longfellow community population and housing ... · longfellow community population and housing...

Longfellow Community Population and Housing Characteristics, 1940-2000

Prepared by Nick Boettcher

Research Assistant, University of Minnesota Conducted on behalf of the Longfellow Community Council

July, 2007

This report (NPCR 1265) is also available on the CURA website: www.cura.umn.edu/search/index.php

July, 2007

Neighborhood Planning for Community Revitalization (NPCR) supported the

work of the author of this work, but has not reviewed it for publication. The content is

solely the responsibility of the author and is not necessarily endorsed by NPCR.

NPCR is coordinated by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of

Minnesota. NPCR is supported by grants from The Minneapolis Foundation, the

McKnight Foundation, The Bremer Foundation, and The St. Paul Travelers Foundation.

Neighborhood Planning for Community Revitalization

330 Hubert H. Humphrey Center

301 - 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455

phone: 612/625-1020

e-mail: [email protected]

website: http://www.npcr.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.npcr.org/

Longfellow Community Population and Housing Characteristics, 1940-2000

An Analysis of the Census Data

September 2006

Prepared by: Nick Boettcher, Student Researcher University of Minnesota – Twin Cities

On Behalf of the Longfellow Community Council

Copyright 2006 Nick Boettcher and Longfellow Community Council

- 2 -

This project was supported [in part] through student research assistance provided by Neighborhood Planning for Community Revitalization (NPCR), a program of the University of Minnesota�s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA). This assistance was requested by the Longfellow Community Council (LCC), the citizen participation group for the Longfellow, Cooper, Howe and Hiawatha neighborhoods, and directed by Eric Hart of the LCC History Project. Special thanks to: Jeff Matson at CURA for his guidance during the GIS portion of this report; Prof. Patrick Nunnally with the University of Minnesota�s College of Design and Metropolitan Design Center (MDC); Katie Thering with the MDC; my friend Nicholas Andreoli for his help with graphics; the staff of the Minnesota History Center, Minneapolis Public Library and University of Minnesota�s Wilson Library, particularly the government documents collection, map library, and special collections librarians; Katie Hatt, Eric Hart, and Joan Krey with the Longfellow Community Council, and everyone involved with the LCC�s history project.

- 3 -

Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Area of Study........................................................................................................................................... 5

Census Tracts............................................................................................................................. 6 Methodology............................................................................................................................................ 7

Obtaining Tract-Level Data.......................................................................................................... 7 Population ............................................................................................................................................... 8

Population Changes at Smaller Levels within the Longfellow Community .................................... 9 Causes of Population Decline & the Decline in Context ............................................................... 9

Race and Ethnicity................................................................................................................................. 12 Blacks and African Americans................................................................................................... 12 Hispanic and Latino Population ................................................................................................. 13

Employment & Labor Force Characteristics ........................................................................................... 17 Women in the Labor Force........................................................................................................ 19 Employment in 1940 ................................................................................................................. 21 Major Industries in Which Workers are Employed...................................................................... 22 Manufacturing Employment....................................................................................................... 24

Income Characteristics .......................................................................................................................... 25 Educational Attainment.......................................................................................................................... 28 Housing................................................................................................................................................. 30

Age of Housing Stock................................................................................................................ 30 Type of Occupancy: Owners & Renters..................................................................................... 34 Vacancy.................................................................................................................................... 36 Longevity .................................................................................................................................. 37 Longevity Figures...................................................................................................................... 37

Means of Transportation........................................................................................................................ 40 Foreign-Born Population........................................................................................................................ 42

Foreign-Born Population in 1940 ............................................................................................... 44 Recommendations for Further Research................................................................................................ 45 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 46 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 48

Appendix A: Additional Maps..................................................................................................... 48 Appendix B: Effective Tract Boundaries..................................................................................... 50 Appendix C: Data...................................................................................................................... 50

General Population Data............................................................................................... 50 Housing Data................................................................................................................ 52 Education Data............................................................................................................. 55 Employment Data ......................................................................................................... 57 Income Data ................................................................................................................. 62 Means of Transportation to Work Data.......................................................................... 63 Country of Origin Data .................................................................................................. 64

- 4 -

Executive Summary

This report presents census data for the Longfellow Community over the sixty years from 1940

to 2000 and analyzes the data for trends and differences between the community and the City of

Minneapolis as a whole, as well as between different areas of the community. The major areas

covered include total population changes, race and ethnicity (particularly white to �non-white�

ratio, Black and African American population and Hispanic or Latino population), foreign-born

population characteristics, employment and labor force characteristics (including manufacturing

employment and women in the labor force), income distribution, educational attainment, housing

characteristics and means of transportation to work. The key findings produce an image of the

Longfellow Community as a place where:

! As in the city as a whole, population declined. Most significantly, the community lost

over 12 percent of its population between 1970 and 1980.

! The number of persons per unit declined at a faster rate than population.

! Diversity increased. In 1940, the Longfellow Community was 99.5 percent white. By

2000, minorities comprised twenty percent of the total population.

! The population is still �more white� than the city�s total population.

! Blacks and African Americans were concentrated south of 33rd Street East between

Hiawatha Avenue and Minnehaha Avenue, especially in the mid-20th Century.

! The Hispanic and Latino population tripled between 1990 and 2000.

! In 1940, Norwegians and Swedes were the predominant foreign-born populations. Danes,

Germans and Canadians were also well represented.

! The northwestern section of the community was the most diverse and also relatively

distressed, with high unemployment, high vacancy rates, low home ownership and low

income.

! The working population has relied on manufacturing, a declining industry. In 1960,

nearly a third of the Longfellow Community�s population worked in manufacturing; by

2000 only 11 percent did.

! The labor force continued to grow as women entered in significant numbers.

! Educational attainment, income and property values are lowest in the western edge of the

community (except in the southwest) and highest near the Mississippi River and

Minnehaha Park.

- 5 -

! Most of the housing stock dates to before World War II. This is truer in the Longfellow

Community than in the city as a whole.

! Homeownership predominates. The rate has been significantly above the city average, as

high as 81 percent and lower than 70 percent only in 1940.

! A significant percentage of residents are long-time residents.

! Workers heavily favor the private auto for transportation to work. The percentage of

Longfellow Community workers who do so climbed gradually between 1960 and 2000.

The data presented and analyzed in this report is based on official decennial census data. Much

of it has been adjusted to account for incongruities between the boundaries of the Longfellow

Community and the census tracts.

Introduction

This report is the culmination of an effort to compile and analyze various Census data for the

Cooper, Hiawatha, Howe and Longfellow neighborhoods of the Longfellow Community in south

Minneapolis, for the period 1940 to 2000. The original goal of the project was to include data

from 1900 to 1930, but this was deemed infeasible given the time allotted and the difficulty of

obtaining such data; the smallest area of analysis in published Census reports from that period is

the ward; tract data was first compiled for Minneapolis and St. Paul in the 1940 Census. The

main areas studied include population, race, ethnicity, nativity, employment, labor force

characteristics, income, educational attainment and housing characteristics. All figures are based

on decennial census reports cited in the bibliography section of this report. The method by which

the figures were derived is described later. Tract-level data is used for the period 1940-1970,

while most data for the period 1980-2000 is at a neighborhood level. This presents a significant

limitation of the study, as much data from the earliest forty years cannot be directly compared to

data from the last thirty years.

Area of Study

For the purposes of this study, the Longfellow Community does not include the Seward

neighborhood (included as a part of the Longfellow Community in many maps and documents

published by the city) but only the area occupied by the neighborhoods of Cooper, Hiawatha,

Howe and Longfellow: the Greater Longfellow Community represented by the Longfellow

- 6 -

Community Council. This area is bounded on the west by Hiawatha Avenue, on the east by the

Mississippi River, on the south by Minnehaha Park, and on the north by the railroad tracks near

27th Street E. (see Figure 2).

Census Tracts

For the period 1940 to 1990, all or part of census tracts 74, 75, 76, 88, 89, 90, 103, 104, 105 and

111 fall within the Longfellow Community. A map of the tracts, the boundaries of which did not

change until the 2000 Census, can be found on the following page. As mentioned above, data for

the period 1940-1970 is displayed at a tract level, so calculations were made to adjust data for

tracts 74, 75, 76, 88, 103 and 111, which lie partly outside and partly within the Longfellow

Community (Figure 1). These calculations are explained in the methodology section of this

report.

Figure 1: Tract Boundaries and Conflicting Longfellow Community Boundary1 (in red)

Right: Figure 2: Neighborhoods

1 The Longfellow Community boundary shown is an approximation. It is meant only to show the difference between the community boundary and the census tract boundaries as well as the effective relative size of the tracts.

(GIS Business Services, 2004)

- 7 -

Methodology

The research relied exclusively on published census data. The two major geographic units at

which data are displayed are the census tract and the neighborhood; tract-level data is used

exclusively for the period 1940 to 1970, and only in several instances (for several maps and

graphs) for the 1980 and 2000 censuses. Neighborhood-level data is used exclusively for the

1990 data and for most of the 1980 and 2000 data displayed in this report. This means that trends

and changes within the community can be examined from 1940 to 1970 and from 1980 to 2000

but not, for instance, from 1960 to 1990. Also, the four neighborhoods examined for the period

1980 to 2000 are smaller and fewer than the ten tracts examined for the earlier period.

The researcher made the decision to display data by two different, if incomparable, units in order

to display the most accurate data. Beginning with the 1980 decennial census, the Minneapolis

Planning Department began obtaining and publishing neighborhood-level data, which is reported

to be more accurate than a combination of tract and block data. Therefore, mostly neighborhood

data is used for the 1980-2000 period. Available tract-level data is used for the 1940-1970

period, but, as Figure 1 shows, the study area contains parts of, as well as whole, census tracts as

they were for the 1940 through 1990 censuses. Thus, adjustment of the published tract-level

figures was necessary.

Obtaining Tract-Level2 Data

! For the 1940 census, the available tract-level data was adjusted based on a percentage of

the housing units within the present-day boundaries of the Longfellow Community.

! For the 1950, 1960, 1970 and 1980 censuses, the available tract-level data was adjusted

based on an average of the percentage of housing units and the percentage of the

population within the present-day boundaries of the Longfellow Community.

! No 1990 tract data was used.

! For the 2000 census, no adjustment was necessary because the tract boundaries match

neighborhood boundaries.

2 Refers to tract boundaries specific to this study, not to official U.S. Census Bureau tract boundaries.

- 8 -

These percentages were determined by examining available block-level data. An example of the

tract-level data adjustment technique follows.

1. Obtaining a percentage of housing units reported in a given tract that are within the

boundaries of the Longfellow Community. Housing units in Longfellow Community Housing units reported in entire tract Percentage

40 ÷ 400 = 10.0%

2. Adjusting available tract-level census figures using the percentage obtained in step 1. Labor force reported in entire tract Percentage of housing units within study area New figure

3,100 X 10.0% = 310

For the following sections of this report, all mentions of tract 74, tract 75, tract 76, tract 88, tract

103 and tract 111 will refer to only the area of those tracts within the boundaries of the present-

day Longfellow Community, and all of the figures reported for these tracts will have been

adjusted using the method described. Therefore, much of the data displayed in the following

sections of this report are based on official census data, but are not official census data

themselves.

Population

The Longfellow Community lost population from 1940 to 2000 (Figure 3). This mirrors a trend

seen in the city as a whole (Figure 4), except over the last decade of the study period � the 1990s

- when the population of Minneapolis increased 3.9 percent. During one ten-year period, from

1960 to 1970, the city�s population dropped ten percent, while the community�s population

dropped only 0.3 percent (Figure 5). Tracts 88, 103 and 105 actually saw population gains during

this period � nearly 300 persons in tract 105, for instance. The most significant drop in

population in both the community and the city as a whole occurred between 1970 and 1980,

when the community�s population declined 12.4 percent, from 25,293 to 22,161. Some of this

decline may be attributable to the data collection methods used in producing these figures, but

during this same period, the city�s reported population declined 14.6 percent, from 434,408 to

370,951.

- 9 -

Population Changes at Smaller Levels within the Longfellow Community

With few exceptions, all the census tracts of the community reported declines in total population

at every 10-year interval over the study period (Figure 6). There are only six instances of census-

to-census population gains in a census tract between 1940 and 1970, as displayed in Figure 6 and

Figure 7. More recently, modest population gains were seen in the Hiawatha neighborhood

between 1980 and 1990, and in the Longfellow neighborhood between 1990 and 2000 (Figure 8).

Otherwise, an examination of neighborhood population statistics reveals a general decline in

population over the period 1980-2000.

On the whole, the population losses within the Longfellow Community are small; the most

significant declines occurred between 1950 and 1960 and between 1970 and 1980. The one

geographic area to experience consistently high percentages of population loss - during each

decade interval over the period 1940 to 1980 � is tract 74 (Figure 7). Much of this area is

predominately commercial and industrial (it contains the Lake Street-Hiawatha Avenue

intersection) and has seen a great deal of changes in its physical form. These changes, such as

urban renewal and transportation projects, and their quantifiable impact on the population and

the housing stock, merit further study.

Causes of Population Decline & the Decline in Context

One definite cause (or correlate) of population decline in the Longfellow Community as well as

in the city as a whole is observable in the census data: the decrease in persons per housing unit

(Figure 9). In the community, the number of persons per housing unit declined steadily from a

peak of over 3.5 in 1940 to just above two persons per unit in 2000, a decline of 39 percent! The

population decline over the same period amounted to around 27 percent, from 28,215 in 1940 to

20,602 in 2000. Increases in the numbers housing units offset some of the population losses

attributable to declines in the number of persons per unit. Housing figures, such as vacancy rates

as well as a total number of units, are closely linked to total population. Housing statistics and a

discussion on them can be found in the �Housing� section of this report.

