las vegas region - university of minnesota law …las vegas region gentrification is all but...

LAS VEGAS REGION

Gentrification is all but nonexistent in Las Vegas region, and net displacement is not occurring at all. By contrast, 35 percent of the region’s residents, and half of low-income residents, live in areas that are strongly economically declining.

This trend is most severe within the city of Las Vegas itself, where about two-thirds of low-income residents live in a strongly declining neighborhood. Those neighborhoods have lost almost 60,000 white residents since 2000 – a 34 percent drop in white population – and added more than 55,000 nonwhite residents, the vast majority of whom are Hispanic. Low-income population in those areas has grown by about 60 percent.

The Las Vegas suburbs have experienced a substantial amount of strong poverty concentration as well, although the trend is slightly more limited, only affecting areas containing about 29 percent of residents dwell.

Regional Total Population: 2,070,153

Regional Low-Income Population: 748,627

Regional Nonwhite Population: 1,139,056

Central City Population: 614,232

Central City Low-Income Population: 236,983

Central City Nonwhite Population: 334,388

NET DISPLACEMENT (Low-Income Change in Tracts with Strong Expansion, 2000-2016)

Central City: No net displacement (+3,351)

Suburbs: No net displacement (+3,281)

NET CONCENTRATION (Low-Income Change in Tracts with Strong Decline, 2000-2016)

Central City: 22,347

Suburbs: 73,268

1

DETAILS ON TABLES

The following tables depict aggregated population and housing change in two categories of neighborhoods across the metropolitan area, its central cities, and its suburbs. The categories are:

• Economically expanding neighborhoods, which are those experiencing the kind of population changes associated with growth and displacement. These are neighborhoods where the low-income* share of population has fallen since 2000 (indicating that an area has grown less poor overall) and the absolute number of non-low-income residents has grown since 2000 (indicating that middle-income residents see the area as an attractive place to live).

• Economically declining neighborhoods, which are those experiencing the kind of population changes associated with abandonment and poverty concentration. These are neighborhoods where the low-income share of population has grown since 2000 (indicating that an area has more less poor overall) and the absolute number of non-low-income residents has fallen since 2000 (indicating that middle-income residents do not see the area as an attractive place to live).

Two variants of this measure exist, and a separate table is provided for each. They are:

• In the upper set of tables, a strong, narrow measure, which only includes census tracts that have a change of +/-5 percent or greater in low-income population share, and a change of +/-10 percent for non-low-income population. This approach classifies fewer neighborhoods overall, excluding areas with only small changes in their income profile. This is the more robust and preferred measure. It is also the measure used in the accompanying maps.

• In the lower set of tables, a weak, broad measure, which includes all census tracts with any change that meet the criteria for the two categories above, with no cutoffs for scale. This approach classifies more neighborhoods overall, but is noisier, because it includes tracts with very small population changes. In addition, because this report relies on American Community Survey sampling data with margins of error, this measure is more likely to include erroneously classified tracts. However, this broad measure can provide a useful outer estimate of the scale of neighborhood economic expansion and decline.

Three sets of tables are provided. They are:

• Figures for the entire metropolitan region, aggregating central cities and suburbs into one set of tables. • Figures for central cities. • Figures for suburban areas, defined as any area in the metropolitan region not included in a central city.

This includes incorporated and unincorporated communities.

Each table depicts the number of people in each of the two neighborhood categories, both overall and in various population subsets. It also shows the number of housing units of various types in each neighborhood category.

• 2016 Share indicates what share of the regional, city, or suburban population of a given group live in expanding or declining tracts. The box is shaded in accordance with the size of the share.

• 2016 Total indicates the absolute number of individuals in a given group that live in expanding or declining census tracts.

• Net Change since 2000 indicates the change of population of a subgroup in expanding or declining tracts since 2000, both in percentage and in absolute terms. These have been colored to indicate the type of change. In economically expanding tracts, green indicates net growth while blue indicates net displacement. In economically declining tracts, red indicates net poverty concentration while purple indicates net abandonment. Darker shades indicate larger percentage changes.

* For the purposes of this report, “low-income” is classified as individuals at 200 percent of poverty line or less.

2

DETAILS ON MAPS

Neighborhood change has also been mapped by individual census tracts, incorporating the same data used to create the tables above.

