

: Cit

y o

f A

tlan

ta –

Pag

e 1

7

Key Term Definition

Aesthetic Condition Increment of market value attributed to the outward appearance of a lot or structure.

Age of Housing Stock* The age, in years, of physical residential dwellings within a neighborhood.

Appreciation* An increase in the value of a residential asset over a defined period of time.

Average Commute* The time, in minutes, it takes to travel from a resident’s neighborhood to a desired location.

Blight* Lots and/or structures in poor or deteriorated condition that represent a general state of neglect and disrepair in a neighborhood.

Code Violation*

Action or inaction that breaks the City of Atlanta's code of conduct rules for owners and tenants. Examples include: excessive trash and debris; grass exceeding 18”; vacant, burned and dilapidated structures; and excessive junk vehicles.

Community Commerce* The measurement, in millions, of the exchange of goods or services in a neighborhood.

Community Identity* A neighborhood’s distinct traditions, values, and social norms.

Crime Incidences* Actions or instances of neglect that deemed harmful to the public welfare or morals and that is prohibited by law.

Curb Appeal* A measurement of the general attractiveness of lots and structures in fair and good condition from the sidewalk, or “curb”.

Depreciation* A decrease in the value of a residential asset over a defined period of time.

Deteriorated A structure that has visibly diminished in quality or value due to time and/or neglect. A dilapidated roof, extensive rotting, and clear structural issues are good indicators.

Distressed Assets* The number of properties within a neighborhood that are currently in the foreclosure process or are advertised for sale by the mortgagee.

Educational Attainment* The highest level of schooling attended and successfully completed by an individual.

Fair A measure of aesthetic condition; the appearance of the lot or structure is acceptable. Generally, some litter or debris may be present.

Attachment A: Glossary of Key Terms


Ho

usin

g Co

nd

ition

s Sum

mary R

ep

ort: C

ity of A

tlanta – P

age 18

Key Term Definition

Good A measure of aesthetic condition; the appearance of the lot or structure is satisfactory. Generally, the grass appears to be cut and landscaping properly manicured.

Greenspace* Public space consisting of parks and trails maintained for recreational enjoyment.

Housing Costs* The average amount of money needed to sustain basic housing expenses for renters and owners.

Income* Median income calculation to include the income of the householder and all other individuals 15 years old and over in the household.

Neighborhood A district or area within a municipality with distinctive characteristics or indicators that may include: vicinity to park or attraction, community history, proximity to major thoroughfare, etc.

No Structure A lot with no structure present, also referred to as a vacant lot.

Not Visible A lot or structure not visible from sidewalk, often as a result of excess trees or shrubbery. The absence of visibility did not allow surveyor to make an accurate determination of condition.

Occupied A structure that is currently in use by a tenant or owner. Indicators include: cars present in the driveway, blinds on windows, lawn maintained.

Occupancy 1. Based on visual inspection, the apparent residence or tenancy in a

structure or on a piece of land.

Owner Occupancy* The number of residents who own the structures.

Parcel An individual plot of land that comprises a larger area, such as a neighborhood.

Permit Issuance* The number of permits issued by a municipality for building construction within a neighborhood.

Poor A measure of aesthetic condition; appearance of lot or structure is not adequate. Generally, overgrown vegetation and/or significant amounts of debris or trash are visible.

Population Growth* The change in the number of individuals in a population over a specified period of time.

Public Subsidy* A provision of economic value provided by a municipality for the purpose of incentivizing an activity.

Quality of Public Education* Characteristics of schools supported by public funds and providing free education for children within a neighborhood or district.


Ho

usi

ng

Co

nd

itio

ns

Sum

mar

y R

ep

ort

: Cit

y o

f A

tlan

ta –

Pag

e 1

9

Key Term Definition

Racial Diversity* The array of racial groups present in a neighborhood.

Real Estate Transaction* The purchase or sale of a real estate asset that involves a closing transaction.

Retail/Commercial Access* Proximity to opportunities to work, dine, shop, worship, exercise, etc.

Sidewalk A raised paved or asphalted path for pedestrians at the side of a road.

Tenure (also see Occupancy) 2. Based on visual inspection, the apparent residence or tenancy in a

structure or on a piece of land.

Transportation Options* The quantity of accessibility options available to an individual or group to include vehicle, rail, bus, pedestrian, and bicycle.