- 10 -

Figure 3 Figure 4

Longfellow Community Population

05,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,000

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Tota

l Pop

ulat

ion

Minneapolis Population

0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Tota

l Pop

ulat

ion

Figure 5

Percent Population Change Over Previous Census, 1950-2000

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

Longfellow CommunityMinneapolis

Longfellow Community -1.5 -8.7 -0.3 -12.4 -2.5 -4.6

Minneapolis 6.0 -7.4 -10.0 -14.6 -0.7 3.9

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Figure 6

Population by Tract

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1940 1950 1960 1970

Year

Tota

l Pop

ulat

ion

Tract 74Tract 75Tract 76Tract 88Tract 89Tract 90Tract 103Tract 104Tract 105Tract 111

- 11 -

Figure 7

Percent Population Change Over Previous Census (Tracts) 1950-1980

-30.0

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

Tract 74 -9.8 -24.0 -24.5 -23.3Tract 75 0.3 -5.9 -9.1 -2.1Tract 76 -7.2 -2.5 -1.4 -15.9Tract 88 0.0 -6.2 3.6 -12.7Tract 89 -4.9 -9.6 -3.1 0.0Tract 90 -0.8 -8.7 -3.6 0.0Tract 104 -4.0 -7.8 -3.5 0.0Tract 105 3.8 -12.1 7.2 0.0Tract 111 10.6 2.4 -0.3 -5.1

1950 1960 1970 1980

Figure 8

Population by Neighborhood

010002000300040005000600070008000

1980 1990 2000

Year

Tota

l Pop

ulat

ion

Cooper

Hiaw atha

How e

Longfellow

- 12 -

Figure 9

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Persons per Occupied Unit

LongfellowCommunity

Minneapolis

Race and Ethnicity

Much like the city as a whole, the Longfellow Community grew more diverse between 1940 and

2000 (Figure 10). In 1940, races other than white made up only one half of one percent of the

community�s total population. By 1970 the figure was two percent and by 1990 it stood at nine

percent. The greatest rise in the population reporting itself as a race other than white occurred

between 1990 and 2000, when the figure rose to nearly 20 percent. The community has,

however, retained a statistically greater white majority than has the city as a whole. In 2000, for

example, 65 percent of all persons in Minneapolis reported their race as white, while 80 percent

in the Longfellow Community did.

Blacks and African Americans

The black and African American3 population comprises the largest minority group in the

Longfellow Community and in the city as a whole. Unlike other races tabulated in recent

censuses, such as �Asian or Pacific Islander,� �American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut,� and �Some

Other Race,� the black and African American population was counted in each decennial census

3 Persons of this race were counted as �Negroes� in the 1940-1970 censuses, �Blacks� in the 1980 and 1990 censuses, and �Blacks and African Americans� in the 2000 Census (U.S. Bureau of the Census).

- 13 -

over the study period. Study of this population over the period highlights its historic

concentration, most pronounced in the middle of the 20th century, in tract 88 (Figure 11),

especially between Hiawatha Avenue and Minnehaha Avenue and 33rd Street and 38th Street, in

the west-central area of the community (the southwestern part of the Longfellow neighborhood

and northwestern and west-central part of the Howe neighborhood). Not until 1980 did the black

and African American population in all tracts besides tract 88 combined surpass the black

population in tract 88 (Figure 11).

Whereas the black and African American population in the city as a whole grew steadily

between each census over the entire 60-year study period (Figure 12, Figure 13), growth of the

same population in the Longfellow Community did not approach city-average rates until after

1970 (Figure 12, Figure 14). At a neighborhood level, between 1980 and 2000, the most

significant increases in the numbers of black persons and African Americans were in the Howe

and Longfellow neighborhoods.

Hispanic and Latino4 Population

Statistics on the number of persons of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity were not included in

decennial census reports until relatively recently; the 1970 census is the first census of those

examined to contain such information. Rapid growth of the Hispanic and Latino ethnic

population occurred between 1980 and 1990 and especially between 1990 and 2000. Over the

latter period, the number of persons identified as Hispanic or Latino in the Longfellow

Community nearly tripled, from 439 persons in 1990 to 1,216 in 2000, and nearly quadrupled

citywide, from 7,900 to 29,175 (Figure 15 � Figure 17). At the time of the 2000 census,

Hispanics and Latinos comprised nearly six percent of the Longfellow Community�s total

population and nearly eight percent of the city�s population (Figure 16).

Of the four neighborhoods comprising the community, the Longfellow and Howe neighborhoods

have the largest Hispanic and Latino populations. In the 2000 census, 483 Hispanics or Latinos

lived in the Longfellow neighborhood and 436 lived in the Howe neighborhood (see Appendix). 4 Persons of this ethnicity were counted as persons of �Spanish Mother Tongue� in the 1970 Census, persons of �Spanish Language� in 1980, and persons of �Spanish or Latino� ethnicity in 2000.

- 14 -

The neighborhood with the greatest percentage of Hispanic or Latino persons, however, is and

has been Longfellow (Figure 16). In 2000, this figure stood at ten percent (two points above the

city average); in the Howe neighborhood, it was just above six percent, and in the Cooper and

Hiawatha neighborhoods the percentage was around three and a half.

Figure 10

Whites & Other Races

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

% White, LongfellowCommunity% White, Minneapolis

% Black, Longfellow

% Black, Minneapolis

% Other Races,Longfellow% Other Races, City

Figure 11

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Num

ber

of P

erso

ns

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Black and African American Population, Tracts and Neighborhoods

Tract 88

All Other Tracts

Cooper

Hiaw atha

How e

Longfellow

- 15 -

Figure 12

Blacks & African Americans as Percentage of Total Population

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Per

cent

Longfellow Community Minneapolis

Figure 13

Black and African American Population, City of Minneapolis

0

20,00040,000

60,000

80,000

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Num

ber o

f Per

sons

Figure 14

Black and African American Population, Longfellow Community

0500

1,0001,5002,000

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Num

ber o

f Per

sons

- 16 -

Figure 15

Spanish Mother Tongue, Spanish Origin, and Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1970 1980 1990 2000

Num

ber o

f Per

sons

LongfellowCommunity

Cooper

Hiaw atha

How e

LongfellowNeighborhood

Figure 16


0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

1970 1980 1990 2000

Perc

enta

ge o

f Tot

al P

opul

atio

n LongfellowCommunityMinneapolis

Cooper

Hiaw atha

How e


Figure 17


05,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,000

1970 1980 1990 2000

Num

ber o

f Per

sons

Minneapolis

- 17 -

Employment & Labor Force Characteristics5

Longfellow Community�s unemployment rate has in every census examined remained below the

city average (Figure 18). With unemployment rates between three and four percent in every

census but 1940, most Longfellow residents able and willing to work, it seems6, have historically

been able to do so. The Longfellow Community average, however, does not apply to every tract

and neighborhood. Up to 1970, Tract 74, in the northwestern corner of the community, had

unemployment rates significantly higher than any other tract in the community and higher than

the city average (Figure 19).The western part of the community - tracts 75, 88, 103 and 104 - has

also seen high unemployment rates relative to Longfellow�s eastern edge. Only in a few

instances, however, have any areas of the community outside Tract 74 seen rates higher than the

city average.

Labor force statistics - on the �class of worker� (government or private sector, for instance),

employment numbers and the size of the labor force - are displayed in figures 20 and 21.

Interesting to note here is the great rise in employment between 1940 and 1950, accompanied by

a significant decline in unemployment, in both the community and the city, followed by a short

decline (longer termed in the city as a whole) in the numbers of people employed and in the

entire labor force. Much of this can be attributed to the overall population decline experienced in

the community and in the city as a whole (see �Population� section). Between 1970 and 2000 in

Longfellow, and between 1980 and 2000 in the city as a whole, total employment and the size of

the labor force grew. The proportion of persons of working age not in the labor force dropped

sharply over the study period, from 47 percent and 45 percent in the community and city as a

whole, respectively, in 1940 to just under a quarter in the community and 28 percent in the city

in 2000. This, as well as the fact that employment and the total labor force often increased even

over periods when the total population decreased, can largely be attributed to the entrance of

women into the labor force.

5 The Census Bureau tabulated labor force and employment characteristics for persons 14 years of age and over for the 1940, 1950, and 1960 censuses, and for persons 16 years of age and over for the 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 censuses. 6 The figures used in this report, of course, say very little about who the unemployed are and nothing about the chronically unemployed, discriminatory hiring practices, or persons who are not actively seeking employment.

- 18 -

Figure 18

Unemployment

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f Lab

or

Forc

e


Figure 19

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Perc

enta

ge o

f Lab

or

Forc

e

1940 1950 1960 1970

Unemployment by Tract Tract74

Tract 75

Tract 76

Tract 88

Tract 89

Tract 90

Tract 103

Tract 104

Tract 105

Tract 111

Longfellow

City

Figure 20

Class of Worker & Labor Force Characteristics, Longfellow Community

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

# of

Per

sons

Employed

Private Wage & Salary

Government

Self-Employed

Unemployed, Seeking Work

Total Labor Force

Not in Labor Force

- 19 -

Figure 21

Class of Worker & Labor Force Characteristics, Minneapolis

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

# of

Per

sons

, in

thou

sand

s Employed

Private Wage & Salary

Government

Self-Employed

Unemployed, Seeking Work

Total Labor Force

Not in Labor Force

Women in the Labor Force

In 1940, females comprised nearly 52 percent of the Longfellow Community�s population but

only 26 percent of its labor force. Citywide, the figures were 53 percent and 33 percent,

respectively. Tellingly, of the 26 percent of all persons of working age in 1940 reported as being

�engaged in own housework� in Minneapolis, over 99 percent were female. Every subsequent

decade saw increases in the percentage of females in the Longfellow Community�s labor force

(Figure 22). Citywide, however, similar growth was seen up until the period 1980-2000, when

the proportion actually declined slightly, but remained just above 47 percent. In both the

Longfellow community and the city as a whole, women in 2000 remained underrepresented in

the labor force, comprising roughly 53 percent of Longfellow�s population and nearly half of its

labor force; citywide figures were 50 percent and 47 percent. Unlike totals for persons employed

and persons in the labor force, which saw some decline over the study period (see previous), the

number of women in the labor force increased every year (Figure 23, Figure 24).

- 20 -

Figure 22

Females: in Population & in Labor Force

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

% F

emal

e

Longfellow , % ofPopulation

City, % of Population

Longfellow , % of LaborForce

City, % of Labor Force

Figure 23

Females in Labor Force & Total Labor Force, Longfellow Community

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,000

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

Num

ber o

f Per

sons

Females in LaborForce

Total Labor Force

Figure 24

Females in Labor Force & Total Labor Force, City of Minneapolis

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

Num

ber

of P

erso

ns

Females in LaborForce

Total Labor Force

- 21 -

Employment in 1940

1940 is a significant year in this study because it is anomalous; unemployment and the number of

persons not in the labor force peaked, while the numbers of people employed or not in the labor

force were at their highest (Figure 20, Figure 21). This has a lot to do with the Second World

War and the Great Depression; impacts of public policies to counter the effects of the latter,

especially, are observable in the census data. For instance, in 1940, nearly 400 Longfellow

residents (3.3 percent of the labor force) reported working for the WPA or doing some other

form of public emergency work; over 10,000 people citywide (4.6 percent of the labor force)

reported doing so. Variations between census tracts of people on public emergency work are

shown in Figure 25. As expected, the greatest percentage of people on public emergency work

can be found in Tract 74.

Figure 25

- 22 -

Major Industries in Which Workers are Employed

A census-to-census analysis of employment in particular industries is made difficult by the

changing nature of the categories; rarely were the occupational categories of one census repeated

in the next without significant changes. However, a sampling of the major industries in which

Longfellow and Minneapolis residents reported working over the study period is available in

figures 26 through 28. The proportions of persons employed in each industry are generally

comparable to those of the city as a whole. The average Longfellow worker did, however, in

1960 did seem to have a more concrete idea about the kind of work he or she did, reporting

�Other Industries� less frequently than did the average Minneapolitan. Also in 1960, as well as in

1980, Longfellow residents were more likely to work in manufacturing; manufacturing work has

declined significantly over the study period, a trend examined in the following section.

Figure 26

Workers in Major Industries, 1960:Longfellow Community (Inner Ring) & City (Outer Ring)

Construction Manufacturing Railroad & Railw ay

Other Transportation Commun., Utilities & Sanitary Wholesale Trade

Eating & Drinking Places Other Retail Trade Business and Repair

Private Households Other Personal Services Hospitals

Educational Other Professional Public Admin.

Other Industries

- 23 -

Figure 27


Construction Manufacturing

Transportation Communications & Public Utilities

Wholesale Trade Retail Trade

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Business and Repair

Personal, Entertainment, Rec. Services Health services

Educational Services Other Professional & related

Public Administration

Figure 28


Construction Manufacturing

Wholesale Trade Retail Trade

Transp. & Warehousing, and utilities Information

Finance, Insur., Real Estate Prof., scientif ic, mgmt., admin. & w aste mgmt.

Educ., Health and Social Serv. Arts, Enter., Rec., Accomodation, & Food Services

Other Services Public Administration

- 24 -

Manufacturing Employment

Manufacturing has an important place in Longfellow Community history. The Minneapolis

Moline plant and its closing in 1972 is the best-known and perhaps the most significant aspect of

this history; this closing no doubt contributed to the decline in Longfellow workers employed in

manufacturing, although its precise effects were not researched as part of this report. As can be

observed in figures 25, 26, 27, and Table 1, the share of workers employed in the manufacturing

industry declined significantly over the study period. The greatest drop in the Longfellow

Community occurred between 1960 and 1970 (Figure 29, Figure 30), when manufacturing

employment declined six percent. The city as a whole experienced a lesser decline of three

percent during this period.

