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

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.