The map incorporates the strong measure of neighborhood change used to create the tables. In the maps, tracts have been subdivided into four categories:

• Economically expanding areas with low-income displacement, indicated in blue, where a neighborhood’s income profile is improving while low-income population declines on net. These are typically places undergoing changes traditionally associated with gentrification, in which economic pressures push out lower incomes while higher income residents arrive.

• Economically expanding areas with overall growth, indicated in green, where a neighborhood’s income profile is improving while low-income population increases on net. These are typically places with significant new housing construction, where residents across the income spectrum are arriving.

• Economically declining areas with abandonment, indicated in purple, where a neighborhood’s income profile is worsening while low-income population declines on net. These are typically places experiencing the worst neighborhood economic decline, with people across the income spectrum leaving and outright depopulation occurring.

• Economically declining areas with poverty concentration, indicated in red, where a neighborhood’s income profile is worsening while low-income population increases on net. These are typically places where higher-income flight and eroding housing stocks are causing rapid demographic and economic transition, contributing to the impoverishment of the area.

The categories are also shaded to indicate the scale of low-income population change within the census tracts.

The maps allow intra-regional comparisons of observed neighborhood change. However, because these classifications have been made using American Community Survey data with margins of error, precise measures are not possible and it is likely that some individual tracts are erroneously classified. As a consequence, readers are advised to focus more on clusters of tracts undergoing similar changes rather than individual outliers, particularly outliers with smaller-scale changes.

3

3.2% 66,044 475.8% +54,575 35.5% 735,074 -2.5% -19,1131.4% 10,436 174.3% +6,632 50.0% 374,167 51.9% +127,8171.2% 3,737 110.4% +1,961 53.9% 165,538 75.3% +71,1151.5% 2,026 104.0% +1,033 52.7% 73,172 65.3% +28,9071.0% 82 -29.3% -34 39.1% 3,240 -28.3% -1,2794.4% 8,430 1769.2% +7,979 22.3% 42,478 17.2% +6,2442.0% 4,451 187.7% +2,904 37.9% 83,106 18.6% +13,0301.7% 10,424 827.4% +9,300 49.1% 308,424 52.7% +106,4304.2% 39,141 408.0% +31,436 29.1% 271,228 -34.7% -144,0505.5% 17,420 857.7% +15,601 23.3% 73,951 7.3% +5,0232.7% 28,774 318.8% +21,904 38.4% 412,947 -0.7% -2,9133.3% 7,794 486.9% +6,466 33.6% 79,146 -19.4% -19,0380.9% 351 207.9% +237 55.4% 22,585 60.2% +8,4903.8% 7,443 513.1% +6,229 29.0% 56,561 -32.7% -27,5280.8% 179 163.2% +111 53.7% 11,880 72.3% +4,9843.2% 15,953 341.7% +12,341 35.2% 174,054 -10.4% -20,2532.4% 12,005 358.0% +9,384 36.8% 180,431 -8.6% -16,9793.4% 27,400 376.5% +21,650 34.7% 281,208 0.2% +6753.9% 10,686 657.9% +9,276 36.2% 99,381 20.8% +17,1123.4% 55,212 431.5% +44,825 33.6% 542,065 -9.1% -54,3702.4% 10,832 867.1% +9,712 42.3% 193,009 22.3% +35,2474.6% 17,578 539.4% +14,829 29.2% 112,032 -23.0% -33,3911.8% 6,237 383.1% +4,946 42.9% 150,640 11.2% +15,1122.8% 3,549 749.0% +3,131 37.2% 47,825 96.6% +23,495