Table 1: Manufacturing Employment as a Share of Total Employment

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Community 29% 23% 19% 16% 11%

City 24% 21% 17% 14% 11%

Minneapolis Steel & Machinery Co., 1929 (Minnesota Historical Society photo)

- 25 -

Figure 29

Persons Reporting as Manufacturing Industry Workers, Longfellow Community

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Year

Num

ber o

f Per

sons

Total Mfg. Durable Goods

Figure 30

Persons Reporting as Manufacturing Industry Workers, City of Minneapolis

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Num

ber o

f Per

sons

Total Mfg. Durable Goods

Income Characteristics

The general pattern with income in the Longfellow Community, as with most communities in the

Twin Cities bounded by such amenities as the Mississippi River and its bluffs, sizeable parks and

parkways, is a pattern of higher incomes near these amenities, with lower incomes further from

- 26 -

them (Martin and Lanegran 1983). The highest median incomes are found in those areas that

border the river and/or Minnehaha Park: tracts 76, 90, 105, 103 and 111 (figures 31-33). The

lower median incomes are to the north and west of those higher-income tracts. By far the area

with the lowest median income over the period 1950-1970, however, is tract 74. Table 2 shows

median income by tract, community, and the city over the study period. Notice that median

incomes for the Longfellow Community remained comfortably above those for the city as a

whole over the study period.

Table 2: Median Income7

1950 19608 1970 19809 1990 2000

Community $3,589 $6,497 $8,195 $16,279 $30,292 $44,591

Minneapolis $3,078 $6,401 $6,243 $14,351 $25,324 $37,974

Tract 74 $3,038 $4,676 $6,259

Tract 75 $3,435 $4,936 $7,304

Tract 76 $4,034 $5,777 $8,149

Tract 88 $3,333 $5,115 $7,108

Tract 89 $3,697 $5,755 $8,240

Tract 90 $4,078 $6,208 $8,669

Tract 103 $3,299 $5,460 $7,944

Tract 104 $3,481 $5,770 $8,610

Tract 105 $3,892 $5,995 $9,584

Tract 111 $3,845 $6,441 $9,132

7 Not adjusted for inflation. Also, tract data is not shown past 1970 because neighborhood-level data was primarily used thereafter and the tract boundaries and labels were altered for the 2000 Census. 8 Median income of families and unrelated individuals (same in 1970) 9 Household median income (same in 1990 and 2000)

- 27 -

Figure 31 Figure 32

Figure 33

- 28 -

Educational Attainment

In Longfellow, as well as in the city as a whole, high school graduation rates, meaning the

percentage of adults over 25 who have completed high school, and the percentage of persons

who have attended college rose over the study period. The most significant gains in these fields

occurred during the twenty years between 1970 and 1990, when the high school graduation rate

increased over 28 percent, from just over 50 percent of Longfellow residents 25 years of age or

older to 81.9 percent (Figure 34). Citywide, the high school graduation rate increased nearly 25

percent from 58 percent in 1970 to over 82 percent in 1990. Longfellow Community high school

graduation rates have been markedly lower than the citywide average, although the gap closed

steadily over the study period, as graduation rates increased at a faster pace in the community

than in the city as a whole. Tract 74 had the lowest high school graduation rate of the Longfellow

tracts from 1940 to 1960; Tract 75, with the lowest rate in 1970, actually saw a drop between

1960 and 1970 in the percentage of its adult population that had graduated. Over this period,

tracts 90, 76, 105, and 111 � those on the eastern and southern edges of the community - were

regularly the tracts with the highest educational attainment (Figure 35).

From 1940 up until the 1970 Census, persons 25 and older were much more likely to have

completed only seven to eight years of grade school or one to three years of high school than to

have graduated high school or gone to college. After 1970, however, this changed: it became far

more likely for someone to have completed high school and an increasingly greater percentage of

the adult population had attended college (Figure 36). Examining neighborhood-level data for

1980 and 1990, it is evident that the Longfellow neighborhood had the lowest percentage of high

school graduates - 69.2 percent in 1980 and 77.8 percent in 1990 � three percent lower than the

second lowest (Howe) in 1980 and four percent lower than Howe, again the second lowest, in

1990. The Cooper neighborhood had the highest percentage of persons 25 or older who had

graduated high school (Figure 37). In all neighborhoods the figure increased by nearly 10 percent

between 1980 and 1990.

- 29 -

Figure 34

High School Graduates & Equivalent

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990Perc

enta

ge o

f Pop

ulat

ion

25+


Figure 35

High School Graduates & Equivalent* by Tract

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

1940 1950 1960 1970

% o

f Pop

ulat

ion

25+

Longfellow Community

Tract 74

Tract 75

Tract 76

Tract 88

Tract 89

Tract 90

Tract 103

Tract 104

Tract 105

Tract 111

City

Figure 36

Persons with Bachelor's Degree or Higher

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

% o

f Pop

ulat

ion

25+

Longfellow Community City

- 30 -

Figure 37

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

% o

f Pop

ulat

ion

25+

LongfellowCommunity

City Cooper Hiawatha Howe LongfellowNeighborhood

High School Graduates by Neighborhood

1980 1990

Housing

Age of Housing Stock

For this report, the age of housing units is analyzed at two points: the 1940 Census and the 2000

Census. In 1940, there were nearly 8,000 housing units in the Longfellow Community. Of these,

three percent were built in the 19th Century, and most of these were in tracts 74 and 75, near the

older industrial areas. Nearly 43 percent of the community�s units were built between 1900 and

1919 and just over 45 percent between 1920 and 1929. Only nine percent were built between

1930 and 1940; this period saw little housing construction nationwide as a result of the Great

Depression. Figures 38 through 41 show the percentage of housing units built over particular

periods in Longfellow as reported in the 1940 Census.

In 2000, there were 9,523 housing units in Longfellow. The bulk of these were built before 1939

(Figure 42), suggesting that relatively few older units were replaced between 1940 and 2000. A

housing structure in the Longfellow Community is more likely to be than in the city as a whole

to be built before 1939, with 50 percent of units having been built before 1939 citywide, as

opposed to figures between 60 and 75 percent for Longfellow�s neighborhoods. There were

spikes in housing construction in particular neighborhoods at certain times. For example, roughly

ten percent of the housing units in the Hiawatha neighborhood were built between 1980 and

1989. A slightly smaller percentage of that neighborhood�s units were built between 1960 and

- 31 -

1969. Similarly, about ten percent of units in the Longfellow neighborhood were built between

1970 and 1979. As with the 1940 data, the percentage of housing units built over particular

periods in Longfellow as of 2000 is displayed in figures 43 through 47.

Figure 38 Figure 39

Figure 40 Figure 41

- 32 -

Figure 42

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

% o

f All

Hou

sing

Uni

ts

1990 toMarch2000

1980 to1989

1970 to1979

1960 to1969

1940 to1959

1939 orearlier

Period

Year Structure Built, 2000 Census

Cooper

Hiaw atha

How e

Longfellow Neighborhood


City of Minneapolis

Figure 43 Figure 44

- 33 -

Figure 45 Figure 46

Figure 47

- 34 -

Type of Occupancy: Owners & Renters

The Longfellow Community has been and remains a predominately owner-occupied area (Figure

48). The city as a whole, meanwhile, has remained evenly split between owners and renters.

Homeownership rates in the community were reported below 70 percent only once, in 1940. The

figure reached a peak of over 81 percent in 1950, and declined steadily until after the 1990

Census; the owner-occupied rate in Longfellow stood at just over 74 percent in 2000. A glance at

Figure 48 reveals that the rental occupancy rate has, appropriately, been a nearly exact inverse of

this trend. There are clear differences between the Longfellow Community�s tracts and

neighborhoods. The appendix contains full figures on this, but it is worth noting that, between

1940 and 1970, Tract 74 experienced what were by far the lowest homeownership rates in the

community; in 1970, for instance, just one quarter of that tract�s units were occupied by their

owners. By contrast, over the same period tracts 76, 89, 90, 104 and 105 (Figure 1) saw much

higher rates, generally between 70 and 80 percent (Appendix; Figure 50, Figure 51). Between

1980 and 2000, the Longfellow neighborhood experienced homeownership rates below 55

percent (Figure 49), well below the rates in Longfellow�s other three neighborhoods.

Figure 48

Type of Occupancy

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

% o

f Occ

upie

d U

nits

Ow ner Occupancy, Longfellow

Ow ner Occupancy, City

Renter Occupancy, Longfellow

Renter Occupancy, City

- 35 -

Figure 49

Renter Occupancy by Neighborhood

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.050.0

1980 1990 2000

Cooper

Hiaw atha

How e


LongfellowCommunity

Figure 50 Figure 51

- 36 -

Vacancy

The housing vacancy rate in Longfellow has remained comfortably below the city average

(Figure 52). The vacancy rate was at its highest in 1990; just over four percent of all housing

units in Longfellow � roughly two percent more than in the 1980 and 2000 censuses - and seven

percent of all units citywide were reported vacant in that census. There may be a correlation

between low homeownership rates and high vacancy rates: Tract 74 for the period 1940-1970

(Figure 53) and the Longfellow neighborhood for the period 1980-2000, those areas with the

lowest homeownership, saw housing vacancies at a considerably higher rate than the community

and the city.

Figure 52

Vacant Housing Units

0.0

1.02.0

3.04.0

5.0

6.07.0

8.0

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

% o

f All

Hous

ing

Units

LongfellowCommunityCity

Figure 53

Housing Vacancy by Tract

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1940 1950 1960 1970

Tract 74Tract 75Tract 76Tract 88Tract 89Tract 90Tract 103Tract 104Tract 105Tract 111Longfellow Community

- 37 -

Longevity

Residents of the Longfellow Community tend to stay in their home for a longer period of time

than people citywide (Figure 54). For instance, according to the 1980 Census, slightly more than

a quarter of the community�s residents - 27 percent � had moved into the unit they currently

occupied in or before 1959, meaning they had been part of the community for over 20 years.

Fifteen percent of all occupied units in Longfellow � nearly 1,400 units housing over 3,300

people, based on the average number of persons per unit � had been moved into over 30 years

earlier. Citywide, only eight percent of all occupied units fit that description. Of course, there are

discrepancies between different areas of the community. The north and west of the community

saw the lowest percentages of longtime householders, while the eastern and southern areas saw

the greatest. Since renters tend to relocate more frequently than owners, it is not surprising that a

lower percentage of longtime householders could be found in areas with more renters.

Figure 54

Longtime Householders: Duration of Occupancy in Same Unit

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Census Year

% o

f Occ

upie

d Un

its 10-20 Years, Longfellow

10-20 Years, City

20 Years Or More,Longfellow

20 Years Or More, City

Longevity Figures The differences between the community population and the city�s entire population are

especially noticeable at both extremes: a much greater percentage of the city�s (housed)

population moved into the units they occupied at the time of the census in the few years before

the taking of the census than in the community and, as discussed previously, a significantly

- 38 -

higher percentage of the Longfellow Community�s population moved into the units they

occupied at the time of the census in the two to three decades before the taking of the census than

in the city as a whole. Figures 55 through 59 display when householders moved into their units in

the Longfellow Community and the City of Minneapolis for each Census from 1960 through

2000. 1940 and 1950 data of this type is not available in the reports examined. The Longfellow

Community is represented in the inner ring, the city in the outer.

Figure 55

Year Moved Into Unit: 1960

24%

18%31%

27%34%

22%

29%

15%

1958 to 3/1960

1954 to 1957

1940 to 1953

1939 or earlier

Figure 56


22%

17%

14%20%

27% 37%

17%13%

16%

17%

1968 to March 1970

1965 to 1967

1960 to 1964

1950 to 1959

1949 or earlier

- 39 -

Figure 57


18%

25%

13%17%

12%

15%29%

28%13%

14%

8%8%

1979 to March 1980

1975 to 1978

1970 to 1974

1960 to 1969

1950 to 1959

1949 or earlier

Figure 58


16%

28%

13%17%

12%

14%28%

29%12%

14%

7%

10%

1989 to March 1990

1985 to 1988

1980 to 1984

1970 to 1979

1960 to 1969

1959 or earlier

Figure 59


14%

31%

16%

17%

9%

13%26%

33%

15%

12%

6%8%

1999 to March 2000

1995 to 1998

1990 to 1994

1980 to 1989

1970 to 1979

1969 or earlier

- 40 -

Means of Transportation

The Longfellow Community has relied heavily on the private automobile for transportation to

work, even more than the city�s population has. The proportion of Longfellow and city residents

who do so, either by carpooling or driving alone to work, rose markedly over much of the study

period, from 68.9 percent in 1960 (the first year for which data is available in the reports

examined) to 87.6 percent in 2000, an increase of nearly 19 percent (Figure 60). The figure

dropped only in 1980, perhaps as a result of the late-1970s oil crisis. Correlating increases over

1970 are observable in the proportion of Longfellow and city residents who carpool or use public

transportation; 1980 is the peak year for transit ridership, at 17.4 percent for the community and

21.8 percent citywide. Excluding the 1980 data, the share of Longfellow residents who use

public transportation to get to work declined gradually between 1960 and 2000, from over 20

percent in 1960 to a historic low of ten percent in 2000. Citywide transit ridership was also at a

low in 2000 of 14.6 percent, down from just over 21 percent in 1960; in 2000, for the first time,

carpooling transported more workers than public transportation (Figure 61). The 2000 census

shows that the Longfellow neighborhood is the most transit-reliant, while the Cooper

neighborhood is the least (Figure 62). The Hiawatha LRT line�s impact on the community�s

transit ridership requires further research.