Vacant A structure that is not currently in use by a tenant or owner. Indicators include: landscaping that is overgrown, full or overflowing mailboxes, broken or boarded windows or doors.

Vacancy The number of residential structures and lots appearing to be without occupants, expressed as a percentage of all properties surveyed, within a 5% margin of error.

Appendix B

Overall Conditions by Neighborhood

Neighborhood NameCurb

Appeal

Average

Age of

Housing

Stock

Vacancy Code Issues Blight

Adair Park 82.46% 73 20.27% 0.97% 0%

Adams Park 48.08% 57 7.53% 0.16% 1%

Adamsville 62.26% 46 17.52% 2.39% 2%

Almond Park 32.67% 47 45.79% 4.95% 6%

Amal Heights 75.00% 56 21.37% 3.57% 4%

Ansley Park 92.20% 65 4.19% 0.70% 0%

Arden/Habersham 88.80% 40 7.20% 0.80% 1%

Ardmore 66.67% 67 11.11% 1.45% 0%

Argonne Forest 93.90% 46 4.69% 0.47% 0%

Arlington Estates 92.11% 41 5.53% 0.26% 1%

Ashley Courts 100.00% 12 0.00% 3.00% 0%

Ashview Heights 9.69% 68 32.01% 2.77% 4%

Atkins Park 80.46% 73 1.72% 0.57% 1%

Atlanta University Center 14.13% 65 45.58% 4.24%8%

Atlantic Station 98.46% 7 0.38% 0.77% 0%

Audobon Forest 86.39% 41 4.71% 2.09% 1%

Audobon Forest West 83.47% 46 16.53% 3.31% 0%

Baker Hills 80.00% 45 5.95% 0.27% 1%

Bakers Ferry 71.43% 48 4.76% 0.27% 0%

Bankhead 37.01% 58 48.59% 12.57% 7%

Bankhead Courts 0.00% 26 100.00% 5.00% 0%

Bankhead/Bolton 23.19% 53 74.64% 65.22% 65%

Beecher Hills 70.19% 53 5.77% 0.20% 0%

Ben Hill 82.93% 13 13.82% 0.54% 1%

Ben Hill Acres 81.71% 52 2.44% 3.66% 0%

Ben Hill Forest 81.40% 53 4.65% 1.72% 0%

Ben Hill Pines 89.71% 48 11.76% 1.47% 0%

Ben Hill Terrace 50.00% 54 9.70% 0.09% 1%

Benteen Park 72.25% 46 9.09% 0.48% 0%

Berkeley Park 89.15% 50 4.41% 0.34% 0%

Betmar LaVilla 91.77% 16 1.65% 1.23% 0%

Blair Villa/Poole Creek 66.45% 48 9.68% 2.82% 1%

Blandtown 86.98% 15 10.68% 2.34% 0%

Bolton 79.37% 28 7.94% 1.48% 1%

Bolton Hills 38.89% 51 14.81% 4.63% 2%

Boulder Park 79.00% 43 9.00% 0.27% 0%

Boulevard Heights 89.25% 40 5.54% 3.26% 0%

Brandon 88.39% 38 5.10% 0.42% 0%

Brentwood 87.93% 49 6.90% 1.72% 0%

Briar Glen 98.50% 32 1.50% 3.57% 0%

Brookhaven 51.96% 40 3.10% 1.45% 0%

Brookview Heights 11.76% 27 72.06% 5.88% 4%

Brookwood 98.39% 36 1.61% 1.20% 0%

Brookwood Hills 100.00% 45 1.00% 1.45% 0%

Browns Mill Park 33.98% 43 28.95% 0.75% 1%

Buckhead Forest 74.24% 37 0.97% 0.32% 0%

Buckhead Heights 100.00% 21 0.00% 0.06% 0%

Buckhead Village 96.53% 23 3.47% 0.23% 0%

Bush Mountain 33.33% 43 33.33% 1.45% 4%

Butner/Tell 41.67% 49 20.83% 15.28% 6%

Cabbagetown 84.49% 41 2.26% 1.66% 0%

Campbellton Road 55.63% 49 15.92% 5.94% 6%