5.8% 120,657 222.9% +83,292 47.7% 986,683 0.3% +3,3692.6% 19,541 108.7% +10,180 62.0% 464,190 53.0% +160,7882.4% 7,392 110.5% +3,881 66.4% 203,887 73.7% +86,5233.0% 4,204 136.2% +2,424 65.0% 90,256 60.7% +34,0915.9% 485 6.6% +30 49.9% 4,133 -30.7% -1,8297.4% 14,144 659.6% +12,282 30.9% 58,917 24.9% +11,7563.2% 7,057 215.7% +4,822 49.5% 108,553 20.1% +18,2023.0% 19,109 336.9% +14,735 61.9% 389,309 59.1% +144,5428.0% 74,296 173.7% +47,152 41.8% 389,146 -30.7% -172,5069.4% 29,773 428.8% +24,143 35.2% 111,811 13.0% +12,8255.3% 56,772 172.6% +35,943 51.0% 547,418 2.0% +10,6135.7% 13,386 186.6% +8,716 45.2% 106,574 -17.2% -22,1491.9% 787 96.8% +387 68.2% 27,773 57.2% +10,1106.5% 12,599 195.1% +8,329 40.4% 78,801 -29.0% -32,2592.2% 488 138.0% +283 67.2% 14,862 66.2% +5,9185.5% 27,129 163.0% +16,813 46.8% 231,190 -8.6% -21,8834.3% 20,875 157.5% +12,768 48.5% 238,065 -5.2% -13,1836.1% 49,382 185.9% +32,112 46.7% 378,987 2.6% +9,6078.5% 23,271 474.3% +19,219 50.4% 138,441 26.0% +28,5246.3% 101,022 202.7% +67,645 45.9% 740,199 -6.3% -49,7474.3% 19,635 386.9% +15,602 54.1% 246,484 27.5% +53,1058.5% 32,785 219.9% +22,535 41.7% 160,443 -19.8% -39,7003.2% 11,388 223.7% +7,870 55.0% 193,283 16.1% +26,8286.4% 8,279 345.3% +6,420 47.7% 61,426 100.2% +30,738

*The figures in the lower set of tables may include many neighborhoods with very sl ight demographic changes, and are especially sensitive to sampling error. These tables are best understood as depicting an aggressive outer estimate of population shifts, as compared to the estimates in the upper set of tables, which are more robustly observed.

Data: U.S. Census.

Owner Units Owner UnitsRenter Units Renter UnitsVacant Units Vacant Units

Seniors (65 and up) Seniors (65 and up)U.S.-Born U.S.-Born

Foreign-Born Foreign-Born

Children (Under 18) Children (Under 18)Young Adults (18-34) Young Adults (18-34)

Adults (35 to 64) Adults (35 to 64)

Families in Poverty Families in PovertyNon-Poor Families Non-Poor Families

Single Mothers Single Mothers

College-Educated College-EducatedNon-College Non-College

Families Families

Black BlackHispanic Hispanic

White White

Extreme Poverty Extreme PovertyAmerican Indian American Indian

Asian Asian

TOTAL TOTALLow-Income Low-Income

Poverty Poverty

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods with Any Indicators of Economic Expansion*

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods with Any Indicators of Economic Decline*

(Las Vegas Metro) (Las Vegas Metro)

2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000 2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000









Families Families


White White


Asian Asian


Poverty Poverty


TABLES FOR METROPOLITAN AREA - Las Vegas Region

ECONOMICALLY EXPANDING NEIGHBORHOODS ECONOMICALLY DECLINING NEIGHBORHOODS

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods Experiencing Strong Economic Expansion

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods Experiencing Strong Economic Decline

(Las Vegas Metro) (Las Vegas Metro)

4

5.2% 32,240 631.9% +27,835 50.6% 310,538 -1.4% -4,2562.1% 4,871 220.5% +3,351 65.1% 154,188 60.5% +58,0911.8% 1,857 113.4% +987 66.0% 67,594 78.1% +29,6371.9% 863 77.2% +376 63.5% 29,225 69.0% +11,9273.4% 64 3.2% +2 54.4% 1,028 -40.3% -6955.4% 2,077 1373.0% +1,936 47.5% 18,097 22.7% +3,3533.1% 2,137 400.5% +1,710 51.8% 35,701 24.3% +6,9812.6% 5,179 831.5% +4,623 63.5% 126,857 55.4% +45,2357.5% 21,057 605.2% +18,071 41.7% 116,819 -34.0% -60,1308.2% 7,456 1081.6% +6,825 39.6% 36,047 5.8% +1,9634.3% 13,953 378.5% +11,037 53.5% 171,701 1.1% +1,9446.1% 4,226 778.6% +3,745 48.0% 33,479 -18.3% -7,4931.5% 208 617.2% +179 65.2% 9,046 61.3% +3,4397.2% 4,018 788.9% +3,566 43.8% 24,433 -30.9% -10,9321.0% 78 875.0% +70 65.0% 4,897 85.4% +2,2565.9% 8,722 491.7% +7,248 49.7% 73,065 -9.4% -7,5954.2% 5,924 422.4% +4,790 52.6% 73,901 -9.3% -7,5685.7% 13,676 476.1% +11,302 48.8% 117,400 0.5% +6034.6% 3,918 798.6% +3,482 53.7% 46,172 28.2% +10,1636.0% 29,226 645.4% +25,305 47.6% 230,815 -7.6% -19,0902.3% 3,014 502.8% +2,514 61.7% 79,723 22.9% +14,8317.5% 8,603 885.5% +7,730 42.7% 48,942 -22.5% -14,2162.9% 3,054 304.0% +2,298 60.7% 63,597 17.0% +9,2333.9% 1,256 446.1% +1,026 58.4% 18,972 117.6% +10,252