Besides driving and riding to work in a private auto, two other means of transportation gained

popularity over the study period: all �other means� and none at all (Figure 63). The census

category �Other Means,� which includes bicycling, but not walking, is a strikingly insignificant

means of transportation in the city and community: only one percent of all Longfellow residents

and Minneapolitans traveled to work via something other than the private auto, public

transportation or their own feet in 1960; the figure climbed slowly to two-and-a-half percent in

2000. Workers who do not travel to work at all, of course, work at home. The percentage of

Longfellow workers working from home rose from below one percent in 1970 (the first year

such figures are available) to four percent in 2000; citywide, the percentage rose from 2.2 to 3.4

over the same period. The advent of widespread internet use over the 1990s does not appear to

have led to a significant increase in the percentage of persons working from home; between 1990

and 2000, this figure rose 1.5 percent within the community and just .3 percent citywide.

- 41 -

Figure 60 Public Transportation vs. Private Auto Usage

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

% o

f All

Wor

kers

Public Transportation, Longfellow

Public Transportation, City

Carpool & Drove Alone,Longfellow

Carpool & Drove Alone, City

Drove Alone, Longfellow

Drove Alone, City

Figure 61

Means of Transportation (Excluding Driving Alone)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

% o

f All

Wor

kers

Carpool, Longfellow

Carpool, City

Public Transportation, Longfellow

Public Transportation, City

Walked, Longfellow

Walked, City

Other Means, Longfellow

Other Means, City

Worked at Home, Longfellow

Worked at Home, City

Figure 62

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Cooper Hiawatha Howe LongfellowNeighborhood

Means of Transportation by Neighborhood, 2000

Drove Alone

CarpoolPublic TransportationWalked

Worked at HomeOther Means

- 42 -

Figure 63

Working at Home

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1970 1980 1990 2000

% o

f All

Wor

kers Cooper

Hiaw atha

How e

Longfellow Neighborhood


City of Minneapolis

Foreign-Born Population

The foreign-born population of the Longfellow Community declined over much of the study

period, from a high of over 4,000 people (10.8 percent of the total population) in 1940 to a low

of just over 700 people (3.3 percent of the total population) in 1990. The 2000 Census reveals

that the foreign-born population in the community more than doubled in the 1990s, to over 1,500

persons. The tripling of the Hispanic and Latino population over the same period (see the �Race

and Ethnicity� section of this report) no doubt accounts for much of the rise in the foreign-born

population. Citywide, as in the Longfellow Community, the foreign-born population declined

significantly from 1940 to 1960, presumably as the state�s early immigrants died. After 1960, the

foreign-born population as a percentage of total population leveled at around five percent (Figure

64), even though the total foreign-born population dropped by about 14,000 between 1960 and

1970. The foreign-born population grew rapidly in the 1990s; the 2000 Census reports that over

55,000 of the city�s residents � 14.5 percent of all Minneapolitans and by far the most since

before World War II - were born outside the U.S. The areas comprising parts of the Longfellow,

Cooper and Howe neighborhoods have traditionally seen the greatest foreign-born populations

(Figure 65, Figure 66). The 1990s foreign-born migrant boom, however, is concentrated in the

Longfellow neighborhood and the northern segment of the Howe neighborhood (Figure 67). In

these areas, the foreign-born population comprised over 12 percent of the total population in

2000, significantly more than in the other parts of the community.

- 43 -

Figure 64

Foreign-Born Population

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

% o

f Tot

al


City

Figure 65 Figure 66

- 44 -

Figure 67 Figure 68

Foreign-Born Population in 1940

Norway and Sweden are by far the two most common nations of birth for Longfellow�s mid-

century foreign born. In 1940, just over 1,000 Norwegians and over 1,700 Swedes lived in the

community, which had more than its share of persons of these nationalities: Longfellow

contained below six percent of the city�s total population, but nearly nine percent of its

Norwegians and Swedes. Danes, Germans and Canadians were also well-represented in the

community; Danes of Minneapolis especially were drawn to Longfellow, where 13 percent of the

city�s Danish population resided. Norwegian-Americans were represented in significant numbers

throughout the Longfellow Community in 1940; concentrations were greatest south of East 38th

Street � in tracts 104, 105 and 111 � and toward the northwest portion of the community � in

tracts 75 and 88 � where Norwegians accounted for more than a quarter of the total foreign-born

population and around four percent of the total population (Figure 68). In the area with the

greatest concentration, Tract 104 in south-central Longfellow, 150 Norwegian-born persons

accounted for nearly five percent of the total population. Swedes, like Norwegians, were well-

- 45 -

represented throughout the Longfellow Community in 1940. The greatest concentrations of

Swedes in 1940 within the community were in the northeastern quarter, where nearly 800 such

persons in tracts 76, 89 and 90 accounted for between 42 percent and 49 percent of the foreign-

born population and about seven percent of the total population in these areas.

Figure 69 Figure 70

Recommendations for Further Research

This project has compiled and analyzed a set of census data for the Longfellow Community

which spans sixty years. The original goal of the project was to produce and analyze a set of data

for the entire 20th Century, which was not possible given the scope of the project, since data

specific to the community before 1940 is not easily accessible. But ward-level data is available,

and could provide a researcher with an image of what the Longfellow Community was like early

in the 20th Century. Some readily available data, including age and gender distribution data, was

ignored in this project due to time considerations. This report effectively answers some questions

about what happened over the course of the community�s development and measures how much

happened: how much the population declined between 1940 and 1960, for instance. What it does

- 46 -

not answer is why these changes occurred. Did the loss of manufacturing jobs at the Minneapolis

Moline plant force any residents to find new work elsewhere? Why did the Hispanic and Latino

population increase so much in the Longfellow Community between 1990 and 2000? Answers to

such questions could be found through research of materials other than census data � reports

published by city, state, or county agencies, perhaps � or through interviews with Longfellow

residents.

Block-level data was incorporated into this report, but mainly as the means of producing new

tract-level data. Further analysis of block data could, for instance, chart the development of the

Black and African American community in the western section of the Longfellow Community.

Finally, this project compares the community to the city as a whole and compares parts of the

community to one another. Another possibility would be to compare Longfellow to another part

of Minneapolis or part of another city with shared characteristics. This could potentially lead to

the identification of more traits, trends or stories unique to Longfellow that this analysis did not

recognize.

Bibliography 1. City of Minneapolis Planning Department & U.S. Bureau of the Census (1993). 1990

Minneapolis Neighborhood Statistics. Minneapolis: City of Minneapolis Planning Department.

2. City of Minneapolis Planning Department & U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1980 Minneapolis Neighborhood Statistics: A Census �80 Data Report. Minneapolis: City of Minneapolis Planning Department.

3. GIS Business Services (2004). �City of Minneapolis Neighborhoods & Communities� [map]. City of Minneapolis. Retrieved August, 2006 from http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/about/maps/neighborhoods.asp

4. Martin, Judith A. and David A. Lanegran (1983). Where We Live: The Residential Districts of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

5. Minneapolis Planning Department, Research and Strategic Planning Division. Selected Economic Characteristics by Neighborhood: 1990 and 2000 Census. Accessed August, 2006 from http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/citywork/ planning/Census2000/maps/economic/

6. Minneapolis Planning Department, Research and Strategic Planning Division. General Demographic Characteristics by Neighborhood: 1990 and 2000 Census. Accessed August, 2006 from http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/citywork/ planning/census2000/maps/index.asp

- 47 -

7. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1972). Census of Housing: 1970 BLOCK STATISTICS. Final Report HC(3)-130 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Urbanized Area Minn. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

8. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1972). Census of Population and Housing: 1970 CENSUS TRACTS. Final Report PHC(1)132 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. SMSA. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

9. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1962). U.S. Census of Housing: 1960. Vol. III, City Blocks. Series HC(3), No. 224. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

10. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1962). U.S. Census of Population and Housing: 1960. Census Tracts. Final Report PHC(1)-93. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

11. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1952). U.S. Census of Housing: 1950. Vol. V, Block Statistics, Part 113. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

12. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1952). U.S. Census of Population: 1950. Vol. III, Census Tract Statistics, Minneapolis-St. Paul Minn. Chapter 33. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1952.

13. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1942). U.S. Census of Population and Housing: 1940. Statistics for Census Tracts: Minneapolis, Minn. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

14. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1942). U.S. Census of Housing: 1940. Vol. I, Block Statistics: Minneapolis, Minn. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office

App

endi

x

App

endi

x A

: Add

ition

al M

aps

- 49

-

App

endi

x B

: Eff

ectiv

e Tr

act B

ound

arie

s

For t

he p

urpo

ses o

f thi

s rep

ort,

the

1940

to 1

970

tract

bou

ndar

ies a

re a

s fo

llow

s (se

e al

so: F

igur

e 1)

:

Bou

ndar

y T

ract

74

Tra

ct 7

5 T

ract

76

Tra

ct 8

8 T

ract

89

Wes

tern

H

iaw

atha

A

venu

e 28

th A

ve. S

. 36

th A

ve. S

. 28

th A

ve. S

. &

Hia

wat

ha A

ve.

34th A

ve. S

.

East

ern

28th A

ve. S

. 36

th A

ve. S

. M

issi

ssip

pi R

iver

34

th A

ve. S

. 40

th A

ve. S

.

Nor

ther

n E.

26th

St.

&

Min

neha

ha A

ve.

E. 2

7th S

treet

E.

27th

Stre

et

E. L

ake

Stre

et &

E.

32nd

St.

E. L

ake

Stre

et

Sout

hern

E.

32nd

Stre

et

E. L

ake

Stre

et

E. L

ake

Stre

et

E. 3

8th S

treet

E.

38th

Stre

et

T

ract

90

Tra

ct 1

03

Tra

ct 1

04

Tra

ct 1

05

Tra

ct 1

11

Wes

tern

40

th A

ve. S

. H

iaw

atha

Ave

. M

inne

haha

Ave

nue

Min

neha

ha A

venu

e &

42nd

Ave

. S.

Hia

wat

ha

Ave

nue

East

ern

Mis

siss

ippi

Ri

ver

Min

neha

ha

Ave

nue

42nd

Ave

. S.

Mis

siss

ippi

Riv

er

Min

neha

ha

Ave

nue

Nor

ther

n E.

Lak

e St

reet

E.

38th

Stre

et

E. 3

8th S

treet

E.

38th

Stre

et &

E.

43rd

Stre

et

E. 4

3rd S

treet

Sout

hern

E.

38th

Stre

et

E. 4

3rd S

treet

E.

43rd

Stre

et

Min

neha

ha P

ark

Min

neha

ha

Park

App

endi

x C

: Dat

a

Gen

eral

Pop

ulat

ion

Dat

a 19

40 C

ensu

s

TRA

CT

Pop

ulat

ion

Whi

te,

Tota

l N

ativ

e W

hite

Fo

reig

n-B

orn

Whi

te

Non

whi

te,

Tota

l N

egro

/Bla

ck

Oth

er

Rac

es

%

Whi

te

% N

ativ

e W

hite

%

For

eign

-Bor

n W

hite

%

Non

whi

te

# O

ccup

ied

Uni

ts in

Tra

ct

Per

sons

per

U

nit

App

rox.

# O

cc. U

nits

in

Long

fello

w

% O

cc. U

nits

in

Long

fello

w

7400

97

3 96

6 84

0 12

6 7

5 2

99.3

86

.3

13.0

0.

7 1,

047

3.70

26

3 25

.12%

7500

1,

770

1,74

4 1,

438

306

26

26

- 98

.6

81.3

17

.3

1.5

1,16

7 3.

51

504

43.1

9%

7600

2,

098

2,09

8 1,

809

289

- -

- 10

0.0

86.2

13

.8

- 73

6 3.

55

591

80.3

0%

8800

4,

272

4,19

2 3,

558

635

80

79

1 98

.2

83.3

14

.9

1.9

1,29

7 3.

62

1,18

1 91

.06%

8900

4,

415

4,41

5 3,

748

667

- -

- 10

0.0

84.9

15

.1

- 1,

241

3.56

1,

241

100.

00%

9000

5,

446

5,43

8 4,

725

713

8 6

2 99

.9

86.8

13

.1

0.1

1,53

2 3.

55

1,53

2 10

0.00

%

1030

0 1,

000

994

872

122

6 5

1 99

.4

87.2

12

.2

0.6

904

3.77

26

5 29

.31%

1040

0 3,

258

3,24

8 2,

766

482

10

9 1

99.7

84

.9

14.8

0.

3 87

4 3.

73

874

100.

00%

1050

0 4,

543

4,54

0 3,

928

612

3 -

3 10

0.0

86.5

13

.5

0.1

1,24

2 3.

66

1,24

2 10

0.00

%

1110

0 44

0 43

9 38

7 52

-

- -

99.8

87

.9

11.9

-

1,16

5 3.

73

118

10.1

3%

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

28

,215

28

,075

24

,071

4,

004

139

130

10

99.5

85

.3

14.2

0.

5

3.63

7,

811

City

49

2,37

0 48

7,09

9 42

2,95

0 64

,149

5,

271

4,64

6 62

5 98

.9

85.9

13

.0

1.1

142,

834

3.45

1950

Cen

sus

Pop

ulat

ion

Whi

te,

Tota

l N

ativ

e W

hite

Fo

reig

n-B

orn

Whi

te

Non

whi

te,

Tota

l N

egro

/Bla

ck

Oth

er

Rac

es

%

Whi

te

% N

ativ

e W

hite

%

For

eign

-Bor

n W

hite

%

Non

whi

te

Tota

l Dw

ellin

g U

nits

(T

ract

)

App

rox.

# U

nits

in L

ongf

ello

w

% U

nits

in L

ongf

ello

w

Trac

t 74

878

872

798

74

6 4

1 99

.4

90.9

8.

5 0.

6 1,

071

25

8 24

.09%

Trac

t 75

1,77

6 1,

740

1,55

0 19

0 38

31

6

98.0

87

.3

10.7

2.

1 1,

257

53

0 42

.16%

Trac

t 76

1,94

6 1,

944

1,72

0 22

4 3

- 3

99.9

88

.4

11.5

0.