Candler Park 61.57% 77 3.29% 1.44% 0%

Capitol Gateway 50.00% 27 75.00% 25.00% 0%

Capitol View 68.84% 66 15.31% 0.54% 1%

Capitol View Manor 70.79% 69 6.53% 0.54% 0%

Carey Park 24.19% 47 48.63% 6.73% 8%

Carroll Heights 76.85% 50 20.36% 3.19% 3%

Carver Hills 40.06% 49 14.70% 2.02% 5%

Cascade Avenue/Road 55.16% 58 12.09% 0.88% 3%

Cascade Heights 79.63% 45 5.91% 0.20% 0%

Castleberry Hill 89.53% 40 7.03% 0.14% 0%

Castlewood 70.59% 44 2.52% 0.42% 0%

Appendix B



Appeal

Average

Age of

Housing

Stock


Center Hill 58.48% 55 26.32% 7.02% 4%

Chalet Woods 89.38% 43 10.62% 4.42% 0%

Channing Valley 89.36% 46 2.84% 0.42% 0%

Chastain Park 67.25% 39 5.40% 0.23% 0%

Chattahoochee 6.25% 55 81.25% 18.75% 13%

Chosewood Park 72.80% 44 10.76% 3.12% 2%

Collier Heights 90.05% 51 6.74% 0.68% 0%

Collier Hills 94.22% 53 2.17% 0.45% 0%

Collier Hills North 95.76% 59 0.00% 0.85% 0%

Colonial Homes 100.00% 28 0.00% 0.85% 0%

Cross Creek 1.67% 43 0.24% 1.75% 0%

Custer/McDonough/Guice 60.39% 48 19.66% 8.99%5%

Deerwood 91.19% 36 9.25% 0.44% 0%

Dixie Hills 58.83% 57 31.08% 7.04% 5%

Downtown 73.27% 34 4.70% 0.81% 0%

Druid Hills 73.33% 83 5.13% 0.51% 0%

East Ardley Road 100.00% 50 1.87% 1.56% 0%

East Atlanta 86.84% 64 8.65% 1.95% 1%

East Chastain Park 58.80% 33 3.37% 0.21% 0%

East Lake 72.82% 65 10.09% 2.39% 1%

Edgewood 61.18% 65 15.14% 3.57% 3%

Elmco Estates 81.43% 50 9.29% 0.71% 0%

Englewood Manor 54.55% 61 27.27% 9.09% 9%

English Avenue 12.44% 58 59.05% 17.57% 17%

English Park 44.53% 52 35.94% 12.50% 12%

Fairburn 54.41% 39 19.12% 0.09% 7%

Fairburn Heights 71.82% 47 9.77% 3.41% 3%

Fairburn Mays 64.29% 23 13.10% 5.95% 0%

Fairburn Road/Wisteria

Lane63.64% 43 2.27% 0.76%

0%

Fairburn Tell 81.25% 39 12.50% 3.57% 3%

Fairway Acres 95.00% 38 7.50% 0.70% 0%

Fernleaf 92.45% 35 1.89% 1.75% 0%

Florida Heights 32.21% 52 23.49% 8.05% 5%

Fort Valley 0.00% 44 100.00% 5.94% 0%

Garden Hills 87.77% 47 2.84% 0.06% 0%

Georgia Tech 39.47% 71 34.21% 1.45% 0%

Glenrose Heights 50.25% 41 22.30% 2.82% 4%

Grant Park 87.01% 57 4.39% 2.29% 1%

Green Acres Valley 98.84% 52 3.49% 0.10% 0%

Green Forest Acres 94.53% 52 4.69% 1.56% 0%

Greenbriar 50.00% 40 8.18% 0.30% 0%

Greenbriar Village 64.04% 31 8.77% 0.30% 0%

Grove Park 44.87% 57 31.53% 8.06% 7%

Hammond Park 50.46% 52 13.36% 2.53% 2%

Hanover West 87.72% 41 7.02% 1.75% 0%

Harland Terrace 78.93% 35 12.64% 2.68% 0%

Harris Chiles 62.50% 32 8.75% 6.25% 0%

Harvel Homes Community 4.00% 51 12.00% 16.00%0%

Heritage Valley 97.54% 46 3.01% 0.27% 0%

High Point 100.00% 10 3.30% 5.73% 0%

Hills Park 68.85% 27 13.33% 0.90% 1%

Home Park 60.72% 52 11.49% 1.45% 1%