5.8% 35,631 586.1% +30,438 63.5% 389,840 0.1% +1992.2% 5,307 220.7% +3,652 77.6% 183,934 56.7% +66,5831.9% 1,991 126.0% +1,110 78.6% 80,497 71.5% +33,5512.0% 898 84.4% +411 76.8% 35,323 61.1% +13,3963.4% 64 3.2% +2 63.8% 1,206 -44.5% -9666.0% 2,306 1094.8% +2,113 57.1% 21,777 23.7% +4,1733.9% 2,693 505.2% +2,248 64.5% 44,463 17.6% +6,6682.9% 5,864 816.3% +5,224 77.3% 154,483 57.7% +56,5328.2% 22,879 542.1% +19,316 54.7% 153,205 -30.8% -68,1618.9% 8,079 1059.1% +7,382 51.5% 46,843 8.6% +3,7074.9% 15,657 362.0% +12,268 67.0% 215,105 2.4% +4,9976.6% 4,594 708.8% +4,026 60.4% 42,069 -17.4% -8,8731.5% 208 617.2% +179 79.1% 10,975 55.9% +3,9347.9% 4,386 713.7% +3,847 55.7% 31,094 -29.2% -12,8071.0% 78 875.0% +70 80.0% 6,025 74.4% +2,5716.4% 9,427 481.2% +7,805 62.2% 91,403 -9.2% -9,2444.6% 6,489 402.2% +5,197 64.2% 90,246 -8.5% -8,3946.3% 15,275 439.0% +12,441 61.5% 148,098 3.0% +4,2625.2% 4,440 869.4% +3,982 69.8% 60,093 29.1% +13,5336.7% 32,286 603.6% +27,697 60.4% 292,870 -6.1% -18,9162.6% 3,345 439.5% +2,725 75.1% 96,970 24.5% +19,1128.3% 9,518 752.1% +8,401 56.8% 65,099 -20.5% -16,8163.0% 3,171 309.2% +2,396 72.5% 75,916 20.0% +12,6764.0% 1,310 428.2% +1,062 67.4% 21,881 104.7% +11,190


Data: U.S. Census.









Families Families


White White


Asian Asian


Poverty Poverty



(Las Vegas) (Las Vegas)










Families Families


White White


Asian Asian


Poverty Poverty


TABLES FOR CENTRAL CITY ONLY - Las Vegas




(Las Vegas) (Las Vegas)

5

2.3% 33,804 378.5% +26,740 29.2% 424,536 -3.4% -14,8571.1% 5,565 143.7% +3,281 43.0% 219,979 46.4% +69,7260.9% 1,880 107.5% +974 47.9% 97,944 73.5% +41,4781.3% 1,163 129.8% +657 47.3% 43,947 63.0% +16,9800.3% 18 -66.7% -36 34.6% 2,212 -20.9% -5844.2% 6,353 1949.4% +6,043 16.0% 24,381 13.5% +2,8911.5% 2,314 106.6% +1,194 31.5% 47,405 14.6% +6,0491.2% 5,245 823.4% +4,677 42.4% 181,567 50.8% +61,1952.8% 18,084 283.2% +13,365 23.7% 154,409 -35.2% -83,9204.4% 9,964 738.7% +8,776 16.7% 37,904 8.8% +3,0602.0% 14,821 274.8% +10,867 32.0% 241,246 -2.0% -4,8572.1% 3,568 321.3% +2,721 27.5% 45,667 -20.2% -11,5450.5% 143 68.2% +58 50.4% 13,539 59.5% +5,0512.5% 3,425 349.5% +2,663 23.1% 32,128 -34.1% -16,5960.7% 101 68.3% +41 47.9% 6,983 64.1% +2,7282.1% 7,231 238.2% +5,093 29.1% 100,989 -11.1% -12,6581.7% 6,081 308.9% +4,594 30.4% 106,530 -8.1% -9,4112.4% 13,724 306.5% +10,348 28.7% 163,808 0.0% +723.6% 6,768 594.9% +5,794 28.2% 53,209 15.0% +6,9492.3% 25,986 301.9% +19,520 27.6% 311,250 -10.2% -35,2802.4% 7,818 1161.0% +7,198 34.7% 113,286 22.0% +20,4163.3% 8,975 378.4% +7,099 23.4% 63,090 -23.3% -19,1751.3% 3,183 495.0% +2,648 35.3% 87,043 7.2% +5,8792.4% 2,293 1119.7% +2,105 30.0% 28,853 84.8% +13,243