2 80

1

624

77.9

0%

Trac

t 88

4,27

3 4,

152

3,62

7 52

5 12

0 11

7 -

97.2

84

.9

12.3

2.

8 1,

383

1,

299

93.9

3%

Trac

t 89

4,19

8 4,

197

3,69

6 50

1 1

- 1

100.

0 88

.0

11.9

0.

0 1,

292

1,

292

100.

00%

Trac

t 90

5,40

5 5,

400

4,86

2 53

8 5

3 2

99.9

90

.0

10.0

0.

1 1,

633

1,

633

100.

00%

Trac

t 103

98

4 97

9 88

1 98

5

5 -

99.5

89

.5

10.0

0.

5 96

0

281

29.2

7%

Trac

t 104

3,

127

3,12

2 2,

806

316

5 5

- 99

.8

89.7

10

.1

0.2

934

93

4 10

0.00

%

Trac

t 105

4,

714

4,70

9 4,

205

504

5 -

5 99

.9

89.2

10

.7

0.1

1,39

5

1,39

5 10

0.00

%

- 51

-

Trac

t 111

48

7 48

7 44

7 40

-

- -

100.

0 91

.8

8.2

- 1,

511

14

4 9.

53%

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

27

,787

27

,602

24

,592

3,

010

188

165

18

99.3

88

.5

10.8

0.

7

8,

390

City

52

1,71

8 51

3,25

0 46

4,38

8 48

,862

8,

468

6,80

7 1,

661

98.4

89

.0

9.4

1.6

161,

974

19

60 C

ensu

s P

opul

atio

n W

hite

, To

tal

Fore

ign

Sto

ck

Fore

ign

Bor

n N

onw

hite

, To

tal

Neg

ro/B

lack

O

ther

R

aces

%

Whi

te

% F

orei

gn-

Bor

n %

Non

whi

te

%

Neg

ro/B

lack

H

ousi

ng U

nits

in

Trac

t P

erso

ns p

er

Uni

t A

ppro

x. #

Uni

ts in

Lo

ngfe

llow

%

Uni

ts in

Lo

ngfe

llow

Trac

t 74

667

651

163

25

16

7 9

97.6

3.

7 2.

4 1.

1%

1,00

1 3.

10

218

21.7

8%

Trac

t 75

1,67

2 1,

631

520

126

41

34

7 97

.5

7.5

2.5

2.0%

1,

276

3.03

55

2 43

.26%

Trac

t 76

1,89

8 1,

881

738

194

17

- 17

99

.1

10.2

0.

9

871

2.90

65

4 75

.09%

Trac

t 88

4,00

8 3,

790

1,39

6 31

2 21

8 19

9 19

94

.6

7.8

5.4

5.0%

1,

452

2.93

1,

362

93.8

0%

Trac

t 89

3,79

3 3,

789

1,49

7 38

2 4

- 4

99.9

10

.1

0.1

1,

291

2.94

1,

291

100.

00%

Trac

t 90

4,93

4 4,

928

1,93

3 39

7 6

5 1

99.9

8.

0 0.

1 0.

1%

1,65

7 2.

98

1,65

7 10

0.00

%

Trac

t 103

87

9 86

2 27

8 72

17

16

1

98.0

8.

2 2.

0 1.

8%

977

3.08

28

4 29

.07%

Trac

t 104

2,

884

2,87

9 1,

097

259

5 -

5 99

.8

9.0

0.2

94

3 3.

06

943

100.

00%

Trac

t 105

4,

143

4,14

0 1,

597

386

3 1

2 99

.9

9.3

0.1

0.0%

1,

463

2.83

1,

463

100.

00%

Trac

t 111

49

9 49

6 16

6 33

3

1 2

99.4

6.

6 0.

6 0.

2%

1,62

4 2.

88

168

10.3

4%

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

25

,376

25

,046

9,

384

2,18

6 33

1 26

4 67

98

.7

8.6

1.3

1.0

2.

97

8,59

2

City

48

2,87

2 46

7,27

8 15

1,05

3 34

,448

15

,594

11

,785

3,

809

96.8

7.

1 3.

2 2.

4 17

3,15

5

1970

Cen

sus

Pop

ulat

ion

Whi

te,

Tota

l Fo

reig

n S

tock

Fo

reig

n B

orn

Neg

ro/B

lack

%

Whi

te

% F

orei

gn-

Bor

n %

N

egro

/Bla

ck

Hou

sing

Uni

ts in

Tr

act

Per

sons

per

U

nit

App

rox.

# U

nits

in

Long

fello

w

Per

sons

of S

pani

sh

lang

uage

S

pani

sh M

othe

r To

ngue

Trac

t 74

503

481

110

13

1 95

.7

2.6

0.3%

60

7 2.

20

220

- -

Trac

t 75

1,52

0 1,

471

370

78

15

96.8

5.

1 1.

0%

1,18

7 2.

68

566

43

27

Trac

t 76

1,87

0 1,

844

521

120

98

.6

6.4

89

9 2.

80

671

- -

Trac

t 88

4,15

4 3,

913

1,05

5 22

2 15

0 94

.2

5.3

3.6%

1,

698

2.51

1,

650

42

32

Trac

t 89

3,67

7 3,

642

1,04

8 18

7 11

99

.0

5.1

0.3%

1,

322

2.78

1,

322

55

55

Trac

t 90

4,75

5 4,

710

1,53

9 30

4 7

99.1

6.

4 0.

1%

1,73

0 2.

75

1,73

0 69

63

Trac

t 103

1,

092

1,04

3 23

2 56

29

95

.5

5.2

2.6%

91

4 2.

84

385

- -

Trac

t 104

2,

783

2,74

7 67

8 14

9 5

98.7

5.

4

949

2.93

94

9 -

-

Trac

t 105

4,

441

4,42

8 1,

400

210

0 99

.7

4.7

0.0%

1,

624

2.73

1,

624

9 9

Trac

t 111

49

7 48

9 19

2 38

19

98

.4

7.7

3.8%

1,

538

2.62

18

4 4

3

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

25

,293

24

,769

7,

146

1,37

8 23

7 97

.9

5.4

0.9

2.

68

9,30

1 22

1 18

8

City

43

4,40

8 40

6,41

4 10

3,80

0 20

,875

19

,005

93

.6

4.8

4.4

3,

940

2,61

1 19

80 C

ensu

s -

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

ds

Pop

ulat

ion

Whi

te,

Tota

l B

lack

A

m. I

ndia

n, E

skim

o,

Ale

ut

Asi

an a

nd P

ac.

Isl.

Oth

er

Spa

nish

O

rigin

Fo

reig

n B

orn

%

Whi

te

%

Bla

ck

% A

m. I

nd, E

skim

o,

Ale

ut

% A

sian

and

Pac

. Is

l. %

O

ther

%

Spa

nish

O

rigin

%

For

eign

B

orn

Coo

per (

016)

3,

938

3,78

9 27

48

42

32

2720

496

.20.

71.

21.

10.

8 0.

7 5.

2H

iaw

atha

(033

) 5,

627

5,50

1 46

35

16

29

3821

397

.80.

80.

60.

30.

5 0.

7 3.

8H

owe

(036

) 7,

241

6,81

6 19

4 14

2 57

32

5523

394

.12.

72.

00.

80.

4 0.

8 3.

2Lo

ngfe

llow

(045

) 5,

355

4,75

9 80

11

8 70

51

100

247

88.9

1.5

2.2

1.3

1.0

1.9

4.6

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

22

,161

20

,865

34

7 34

3 18

5 14

422

089

794

.21.

61.

50.

80.

6 1.

0 4.

0C

ity

370,

951

323,

831

28,4

33

8,93

3 4,

104

5,65

04,

684

18,2

6087

.37.

72.

41.

11.

5 1.

3 4.

9

- 52

-

1990

Cen

sus

- N

eigh

borh

oods

P

opul

atio

n W

hite

, To

tal

Bla

ck

Am

. Ind

ian

or A

lask

a N

ativ

e A

sian

and

Pac

. Is

l. O

ther

H

ispa

nic

or

Latin

o Fo

reig

n B

orn

%

Whi

te

%

Bla

ck

% A

m. I

nd, E

skim

o,

Ale

ut

% A

sian

and

Pac

. Is

l. %

O

ther

%

His

pani

c or

La

tino

% F

orei

gn

Bor

n C

oope

r (01

6)

3,70

8 3,

573

97

83

91

2556

9096

.42.

62.

22.

5 0.

7 1.

5 2.

4H

iaw

atha

(033

) 5,

759

5,42

4 14

3 11

0 48

34

8513

394

.22.

51.

90.

8 0.

6 1.

5 2.

3H

owe

(035

) 7,

108

6,33

7 34

5 20

3 17

8 45

112

203

89.2

4.9

2.9

2.5

0.6

1.6

2.9

Long

fello

w (0

44)

5,02

3 4,

323

273

218

109

100

186

291

86.1

5.4

4.3

2.2

2.0

3.7

5.8

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

21

,598

19

,657

85

8 61

4 42

6 20

443

971

791

.04.

02.

82.

0 0.

9 2.

0 3.

3C

ity

368,

383

288,

967

47,9

48

12,3

35

15,7

23

3,41

07,

900

22,6

2478

.413

.03.

34.

3 0.

9 2.

1 6.

1 20

00 C

ensu

s -

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

ds

Pop

ulat

ion

Whi

te,

Tota

l B

lack

A

m. I

ndia

n or

Ala

ska

Nat

ive

Asi

an a

nd P

ac.

Isl.

Oth

er

His

pani

c or

La

tino

2 or

mor

e R

aces

%

W

hite

%

Bla

ck

% A

m. I

nd, E

skim

o,

Ale

ut

%

Asi

an

and

Pac

. Is

l. %

2 o

r Mor

e R

aces

%

O

ther

%

His

pani

c or

La

tino

Coo

per

3,44

8 3,

041

129

58

77

5912

784

88.2

3.7

1.7

2.2

2.4

1.7

3.7

Hia

wat

ha

5,30

4 4,

607

273

105

98

8017

014

186

.95.

12.

01.

82.

7 1.

5 3.

2H

owe

6,87

8 5,

374

622

205

170

238

436

269

78.1

9.0

3.0

2.5

3.9

3.5

6.3

Long

fello

w

4,97

2 3,

545

528

200

168

294

483

237

71.3

10.6

4.0

3.4

4.8

5.9

9.7

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

20

,602

16

,567

15

52

568

513

671

1,21

673

180

.47.

52.

82.

53.

5 3.

3 5.

9C

ity

382,

618

249,

186

68,8

18

8,37

8 23

,744

15

,798

29,1

7516

,694

65.1

18.0

2.2

6.2

4.4

4.1

7.6

Hou

sing

Dat

a 19

40 C

ensu

s

O

wne

r-O

ccup

ied

Ren

ter-

Occ

upie

d (E

ntire

Tra

ct)

Y

ear

Dw

ellin

g U

nit B

uilt

(Lon

gfel

low

)

TRA

CT

Pop

ulat

ion

Occ

upie

d U

nits

P

erso

ns p

er

Uni

t A

ll D

wel

ling

Uni

ts

Ow

ner

Occ

upie

d %

Ow

ner

Occ

upie

d Te

nant

O

ccup

ied

% T

enan

t O

ccup

ied

Vac

ant

%

Vac

ant

Avg

. V

alue

M

edia

n V

alue

A

vg. M

onth

ly

Ren

t M

edia

n M

onth

ly

Ren

t 19

30 to

19

40

1920

to

1929

19

00 to

19

19

1899

or

befo

re

7400

97

3 26

3 3.

70

270

90

34.3

17

3 65

.7

6 2.

2 2,

140

2,03

8 19

.32

18.7

0 2

8 20

3 43

7500

1,

770

504

3.51

50

9 27

0 53

.5

235

46.5

5

0.9

2,80

6 2,

863

25.9

9 26

.04

31

147

229

96

7600

2,

098

591

3.55

59

7 39

5 66

.8

196

33.2

4

0.7

4,27

8 3,

881

32.8

8 33

.69

42

266

281

10

8800

4,

272

1,18

1 3.

62

1,20

0 74

6 63

.1

435

36.9

19

1.

6 3,

300

3,44

4 28

.47

30.2

2 44

36

5 77

2 54

8900

4,

415

1,24

1 3.

56

1,25

5 91

5 73

.7

326

26.3

10

0.

8 3,

362

3,70

7 32

.44

33.8

6 80

69

6 46

3 2

9000

5,

446

1,53

2 3.

55

1,55

2 1,

147

74.9

38

5 25

.1

18

1.2

4,56

6 4,

428

33.6

8 34

.70

230

920

372

7

1030

0 1,

000

265

3.77

26

7 17

6 66

.4

89

33.6

2

0.7

3,33

9 3,

459

28.4

9 30

.31

19

113

129

5

1040

0 3,

258

874

3.73

88

1 58

4 66

.8

290

33.2

6

0.7

3,18

5 3,

380

29.5

1 31

.34

35

284

482

7

1050

0 4,

543

1,24

2 3.

66

1,25

8 90

5 72

.9

337

27.1

14

1.

1 3,

341

3,77

1 30

.23

32.2

7 20

8 69

4 34

9 0

1110

0 44

0 11

8 3.

73

121

81

68.6

37

31

.4

3 2.

2 3,

881

3,86

5 33

.62

34.3

8 8

56

45

5

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

28,2

15

7,81

1 3.

63

7,91

0 5,

308

68.0

2,

503

32.0

87

1.

1 3,

420

3,58

3 29

.46

31.8

1 69

9 3,

549

3,32

5 22

9

City

49

2,37

0 14

2,83

4 3.

45

147,

647

58,7

64

41.1

84

,070

58

.9

4,44

1 3.