Horseshoe Community 93.55% 39 9.68% 0.20% 3%

Hunter Hills 76.40% 58 21.20% 4.80% 2%

Huntington 97.50% 44 5.00% 0.30% 0%

Inman Park 57.63% 45 2.97% 0.71% 0%

Ivan Hill 100.00% 50 5.56% 4.42% 0%

Joyland 50.00% 56 21.37% 5.73% 4%

Just Us 18.64% 59 5.08% 0.20% 0%

Kings Forest 90.03% 44 5.66% 0.27% 1%

Kingswood 81.19% 39 5.94% 0.99% 0%

Appendix B



Appeal

Average

Age of

Housing

Stock


Kirkwood 83.27% 66 6.01% 4.50% 2%

Knight Park/Howell Station 87.23% 51 10.40% 0.95%1%

Lake Claire 55.84% 66 2.73% 0.53% 1%

Lake Estates 89.80% 48 4.08% 0.27% 0%

Lakewood 28.98% 55 18.74% 4.14% 4%

Lakewood Heights 38.39% 58 37.18% 17.81% 16%

Laurens Valley 79.70% 44 8.27% 0.30% 1%

Leila Valley 29.58% 53 27.70% 1.41% 6%

Lenox 93.33% 32 10.00% 0.89% 0%

Lincoln Homes 53.13% 38 12.50% 2.50% 3%

Lindbergh/Morosgo 34.32% 22 0.92% 0.06% 0%

Lindridge/Martin Manor 36.38% 49 2.55% 0.43% 0%

Loring Heights 92.40% 29 3.14% 1.45% 0%

Magnum Manor 94.71% 45 2.94% 0.59% 0%

Margaret Mitchell 64.58% 39 4.86% 0.23% 0%

Marietta Street Artery 61.67% 48 28.33% 3.33% 0%

Mays 97.06% 7 1.47% 1.47% 1%

Meadowbrook Forest 89.19% 39 4.05% 4.05% 1%

Mechanicsville 58.26% 36 28.14% 4.88% 3%

Mellwood 92.86% 55 3.57% 3.57% 4%

Memorial Park 99.19% 50 3.23% 0.38% 0%

Midtown 91.14% 32 1.41% 0.68% 0%

Midwest Cascade 94.70% 20 5.68% 0.19% 0%

Monroe Heights 51.23% 40 13.58% 4.32% 7%

Morningside/Lenox Park 46.89% 53 5.29% 0.27% 0%

Mozley Park 63.99% 66 11.63% 0.83% 2%

Mt. Gilead Woods 98.55% 50 4.35% 0.10% 0%

Mt. Paran Parkway 84.00% 39 6.00% 0.23% 1%

Mt. Paran/Northside 72.42% 33 10.32% 0.97% 1%

Niskey Cove 75.00% 20 7.14% 3.57% 0%

Niskey Lake 78.41% 35 4.55% 1.14% 0%

North Buckhead 98.13% 26 2.74% 1.45% 0%

Norwood Manor 30.17% 47 35.75% 3.91% 4%

Oakcliff 84.71% 47 10.59% 4.00% 1%

Oakland 100.00% 36 0.00% 0.20% 0%

Oakland City 55.19% 63 23.85% 3.11% 4%

Old Fairburn Village 83.33% 49 16.67% 0.27% 0%

Old Fourth Ward 77.01% 38 9.05% 1.48% 0%

Old Gordon 39.10% 61 53.97% 1.59% 2%

Orchard Knob 43.67% 52 21.22% 4.49% 2%

Ormewood Park 88.63% 48 2.90% 2.30% 1%

Paces 76.58% 31 8.67% 0.23% 0%

Peachtree Battle Alliance 95.64% 53 3.60% 0.38%0%

Peachtree Heights East 31.70% 46 2.21% 0.00% 0%

Peachtree Heights West 61.76% 32 0.84% 0.13%0%

Peachtree Hills 56.48% 57 1.87% 0.19% 0%

Peachtree Park 76.43% 54 1.56% 0.06% 0%

Penelope Neighbors 56.59% 54 13.38% 5.49% 5%

Peoplestown 50.75% 47 20.13% 5.88% 6%

Perkerson 60.72% 50 4.17% 0.95% 1%

Peyton Forest 92.74% 42 5.36% 2.21% 0%

Piedmont Heights 80.94% 49 1.98% 0.27% 0%

Pine Hills 97.91% 26 0.94% 0.89% 0%

Pittsburgh 32.68% 57 45.49% 12.99% 11%

