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.

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

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.