0 4,

143

3,85

3 29

.07

27.7

0

- 53

-

1950

Cen

sus

Ow

ner

Occ

upie

d (L

ongf

ello

w)

Y

ear

Dw

ellin

g U

nit B

uilt

(Tra

ct)

TRA

CT

Pop

ulat

ion

Occ

upie

d U

nits

P

erso

ns p

er

Uni

t A

ll D

wel

ling

Uni

ts

Ow

ner

Occ

upie

d %

Ow

ner

Occ

upie

d R

ente

r O

ccup

ied

% R

ente

r O

ccup

ied

Vac

ant

%

Vac

ant

Med

ian

Val

ue ($

) (T

ract

) M

edia

n M

onth

ly R

ent

($)

1940

or

late

r 19

30 to

19

39

1920

to

1929

19

19 o

r ea

rlier

7400

87

8 25

2 3.

48

258

115

45.6

13

7 54

.4

6 2.

3 5,

783

28.7

8 5

80

94

5

7500

1,

776

528

3.36

53

0 37

1 70

.3

157

29.7

2

0.4

7,82

4 37

.97

45

90

220

875

7600

1,

946

624

3.12

62

4 50

5 80

.9

119

19.1

6

1.0

9,70

1 44

.31

50

65

370

310

8800

4,

273

1,29

2 3.

31

1,29

9 94

9 73

.5

343

26.5

7

0.5

8,72

1 39

.77

10

85

305

985

8900

4,

198

1,28

9 3.

26

1,29

2 1,

107

85.9

18

2 14

.1

3 0.

2 8,

936

44.5

9 20

90

72

5 45

5

9000

5,

405

1,62

7 3.

32

1,63

3 1,

412

86.8

21

5 13

.2

6 0.

4 10

,622

50

.11

50

260

945

335

1030

0 98

4 28

0 3.

52

281

230

82.1

50

17

.9

1 0.

4 8,

492

41.2

2 35

80

44

0 37

0

1040

0 3,

127

924

3.38

93

4 76

8 83

.1

156

16.9

10

1.

1 8,

496

42.9

1 30

35

23

0 61

0

1050

0 4,

714

1,38

6 3.

40

1,39

5 1,

223

88.2

16

3 11

.8

9 0.

6 9,

369

44.3

6 19

5 22

5 64

5 34

5

1110

0 48

7 14

3 3.

40

144

108

75.5

35

24

.5

1 0.

7 10

,431

50

.29

290

370

615

240

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

27,7

87

8,34

5 3.

33

8,39

0 6,

788

81.3

1,

557

18.7

51

0.

6 8,

829

43.6

1

City

52

1,71

8 15

9,34

5 3.

27

161,

974

83,7

37

52.6

75

,608

47

.4

2,62

9 1.

6

38.4

8 12

,435

12

,125

33

,535

10

0,47

5

1960

Cen

sus

Ow

ner

Occ

upie

d R

ente

r O

ccup

ied

Yea

r B

uilt

(Ent

ire

Trac

t)

Yea

r Mov

ed In

to U

nit (

Long

fello

w)

TRA

CT

Pop

ulat

ion

Occ

upie

d U

nits

P

erso

ns p

er

Uni

t A

ll H

ousi

ng

Uni

ts

Ow

ner

Occ

upie

d %

Ow

ner

Occ

upie

d R

ente

r O

ccup

ied

% R

ente

r O

ccup

ied

Vac

ant

%

Vac

ant

Med

ian

Val

ue

(Tra

ct)

Med

ian

Gro

ss R

ent (

$)

(Tra

ct)

1950

to M

arch

19

60

1958

to

3/19

60

1954

to

1957

19

40 to

19

53

1939

or

earli

er

7400

66

7 21

0 3.

17

218

92

43.8

11

8 56

.2

8 3.

7 9,

800

77

20

76

44

43

45

7500

1,

672

540

3.10

55

2 34

9 64

.6

191

35.4

12

2.

2 11

,300

80

55

17

2 11

4 14

8 10

6

7600

1,

898

647

2.93

65

4 51

6 79

.8

131

20.2

19

2.

9 13

,100

-

70

183

131

198

129

8800

4,

008

1,33

2 3.

01

1,36

2 91

9 69

.0

413

31.0

31

2.

3 12

,100

91

85

37

4 20

2 40

3 35

0

8900

3,

793

1,27

8 2.

97

1,29

1 1,

102

86.2

17

6 13

.8

13

1.0

12,3

00

- 12

22

8 24

1 44

1 36

8

9000

4,

934

1,64

4 3.

00

1,65

7 1,

431

87.0

21

3 13

.0

13

0.8

13,8

00

- 59

35

9 27

6 49

3 51

6

1030

0 87

9 28

1 3.

13

284

217

77.2

64

22

.8

3 1.

1 11

,700

-

18

61

56

87

76

1040

0 2,

884

925

3.12

94

3 77

3 83

.6

152

16.4

18

1.

9 11

,900

-

38

203

175

286

261

1050

0 4,

143

1,44

0 2.

88

1,46

3 1,

218

84.6

22

2 15

.4

23

1.6

12,6

00

104

115

325

217

503

395

1110

0 49

9 16

7 2.

99

168

114

68.3

53

31

.7

1 0.

6 13

,600

10

0 19

6 35

33

62

32

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

25

,376

8,

464

3.00

8,

592

6,73

1 79

.5

1,73

3 20

.5

141

1.6

12,2

00

91.0

0

2,01

5 1,

489

2,66

4 2,

278

City

48

2,87

2 16

5,79

1 2.

91

173,

155

87,4

12

52.7

78

,379

47

.3

7,36

4 4.

3

38.4

8 16

,579

55

,673

37

,028

47

,599

25

,491

% C

ity T

otal

s in

Lon

gfel

low

5.

3 5.

1

5.0

7.7

2.

2

1.9

3.6

4.0

5.6

8.9

1970

Cen

sus

Y

ear

Bui

lt (E

ntire

Tra

ct)

Y

ear M

oved

Into

Uni

t (Lo

ngfe

llow

, Occ

upie

d U

nits

)

TRA

CT

Pop

ulat

ion

Occ

upie

d U

nits

P

erso

ns p

er

Uni

t A

ll H

ousi

ng

Uni

ts

Ow

ner

Occ

upie

d %

O

wne

r R

ente

r O

ccup

ied

%

Ren

ter

Vac

ant

%

Vac

ant

Med

ian

Val

ue

Med

ian

Ren

t 19

69 to

3/

1970

19

65 to

19

68

1960

to

1964

19

68 to

3/

1970

19

65 to

19

67

1960

to

1964

19

50 to

19

59

1949

or

earli

er

7400

50

3 20

8 2.

42

220

52

25.0

15

6 75

.0

12

5.5

13,7

00

101

- 46

10

2 63

51

35

20

36

7500

1,

520

552

2.75

56

6 30

7 55

.6

245

44.4

14

2.

5 14

,600

10

7 8

35

38

165

127

47

80

131

7600

1,

870

666

2.81

67

1 53

3 80

.0

133

20.0

5

0.7

17,1

00

118

- 13

32

17

1 11

8 11

2 91

15

9

8800

4,

154

1,60

7 2.

58

1,65

0 86

5 53

.8

742

46.2

43

2.

6 15

,200

12

3 43

20

0 11

8 52

2 30

2 17

0 26

1 34

7

8900

3,

677

1,31

4 2.

80

1,32

2 1,

100

83.7

21

4 16

.3

8 0.

6 15

,600

11

4 -

4 15

18

4 25

6 18

5 26

2 42

7

9000

4,

755

1,70

9 2.

78

1,73

0 1,

435

84.0

27

4 16

.0

21

1.2

17,5

00

136

31

12

19

295

263

337

380

434

1030

0 1,

092

374

2.92

38

5 22

9 61

.2

145

38.8

11

2.

9 14

,800

12

6 49

-

16

103

38

65

69

104

1040

0 2,

783

929

3.00

94

9 75

4 81

.2

175

18.8

20

2.

1 14

,900

10

6 -

- 23

17

0 11

3 11

6 23

2 29

8

1050

0 4,

441

1,60

6 2.

77

1,62

4 1,

372

85.4

23

4 14

.6

18

1.1

17,3

00

119

10

68

150

289

255

212

373

477

1110

0 49

7 18

1 2.

75

184

107

59.1

74

40

.9

3 1.

6 17

,900

12

8 -

6 42

38

25

24

38

53

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

25,2

93

9,14

6 2.

77

9,30

1 6,

754

73.8

2,

392

26.2

15

5 1.

7 15

,400

11

9

1,99

9 1,

548

1,30

2 1,

806

2,46

5

City

43

4,40

8 16

1,14

1 2.

70

167,

196

79,6

53

49.4

81

,488

50

.6

6,05

5 3.

6 17

,900

10

5 3,

169

8,07

8 10

,042

59

,902

27

,075

21

,109

26

,059

27

,047

- 54

-

% C

ity T

otal

s in

Lon

gfel

low

5.

8 5.

7

5.6

8.5

2.

9

2.6

3.3

5.7

6.2

6.9

9.1

1980

Cen

sus

Ow

ner

Occ

upie

d (L

ongf

ello

w)

Ren

ter

Occ

upie

d (L

ongf

ello

w)

Y

ear

Hou

s

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Pop

ulat

ion

Occ

upie

d U

nits

P

erso

ns p

er

Uni

t A

ll H

ousi

ng

Uni

ts

Ow

ner

Occ

upie

d %

Ow

ner

Occ

upie

d R

ente

r O

ccup

ied

% R

ente

r O

ccup

ied

Vac

ant

%

Vac

ant

Avg

. Val

ue

($)

Med

ian

Val

ue

($)

Avg

. Mon

thly

Ren

t ($

) M

edia

n C

ontra

ct R

ent

($)

1979

to

3/19

80

1975

to 1

978

1970

to

1974

19

60 to

19

69

Coo

per (

016)

3,

938

1,65

8 2.

38

1,71

2 1,

239

74.7

41

9 25

.3

41

2.4

53

,100

252

0 12

7

14

Hia

wat

ha (0

33)

5,62

7 2,

244

2.51

2,

276

1,71

2 76

.3

532

23.7

38

1.

7

49,3

00

24

1 6

23

49

25

How

e (0

36)

7,24

1 2,

961

2.45

3,

013

2,37

2 80

.1

589

19.9

66

2.

2

49,1

00

22

3 8

25

94

16

Long

fello

w (0

45)

5,35

5 2,

318

2.31

2,

685

1,26

0 54

.4

1,05

8 45

.6

67

2.5

46

,200

217

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

22,1

61

9,18

1 2.

41

9,68

6 6,

583

71.7

2,

598

28.3

21

2 2.

2

49,2

00

23

2 14

60

15

0 56

City

37

0,95

1 16

1,85

8 2.

29

168,

836

79,6

50

49.2

82

,208

50

.8

6,97

0 4.

1

54,5

00

21

0 1,

556

3,22

3 10

,721

19

,46

% C

ity T

otal

s in

Lon

gfel

low

6.

0 5.

7

5.7

8.3

3.

2

3.0

-530

0

22

0.9

1.9

1.4

2.

1980

Cen

sus

Yea

r Mov

ed

Into

Uni

t (L

ongf

ello

w,

Occ

upie

d U

nits

)

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

1979

to 3

/198

0

1975

to 1

978

19

70 to

197

4

1960

to 1

969

19

50 to

19

59

1959

or

earli

er

1949

or

earli

er

O

wne

r R

ente

r To

tal

Ow

ner

Ren

ter

Tota

l O

wne

r R

ente

r To

tal

Ow

ner

Ren

ter

Tota

l O

wne

r R

ente

r O

wne

r

Coo

per (

016)

12

2 15

3 27

5 21

0 13

6 34

6 23

4 76

31

0 24

6 26

27

2 17

4 28

25

3

Hia

wat

ha (0

33)

173

224

397

316

190

506

194

68

262

417

37

454

267

13

345

How

e (0

36)

218

247

465

466

243

709

272

75

347

424

5 42

9 45

0 19

54

2

Long

fello

w (0

45)

138

364

502

304

494

798

171

85

256

283

74

357

191

32

226

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

65

1 98

8 1,

639

1,29

6 1,

063

2,35

9 87

1 30

4 1,

175

1,37

0 14

2 1,

512

1,08

2 92

1,

366

City

8,

696

37,4

61

46,1

57

17,7

59

26,0

78

43,8

37

11,2

96

9,86

4 21

,160

15

,528

6,

176

21,7

04

13,3

94

2,62

9 12

,977

% C

ity T

otal

s in

Lon

gfel

low

7.

5 2.

6 3.

6 7.

3 4.

1 5.

4 7.

7 3.

1 5.

6 8.

8 2.

3 7.

0 8.

1 3.

5 10

.5

1990

Cen

sus

Ow

ner O

ccup

ied

(Lon

gfel

low

) R

ente

r Occ

upie

d (L

ongf

ello

w)

Y

ear S

truct

ure

Bui

lt (L

ongf

ello

w)

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Pop

ulat

ion

Occ

upie

d U

nits

P

erso

ns p

er

Uni

t A

ll H

ousi

ng

Uni

ts

Ow

ner

Occ

upie

d %

O

wne

r R

ente

r O

ccup

ied

%

Ren

ter

Vac

ant

%

Vac

ant

Mea

n V

alue

($

) M

edia

n V

alue

M

ean

Gro

ss

Ren

t M

edia

n G

ross

R

ent

1989

to M

arch

19

90

1985

to 1

988

1980

to

1984

19

70 to

19

79

1960

to

1969

C

oope

r (01

6)

3,70

8 1,

599

2.32

1,

663

1,26

4 79

.0

335

21.0

64

3.

8 75

,200

70

,100

56

3 56

2 0

0 6

35

84

Hia

wat

ha (0

33)

5,75

9 2,

358

2.44

2,

516

1,82

2 77

.3

536

22.7

11

1 4.

