Abandoned Structures

The Abandoned Structures indicator measures the percentage of properties that mail has not been picked up from or delivered to in more than 90 days. Abandoned structures are “symptomatic of other [social and economic] problems,” and “contribute to neighborhood decline and frustrate revitalization”. Furthermore, they are a precursor for other blight indicators, including deteriorated and dilapidated properties, as well as tax delinquent properties. Abandoned structures often fall into decay, which erodes the character of neighborhoods, and these conditions have become more pervasive in a context of suburbanization, deindustrialization, and aging populations. Property values decline if properties are abandoned, which creates spillover effects that negatively impact the values of neighboring properties. These negative population dynamics are associated with other negative indicators including social disorganization. Furthermore, studies show that this type of physical environment influences health outcomes and health behaviors, such as exercise, diet, exposure to sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and drug use. Data for the Abandoned Structures indicator is available from the United States Postal Service Vacant Address Data.

Neighborhoodsort descending Indicator Value Rank
Acipco-Finley 16.0% 71
Airport Highlands 4.1% 15
Apple Valley 6.0% 29
Arlington - West End 11.5% 53
Belview Heights 9.9% 45
Bridlewood 6.2% 32
Brown Springs 17.3% 81
Brownsville Heights 3.9% 10
Brummitt Heights 3.6% 6
Bush Hills 13.1% 64
Central City 11.4% 50
Central Park 11.0% 47
Central Pratt 16.7% 79
College Hills 18.7% 86
Collegeville 16.3% 76
Crestline 4.3% 17
Crestwood North 4.1% 15
Crestwood South 2.9% 4
Dolomite 1.6% 1
Druid Hills 13.8% 65
East Avondale 8.6% 40
East Birmingham 18.5% 85
East Brownville 5.1% 22
East Lake 19.8% 89
East Thomas 20.6% 92
Eastwood 8.3% 37
Echo Highlands 4.0% 13
Enon Ridge 20.8% 93
Ensley 15.8% 70
Ensley Highlands 16.1% 73
Evergreen 11.8% 54
Fairmont 19.3% 87
Fairview 20.8% 93
Five Points South 6.1% 31
Forest Park 8.4% 39
Fountain Heights 16.8% 80
Garden Highlands 4.8% 18
Gate City 12.5% 61
Germania Park 16.2% 75
Glen Iris 6.2% 32
Grasselli Heights 5.1% 22
Graymont 18.1% 84
Green Acres 11.4% 50
Harriman Park 19.4% 88
Highland Park 4.0% 13
Hillman 5.1% 22
Hillman Park 5.2% 27
Hooper City 11.4% 50
Huffman 6.2% 32
Industrial Center 5.1% 22
Inglenook 24.0% 97
Jones Valley 16.1% 73
Killough Springs 6.0% 29
Kingston 25.0% 98
Liberty Highlands 8.7% 42
Maple Grove 3.8% 7
Mason City 3.9% 10
North Avondale 13.8% 65
North Birmingham 11.2% 48
North East Lake 8.8% 43
North Pratt 12.2% 59
North Titusville 21.4% 96
Norwood 18.0% 83
Oak Ridge 4.9% 19
Oak Ridge Park 12.5% 61
Oakwood Place 16.4% 77
Overton 2.3% 3
Oxmoor 1.9% 2
Penfield Park 3.8% 7
Pine Knoll Vista 3.8% 7
Powderly 9.6% 44
Redmont Park 3.1% 5
Riley 16.6% 78
Rising - West Princeton 10.1% 46
Roebuck 8.2% 36
Roebuck Springs 3.9% 10
Roosevelt 5.2% 27
Sandusky 12.1% 58
Sherman Heights 5.0% 20
Smithfield 17.7% 82
Smithfield Estates 11.9% 56
South East Lake 14.0% 67
South Pratt 21.3% 95
South Titusville 12.0% 57
South Woodlawn 16.0% 71
Southside 11.2% 48
Spring Lake 8.3% 37
Sun Valley 6.5% 35
Tarpley City 5.0% 20
Thomas 20.5% 91
Tuxedo 15.6% 69
Wahouma 27.2% 99
West Brownville 11.8% 54
West End Manor 13.0% 63
West Goldwire 5.1% 22
Woodland Park 12.3% 60
Woodlawn 15.1% 68
Wylam 20.3% 90
Zion City 8.6% 40

Key Citations:
1. Cohen, James R. 2001. “Abandoned Housing: Exploring Lessons from Baltimore.” Housing Policy Debate 12(3):415–48.
2. Wallace, Danielle and David Schalliol. 2015. “Testing the Temporal Nature of Social Disorder through Abandoned Buildings and Interstitial Spaces.” Social Science Research 54:177–94.
3. Han, Hye-Sung. 2014. “The Impact of Abandoned Properties on Nearby Property Values.” Housing Policy Debate 24(2):311–34.
4. Helmholdt, Nicholas. 2009. “Neighborhood Effects of Physical Interventions to Abandoned Housing.” Cornell University.