5.8% 85,026 164.3% +52,854 41.0% 596,843 0.5% +3,1702.8% 14,234 84.7% +6,528 54.8% 280,256 50.6% +94,2052.6% 5,401 105.4% +2,771 60.3% 123,390 75.2% +52,9723.6% 3,306 155.7% +2,013 59.1% 54,933 60.4% +20,6956.6% 421 7.1% +28 45.8% 2,927 -22.8% -8637.8% 11,838 609.3% +10,169 24.4% 37,140 25.7% +7,5832.9% 4,364 143.8% +2,574 42.6% 64,090 21.9% +11,5343.1% 13,245 254.7% +9,511 54.8% 234,826 59.9% +88,0107.9% 51,417 118.0% +27,836 36.2% 235,941 -30.7% -104,3459.6% 21,694 339.8% +16,761 28.7% 64,968 16.3% +9,1185.5% 41,115 135.8% +23,675 44.1% 332,313 1.7% +5,6165.3% 8,792 114.3% +4,690 38.8% 64,505 -17.1% -13,2762.2% 579 56.1% +208 62.5% 16,798 58.1% +6,1765.9% 8,213 120.1% +4,482 34.3% 47,707 -29.0% -19,4522.8% 410 108.1% +213 60.6% 8,837 61.0% +3,3475.1% 17,702 103.6% +9,008 40.3% 139,787 -8.3% -12,6394.1% 14,386 111.1% +7,571 42.2% 147,819 -3.1% -4,7896.0% 34,107 136.3% +19,671 40.5% 230,889 2.4% +5,345

10.0% 18,831 424.0% +15,237 41.5% 78,348 23.7% +14,9916.1% 68,736 138.8% +39,948 39.6% 447,329 -6.4% -30,8315.0% 16,290 377.3% +12,877 45.8% 149,514 29.4% +33,9938.6% 23,267 154.8% +14,134 35.3% 95,344 -19.4% -22,8843.3% 8,217 199.6% +5,474 47.6% 117,367 13.7% +14,1527.2% 6,969 332.6% +5,358 41.1% 39,545 97.8% +19,548


Data: U.S. Census.









Families Families


White White


Asian Asian


Poverty Poverty



(Las Vegas Suburbs) (Las Vegas Suburbs)










Families Families


White White


Asian Asian

TABLES FOR REGIONAL SUBURBS - Las Vegas Region


Poverty Poverty





(Las Vegas Suburbs) (Las Vegas Suburbs)

6

215515

95

15

15

21595

215

515

95 Las Vegas

Henderson

North Las Vegas

Paradise

Enterprise

SunriseManor

SpringValley

Whitney

Winchester

CLARK

LAS VEGAS (CENTRAL) REGION:Gentrification and Economic Decline by Census Tractwith Net Change in Low Income Population, 2000-2016

Miles

0 5

Data Sources: Geolytics, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 SF3; U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey (5-year data).

PLATTE

KS

MONTGOMERYDENTONLINCOLN

Low Income Displacement:(0)< -700 Low Income

Economic Expansion:

(5)-1 to -699 Low IncomeOverall Growth:

(9)1 to 699 Low Income(4)> 700 Low Income

Abandonment:(3)< -700 Low Income

Economic Decline:

(11)-1 to -699 Low IncomeLow Income Concentration:

(92)1 to 699 Low Income(86)> 700 Low Income

Economic expansion/decline is definedif a tract has a +/- 10% change in middle-high-income population and a -/+ 5%change in low-income population share, respectively.

7

las vegas region - university of minnesota law …las vegas region gentrification is all but...

Documents