4 72

,600

67

,300

50

6 49

6 6

205

25

83

351

How

e (0

35)

7,10

8 3,

006

2.36

3,

104

2,31

9 77

.1

687

22.9

98

3.

2 69

,000

63

,900

46

7 47

1 0

5 26

72

17

4 Lo

ngfe

llow

(044

) 5,

023

2,29

6 2.

19

2,42

0 1,

224

53.3

1,

072

46.7

12

4 5.

1 62

,700

62

,700

41

6 42

3 0

15

51

265

188

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

21

,598

9,

259

2.33

9,

703

6,62

9 71

.6

2,63

0 28

.4

397

4.1

69,8

75

65,6

00

488

484

6 22

5 10

8 45

5 79

7 C

ity

368,

383

160,

682

2.29

17

2,66

6 79

,845

49

.7

80,8

37

50.3

11

,984

6.

9 84

,800

71

,200

44

1 42

4 1,

032

3,68

2 5,

751

16,2

42

18,0

55

1990

Cen

sus

Yea

r Stru

ctur

e B

uilt

(Lon

gfel

low

)

Yea

r Mov

ed In

to U

nit (

Long

fello

w, O

ccup

ied

Uni

ts)

1990

Cen

sus

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

1950

to

1959

19

40 to

19

49

1939

or

earli

er

1989

to 3

/199

0

1985

to 1

988

19

80 to

198

4

1970

to 1

979

19

60 to

196

9

19

59 o

r ear

lier

O

wne

r R

ente

r To

tal

Ow

ner

Ren

ter

Tota

l O

wne

r R

ente

r To

tal

Ow

ner

Ren

ter

Tota

l O

wne

r R

ente

r To

tal

Ow

ner

Ren

ter

Tota

l C

oope

r (01

6)

106

120

1,28

7 93

14

6 23

9 30

1 16

9 47

0 19

4 30

22

4 20

0 13

21

3 21

0 4

214

232

0 23

2 H

iaw

atha

(033

) 16

9 23

0 1,

447

154

182

336

529

173

702

274

33

307

347

71

418

247

25

272

353

6 35

9 H

owe

(035

) 17

3 28

3 2,

367

116

384

500

584

178

762

256

84

340

535

50

585

358

8 36

6 42

1 5

426

Long

fello

w (0

44)

248

198

1,43

5 88

36

4 45

2 29

4 36

5 65

9 18

7 17

2 35

9 25

8 10

4 36

2 17

3 41

21

4 23

4 14

24

8

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

696

831

6,53

6 45

1 1,

076

1,52

7 1,

708

885

2,59

3 91

1 31

9 1,

230

1,34

0 23

8 1,

578

988

78

1,06

6 1,

240

25

1,26

5 C

ity

19,2

51

16,8

37

91,8

16

7,38

1 37

,435

44

,816

20

,621

27

,724

48

,345

10

,770

8,

162

18,9

32

16,1

67

5,62

5 21

,792

10

,061

1,

209

11,2

70

14,8

45

682

15,5

27

- 55

-

2000

Cen

sus

Ow

ner

Occ

upie

d (L

ongf

ello

w)

Ren

ter O

ccup

ied

(Lon

gfel

low

)

Yea

r Stru

ctur

e B

uilt

(Lon

gfel

low

)

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Pop

ulat

ion

Occ

upie

d U

nits

P

erso

ns p

er

Uni

t A

ll H

ousi

ng

Uni

ts

Ow

ner

Occ

upie

d %

Ow

ner

Occ

upie

d R

ente

r O

ccup

ied

% R

ente

r O

ccup

ied

Vac

ant

%

Vac

ant

Med

ian

Val

ue

($)

Med

ian

Gro

ss R

ent

($)

1999

to

3/20

00

1995

to 1

998

1990

to

1994

19

80 to

19

89

1970

to

1979

19

60 to

19

69

C

oope

r 3,

448

1,61

2 2.

14

1,64

6 1,

318

81.8

29

4 18

.2

34

2.1

111,

200

646

0 0

4 20

10

10

5 H

iaw

atha

5,

304

2,39

4 2.

22

2,44

7 1,

933

80.7

46

1 19

.3

53

2.2

105,

700

566

4 0

0 25

5 11

0 23

5 H

owe

6,87

8 3,

028

2.27

3,

091

2,42

5 80

.1

603

19.9

63

2.

0 10

4,50

0 55

1 0

10

20

55

110

135

Long

fello

w

4,97

2 2,

285

2.18

2,

339

1,25

6 55

.0

1,02

9 45

.0

54

2.3

92,0

00

559

0 0

0 70

24

0 13

0

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

20

,602

9,

319

2.21

9,

523

6,93

2 74

.4

2,38

7 25

.6

204

2.1

105,

100

563

4 10

24

40

0 47

0 60

5 C

ity

382,

618

162,

363

2.36

16

8,60

6 83

,408

51

.4

78,9

44

48.6

6,

254

3.7

113,

500

575

833

1,37

3 1,

986

10,5

00

16,0

57

15,7

79

2000

Cen

sus

Yea

r Stru

ctur

e B

uilt

(Lon

gfel

low

) Y

ear M

oved

Into

Uni

t (Lo

ngfe

llow

, Occ

upie

d U

nits

)

20

00 C

ensu

s

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

1940

to

1959

19

39 o

r ear

lier

1999

to M

arch

200

0

1995

to 1

998

19

90 to

199

4

1980

to 1

989

19

70 to

197

9

19

69 o

r ear

lier

Ow

ner

Ren

ter

Tota

l O

wne

r R

ente

r To

tal

Ow

ner

Ren

ter

Tota

l O

wne

r R

ente

r To

tal

Ow

ner

Ren

ter

Tota

l O

wne

r R

ente

r To

tal

Coo

per

295

1,20

5

21

5

41

5

32

0

30

5

12

0

23

5 H

iaw

atha

38

0 1,

490

280

815

375

405

185

355

How

e 36

0 2,

355

455

905

420

505

310

400

Long

fello

w

405

1,52

0

37

5

71

5

33

0

40

5

23

0

24

0

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

1,

440

6,57

0 0

0 1,

325

0 0

2,85

0 0

0 1,

445

0 0

1,62

0 0

0 84

5 0

0 1,

230

City

36

,174

85

,922

41

,749

52

,892

23

,863

19

,928

10

,416

13

,515

Edu

catio

n D

ata

1940

Cen

sus

Gra

de

Sch

ool

Hig

h S

choo

l

Col

lege

P

opul

atio

n P

erso

ns

25+y

rs.

6 ye

ars

or le

ss

7 to

8 y

rs.

1 to

3 y

rs.

4+ y

rs.

% 4

+ yr

s.

1 to

3

yrs.

4+

yrs

. %

4+

yrs

Med

ian

Yrs.

C

ompl

eted

Tr

act 7

4 97

3 55

0 83

26

1 96

82

18

.8%

15

6

1.1

8.4

Trac

t 75

1,77

0 1,

099

44

525

180

194

24.5

%

46

29

2.7

8.6

Trac

t 76

2,09

8 1,

348

106

544

178

328

38.2

%

97

91

6.7

9.3

Trac

t 88

4,27

2 2,

684

269

1,24

5 46

9 50

4 25

.4%

10

5 75

2.

8 8.

7 Tr

act 8

9 4,

415

2,77

0 27

0 1,

230

450

547

28.8

%

175

76

2.7

8.8

Trac

t 90

5,44

6 3,

390

212

1,29

3 55

9 80

8 37

.7%

23

1 23

9 7.

1 9.

9 Tr

act 1

03

1,00

0 57

7 78

24

7 10

9 10

3 24

.2%

24

13

2.

2 8.

7 Tr

act 1

04

3,25

8 1,

939

221

941

327

343

22.7

%

63

34

1.8

8.6

Trac

t 105

4,

543

2,65

6 20

6 1,

090

480

605

32.6

%

162

99

3.7

9.1

Trac

t 111

44

0 25

8 20

10

0 48

58

34

.6%

18

13

4.

9 9.

5 Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

28,2

15

17,2

71

1,50

9 7,

477

2,89

6 3,

572

30.0

%

936

674

3.9

9.0

City

49

2,37

0 31

0,60

4 31

,858

11

1,70

3 49

,382

67

,476

36

.4%

24

,721

20

,834

6.

7 9.

5 19

50 C

ensu

s

G

rade

S

choo

l H

igh

Sch

ool

C

olle

ge

P

opul

atio

n P

erso

ns

25+y

rs.

6 ye

ars

or le

ss

7 to

8 y

rs.*

1

to 3

yrs

. 4+

yrs

. %

4+

yrs.

1

to 3

yr

s.

4+ y

rs.

% 4

+ yr

s.

Med

ian

Yrs.

C

ompl

eted

Tr

act 7

4 91

5 52

0 65

22

0 87

98

25

.6%

20

15

2.

9 8.

8 Tr

act 7

5 1,

819

1,11

6 14

0 39

1 17

1 27

9 35

.2%

73

41

3.

7 9.

2 Tr

act 7

6 2,

006

1,33

3 92

42

6 18

9 33

3 46

.4%

10

0 18

5 13

.9

11.3

Tr

act 8

8 4,

142

2,70

9 26

0 1,

065

433

606

33.4

%

187

114

4.2

9.0

Trac

t 89

4,19

8 2,

795

240

1,05

5 32

5 76

0 40

.6%

25

0 12

5 4.

5 9.

7 Tr

act 9

0 5,

405

3,35

0 23

0 90

5 55

0 93

0 47

.5%

36

5 29

5 8.

8 11

.7

Trac

t 103

98

6 59

8 32

21

0 91

18

9 42

.6%

44

22

3.

7 10

.7

Trac

t 104

3,

127

1,84

5 18

0 68

0 35

5 43

5 34

.1%

12

0 75

4.

1 9.

5 Tr

act 1

05

4,71

4 2,

890

205

875

525

750

42.9

%

350

140

4.8

10.9

Tr

act 1

11

517

318

18

89

46

98

50.2

%

30

31

9.7

12.0

- 56

-

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

27

,829

17

,474

1,

463

5,91

5 2,

770

4,47

8 40

.4%

1,

540

1,04

2 6.

0 10

.3

City

52

1,71

8 32

8,05

0 26

,690

88

,530

50

,900

87

,305

46

.2%

35

,050

29

,235

8.

9 11

.5

Y

ears

of S

choo

l Com

plet

ed (H

ighe

st L

evel

Atta

ined

)

1960

Cen

sus

Gra

de

Sch

ool

Hig

h S

choo

l

Col

lege

Sch

ool E

nrol

lmen

t (5-

34 y

rs o

ld)

P

opul

atio

n P

erso

ns

25+y

rs.

Less

than

8 y

rs

8 yr

s.

1 to

3 y

rs.

4+ y

rs.

% 4

+ yr

s.

1 to

3

yrs.

4+

yrs

. %

4+

yrs.

M

edia

n Yr

s.

Com

plet

ed

Tota

l Enr

olle

d K

inde

rgar

ten

Ele

men

tary

H

igh

Sch

ool

Col

lege

Tr

act 7

4 66

7 35

9 68

92

74

99

34

.2%

16

8

2.3

9.7

141

23

93

23

3 Tr

act 7

5 1,

672

965

131

306

166

239

36.8

%

60

56

5.8

9.7

392

26

221

97

48

Trac

t 76

1,89

8 1,

189

149

278

188

270

47.8

%

146

152

12.8

11

.6

416

23

240

102

52

Trac

t 88

4,00

8 2,

375

308

746

465

577

35.4

%

201

64

2.7

9.8

814

62

480

202

70

Trac

t 89

3,79

3 2,

430

320

668

416

692

41.4

%

219

94

3.9

10.5

79

6 64

46

1 18

0 91

Tr

act 9

0 4,

934

3,19

1 25

2 68

3 55

3 80

2 53

.4%

53

4 36

7 11

.5

12.1

1,

063

70

604

217

172

Trac

t 103

87

9 52

3 54

13

4 10

9 14

8 41

.9%

56

15

2.

9 10

.8

203

22

113

49

19

Trac

t 104

2,

884

1,72

9 28

0 47

7 32

3 45

5 36

.8%

12

0 62

3.

6 9.

9 65

2 40

40

9 16

0 43

Tr

act 1

05

4,14

3 2,

678

292

664

460

808

46.7

%

277

165

6.2

11.4

89

9 32

50

1 25

4 11

2 Tr

act 1

11

499

311

32

67

63

94

47.9

%

31

24

7.8

12.0

11

9 10

61

32

15

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

25,3

77

15,7

50

1,88

7 4,

114

2,81

6 4,

183

43.5

%

1,66

0 1,

008

6.4

10.8

5,

495

371

3,18

3 1,

315

625

City

48

2,87

2 28

6,24

4 33

,501

61

,631

50

,008

77

,771

48

.4%

33

,463

27

,420

9.

6 11

.7

108,

866

7,72

3 58

,446

24

,183

18

,514

19

70 C

ensu

s

G

rade

S

choo

l H

igh

Sch

ool

C

olle

ge

S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent (

5-34

yrs

old

)

P

opul

atio

n P

erso

ns

25+y

rs.

Less

than

8

yrs

8 yr

s.

1 to

3 y

rs.

4+ y

rs.

% g

radu

ates

1

to 3

yr

s.

4+ y

rs.

% 4

+ yr

s.

Med

ian

Yrs.

C

ompl

eted

To

tal E

nrol

led

Kin

derg

arte

n E

lem

enta

ry

Hig

h S

choo

l C

olle

ge

Trac

t 74

503

297

25

57

60

115

50.5

%

20

16

5.3

12.0

12

8 6

74

16

26

Trac

t 75

1,52

0 1,

059

111

179

207

249

34.6

%

83

35

3.3

11.0

38

9 29

21

0 84

61

Tr

act 7

6 1,

870

1,09

0 76

22

0 13

2 38

8 60

.2%

13

9 12

9 11

.8

12.3

45

5 22

22

8 10

9 85

Tr

act 8

8 4,

154

2,36

3 28

3 39

8 43

9 88

2 52

.0%

22

9 11

6 4.