Pleasant Hill 54.55% 40 8.08% 0.23% 1%

Polar Rock 25.19% 54 23.17% 11.08% 10%

Pomona Park 98.21% 52 1.79% 13.00% 0%

Poncey-Highland 76.92% 43 2.34% 0.41% 0%

Princeton Lakes 90.08% 6 4.65% 0.62% 0%

Randall Mill 84.62% 33 1.03% 1.54% 0%

Rebel Valley Forest 23.53% 50 34.12% 2.35% 11%

Appendix B



Appeal

Average

Age of

Housing

Stock


Regency Trace 50.00% 11 7.14% 3.57% 0%

Reynoldstown 75.55% 50 8.99% 3.19% 1%

Ridgecrest Forest 98.33% 42 3.89% 5.00% 0%

Ridgedale Park 90.39% 30 2.34% 0.00% 0%

Ridgewood Heights 93.82% 43 2.81% 1.12% 0%

Riverside 48.87% 48 21.57% 8.90% 7%

Rockdale 59.09% 19 36.36% 4.55% 5%

Rosedale Heights 55.34% 53 1.94% 4.49% 1%

Rue Royal 65.71% 60 17.14% 2.86% 0%

Sandlewood Estates 85.61% 16 6.82% 0.09% 0%

Scotts Crossing 42.52% 39 35.40% 13.39% 18%

Sherwood Forest 97.12% 48 1.65% 0.00% 0%

South Atlanta 32.54% 55 39.81% 13.43% 12%

South River Gardens 67.87% 38 17.87% 3.35% 1%

South Tuxedo Park 80.54% 40 3.78% 0.81% 0%

Southwest 70.62% 32 10.74% 0.30% 1%

Springlake 95.25% 46 2.04% 0.45% 0%

Summerhill 71.45% 29 21.73% 6.13% 3%

Swallow Circle/Baywood 44.32% 53 20.45% 1.70%1%

Sweet Auburn 63.92% 49 27.84% 2.06% 0%

Sylvan Hills 36.96% 62 15.65% 1.12% 2%

Tampa Park 96.15% 48 15.38% 0.27% 4%

The Villages at Carver 23.08% 10 15.38% 7.69% 8%

The Villages at

Castleberry Hill100.00% 12 0.00% 0.10%

0%

The Villages at East Lake 27.27% 12 72.73% 0.10%0%

Thomasville Heights 52.19% 46 15.87% 2.71% 6%

Tuxedo Park 55.57% 36 6.60% 0.47% 0%

Underwood Hills 85.54% 38 1.95% 0.28% 0%

Venetian Hills 35.00% 57 15.53% 0.35% 3%

Vine City 29.01% 42 44.11% 7.08% 5%

Virginia Highland 69.64% 62 2.57% 0.39% 0%

Washington Park 54.37% 66 22.73% 4.80% 6%

Wesley Battle 72.86% 42 7.14% 0.00% 0%

West End 36.64% 61 24.09% 8.90% 4%

West Highlands 82.02% 10 17.98% 1.12% 0%

West Lake 63.25% 55 19.37% 4.56% 1%

West Manor 96.91% 52 5.15% 1.56% 0%

West Paces

Ferry/Northside81.46% 41 4.18% 1.31%

0%

Westhaven 84.62% 28 5.13% 0.10% 0%

Westminster/Milmar 89.47% 35 5.26% 0.00% 0%

Westover Plantation 100.00% 48 0.00% 0.00% 0%

Westview 40.78% 71 13.93% 9.90% 4%

Westwood Terrace 41.60% 54 5.41% 6.55% 1%

Whitewater Creek 73.33% 34 3.33% 0.00% 0%

Whittier Mill Village 72.89% 34 19.05% 1.83% 1%

Wildwood (NPU-C) 92.90% 49 4.01% 0.45% 0%

Wildwood (NPU-H) 88.95% 35 5.79% 3.16% 1%

Wildwood Forest 97.20% 45 4.20% 0.70% 0%

Wilson Mill Meadows 85.35% 31 6.57% 0.76% 0%

Wisteria Gardens 23.28% 47 7.94% 1.00% 1%

Woodfield 87.93% 61 6.90% 0.38% 0%

Woodland Hills 82.56% 52 3.49% 1.74% 0%

Wyngate 92.36% 44 3.47% 0.10% 0%

sci report: supplemental neighborhood conditions summary

Documents