9 12

.1

1,08

0 88

54

9 25

5 17

7 Tr

act 8

9 3,

677

2,29

1 24

4 42

3 46

2 80

7 50

.7%

21

3 14

2 6.

2 12

.0

858

41

166

216

117

Trac

t 90

4,75

5 2,

997

181

568

425

1,07

1 60

.7%

37

0 37

7 12

.6

12.3

1,

151

41

652

329

107

Trac

t 103

1,

092

628

54

113

176

230

44.4

%

35

14

2.2

11.4

28

0 18

14

8 89

21

Tr

act 1

04

2,78

3 1,

616

122

405

370

478

43.8

%

154

75

4.6

11.2

65

2 40

40

9 16

0 43

Tr

act 1

05

4,44

1 2,

802

167

432

479

1,18

9 61

.5%

32

5 21

0 7.

5 12

.3

899

32

501

254

112

Trac

t 111

49

7 30

7 21

53

62

11

5 55

.4%

27

28

9.

2 12

.1

120

4 65

31

16

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

25,2

92

15,4

50

1,28

4 2,

848

2,81

2 5,

524

53.5

%

1,59

5 1,

142

7.4

11.9

6,

010

321

3,00

3 1,

542

766

City

43

4,40

8 24

4,54

0 20

,167

38

,153

42

,616

80

,547

58

.0%

31

,081

30

,223

12

.4

12.2

11

5,29

7 5,

801

51,3

40

25,5

35

30,1

83

1980

Cen

sus

Ele

men

tary

H

igh

Sch

ool

C

olle

ge

S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent (

5-34

yrs

old

)

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Pop

ulat

ion

Per

sons

25

+yrs

. 0-

8 yr

s.

1 to

3 y

rs.

4 yr

s.

%

grad

uate

s 1

to 3

yrs

. 4+

yrs

. %

4+

yrs

Tota

l E

nrol

led

Nur

sery

Sch

ool

Kin

derg

arte

n &

Ele

m.

Hig

h S

choo

l C

olle

ge

Coo

per (

016)

3,

938

2,65

8 38

9 25

5 92

9 75

.8%

46

1 62

4 23

.5

852

47

396

231

178

Hia

wat

ha (0

33)

5,62

7 3,

928

560

511

1,67

4 72

.7%

65

3 53

0 13

.5

1,26

1 23

57

9 39

5 26

4 H

owe

(036

) 7,

241

4,67

8 66

2 62

5 1,

663

72.5

%

975

753

16.1

1,

519

63

638

422

396

Long

fello

w (0

45)

5,35

5 3,

475

515

557

1,30

9 69

.2%

54

6 54

8 15

.8

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

22

,161

14

,739

2,

126

1,94

8 5,

575

72.4

%

2,63

5 2,

455

16.7

3,

632

133

1,61

3 1,

048

838

City

37

0,95

1 23

2,35

8 30

,654

27

,983

74

,879

74

.8%

43

,724

55

,118

23

.7

95,0

79

4,08

3 33

,263

16

,307

41

,426

- 57

-

1990

Cen

sus

H

igh

Sch

ool

Col

lege

(Edu

catio

nal A

ttain

men

t p. 8

4)

Sch

ool E

nrol

lmen

t (3+

yrs

old

) (p.

61)

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Pop

ulat

ion

Per

sons

25

+yrs

. Le

ss th

an 9

th

Gra

de

No

Dip

lom

a G

radu

ate

%

grad

uate

s S

ome

Col

lege

A

ssoc

iate

B

ache

lor's

G

rad.

or P

rof.

Deg

ree

% B

ache

lor's

or

Hig

her

Tota

l E

nrol

led

Pre

prim

ary

Ele

m. o

r Hig

h S

choo

l C

olle

ge

Coo

per (

016)

3,

708

2,67

7 13

4 24

0 77

3 86

.0%

47

1 19

5 62

1

243

32.3

%

2,61

7 23

7 1,

861

519

Hia

wat

ha (0

33)

5,75

9 4,

350

275

481

1,32

6 82

.6%

98

5 34

8 63

8

297

21.5

%

951

52

526

373

How

e (0

35)

7,10

8 4,

748

269

579

1,42

1 82

.1%

93

9 41

5 67

9

446

23.7

%

1,57

9 13

9 97

5 46

5 Lo

ngfe

llow

(044

) 5,

023

3,69

3 31

0 50

9 1,

280

77.8

%

645

286

406

25

7 18

.0%

1,

151

95

604

452

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

21,5

98

15,4

68

988

1,80

9 4,

800

81.9

%

3,04

0 1,

244

2,34

4

1,24

3 23

.2%

6,

298

523

3,96

6 1,

809

City

36

8,38

3 24

3,67

6 15

,931

26

,517

62

,004

82

.6%

49

,628

15

,768

50

,121

23,7

07

30.3

%

95,8

12

6,42

5 44

,930

44

,457

Em

ploy

men

t Dat

a 19

40 C

ensu

s

TRA

CT

Pop

ulat

ion

Per

sons

14+

yrs

Fe

mal

es 1

4+

yrs

Labo

r For

ce

Fem

ales

in L

abor

Fo

rce

% P

op. 1

4+ is

Fe

mal

e %

Labo

r For

ce is

Fe

mal

e E

mpl

oyed

O

n pu

b. E

mer

g. W

ork

(WP

A,

etc)

%

Lab

or fo

rce

on p

ub. E

mer

g.

Wor

k S

eeki

ng w

ork

% S

eeki

ng W

ork

Not

in la

bor

forc

e E

ngag

ed in

ow

n ho

usew

ork*

74

00

973

723

350

382

89

48.5

23

.2

291

40

10.4

51

13

.5

341

208

7500

1,

770

1,41

4 74

5 74

2 20

9 52

.7

28.2

62

6 43

5.

8 73

9.

8 67

2 41

2 76

00

2,09

8 1,

739

907

957

271

52.1

28

.4

855

10

1.0

92

9.6

782

475

8800

4,

272

3,48

8 1,

788

1,87

4 50

8 51

.3

27.1

1,

617

60

3.2

195

10.4

1,

615

991

8900

4,

415

3,63

5 1,

864

1,94

3 52

5 51

.3

27.0

1,

677

44

2.3

222

11.4

1,

692

1,06

8 90

00

5,44

6 4,

377

2,30

9 2,

236

559

52.8

25

.0

2,02

9 58

2.

6 15

1 6.

8 2,

141

1,31

5 10

300

1,00

0 78

9 40

5 41

6 10

3 51

.4

24.7

34

6 22

5.

2 49

11

.7

373

235

1040

0 3,

258

2,57

5 1,

299

1,34

7 33

2 50

.4

24.6

1,

171

58

4.3

118

8.8

1,22

8 80

6 10

500

4,54

3 3,

486

1,79

2 1,

907

489

51.4

25

.6

1,65

5 59

3.

1 19

3 10

.1

1,57

9 1,

036

1110

0 44

0 34

3 17

6 17

9 42

51

.3

23.6

15

8 5

2.6

16

9.0

164

107

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

28

,215

22

,569

11

,636

11

,983

3,

127

51.6

26

.1

10,4

25

398

3.3

1,16

0 9.

7 10

,587

6,

653

City

49

2,37

0 40

5,24

8 21

4,77

2 22

2,95

5 73

,276

53

.0

32.9

18

6,38

6 10

,364

4.

6 26

,205

11

.8

182,

293

106,

307

1940

Cen

sus

Maj

or O

ccup

atio

n G

roup

TRA

CT

Pro

fess

iona

l S

emip

rofe

ssio

nal

Pro

prie

tors

C

leric

al, S

ales

, K

indr

ed

Cra

ftsm

en, F

orem

en,

Kin

dred

O

pera

tives

, ki

ndre

d D

omes

tic

Ser

vice

S

ervi

ce, e

xc.

Dom

estic

La

bore

rs

Not

repo

rted

7400

6

3 17

55

62

86

8

30

23

2 75

00

27

9 35

15

2 13

1 15

7 21

52

40

3

7600

66

14

90

26

2 14

6 16

9 32

51

18

7

8800

55

17

12

3 44

5 36

2 30

9 47

17

5 78

5

8900

73

25

12

4 44

7 40

1 33

4 34

14

3 73

23

90

00

192

37

255

602

410

286

68

123

49

7 10

300

11

3 26

89

73

83

8

32

18

4 10

400

29

16

71

319

258

273

23

111

69

2 10

500

83

37

123

450

363

319

45

158

76

1 11

100

9 3

14

51

34

27

4 10

5

1 Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

551

165

877

2,87

1 2,

240

2,04

1 29

0 88

5 44

9 55

C

ity

15,3

96

2,90

0 19

,933

56

,073

24

,839

30

,439

8,

202

19,6

07

7,81

4 1,

183

1950

Cen

sus

E

mpl

oym

ent S

tatu

s, P

erso

ns 1

4+ y

rs.

TRA

CT

Pop

ulat

ion

Per

sons

14+

yr

s Fe

mal

es 1

4+

yrs

Labo

r Fo

rce

Fem

ales

in L

abor

Fo

rce

% P

op. 1

4+ is

Fe

mal

e %

Labo

r For

ce is

Fe

mal

e E

mpl

oyed

P

rivat

e w

age

and

sala

ry

wor

kers

G

ov't

Wor

kers

S

elf-

empl

oyed

U

nem

ploy

ed

%

Une

mpl

oyed

N

ot in

Lab

or

Forc

e %

Not

in L

abor

Fo

rce

7400

91

5 69

5 34

0 28

1 12

9 48

.9

46.0

39

2 34

2 26

23

18

6.

4 28

4 40

.9

7500

1,

819

1,40

5 73

7 83

6 27

5 52

.4

32.9

79

0 68

1 68

42

42

5.

1 56

9 40

.5

7600

2,

006

1,59

8 85

4 93

6 30

5 53

.4

32.6

91

1 72

6 11

7 66

25

2.

7 66

2 41

.4

8800

4,

142

3,29

4 1,

736

1,87

4 60

2 52

.7

32.1

1,

808

1,50

7 18

8 10

7 63

3.

4 1,

420

43.1

89

00

4,19

8 3,

363

1,73

1 1,

910

593

51.5

31

.0

1,87

0 1,

544

219

105

36

1.9

1,45

3 43

.2

9000

5,

405

4,31

9 2,

278

2,47

4 77

5 52

.7

31.3

2,

411

1,90

5 29

9 20

5 57

2.

3 1,

845

42.7

10

300

986

755

391

454

148

51.8

32

.6

430

358

49

23

21

4.6

301

39.9

10

400

3,12

7 2,

412

1,25

3 1,

396

454

51.9

32

.5

1,33

9 1,

098

165

79

54

3.9

1,01

6 42

.1

1050

0 4,

714

3,63

8 1,

891

2,11

2 64

3 52

.0

30.4

2,

058

1,67

3 25

2 12

3 49

2.

3 1,

526

41.9

11

100

517

394

204

226

66

51.8

29

.3

220

175

25

20

6 2.

5 16

8 42

.6

- 58

-

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

27

,829

21

,873

11

,414

12

,500

3,

990

52.2

31

.9

12,2

28

10,0

09

1,40

7 79

1 37

1 3.

0 9,

243

42.3

C

ity

521,

718

415,

441

220,

886

242,

054

88,9

64

53.2

36

.8

231,

300

189,

296

23,5

82

17,9

99

10,2

33

4.2

173,

387

41.7

19

50 C

ensu

s M

ajor

Occ

upat

ion

Gro

up

TRA

CT

Pro

fess

iona

l M

anag

ers

Cle

rical

and

K

indr

ed

Sal

es

Cra

ftsm

en, F

orem

en,

kind

red

Ope

rativ

es,

kind

red

Priv

ate

Hou

seho

ld

Ser

vice

w

orke

rs

Labo

rers

N

ot re

porte

d 74

00

14

19

63

26

73

109

5 46

34

4

7500

55

41

16

2 63

15

2 19

3 13

77

29

3

7600

11

5 96

18

9 76

18

2 16

6 14

44

26

3

8800

14

1 13

3 36

5 14

8 35

7 34

6 35

17

0 91

21

89

00

155

154

378

173

385

360

21

152

85

7 90

00

326

324

531

251

435

296

37

137

66

8 10

300

25

37

89

30

87

90

6 46

18

2

1040

0 10

0 10

9 25

6 10

8 26

7 28

6 21

14

0 46

6

1050

0 18

5 18

5 42

9 17

4 41

2 32

1 32

18

5 76

59

11

100

26

25

48

21

43

30

2 16

6

1 Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

1,14

2 1,

124

2,50

9 1,

071

2,39

4 2,

197

186

1,01

3 47

7 11

5 C

ity

26,9

37

22,2

25

47,8

12

22,3

18

32,8

71

39,8

97

3,86

7 23

,320

9,

853

2,20

0 19

60 C

ensu

s

Em

ploy

men

t Sta

tus

TRA

CT

Pop

ulat

ion

Per

sons

14+

yr

s Fe

mal

es 1

4+

yrs

Labo

r Fo

rce

Fem

ales

in L

abor

Fo

rce

% P

op. 1

4+ is

Fe

mal

e %

Labo

r For

ce is

Fe

mal

e E

mpl

oyed

P

rivat

e w

age

and

sala

ry

wor

kers

G

ov't

Wor

kers

S

elf-

empl

oyed

U

nem

ploy

ed

%

Une

mpl

oyed

N

ot in

Lab

or

Forc

e %

Not

in L

abor

Fo

rce

7400

66

7 46

6 23

8 28

2 99

51

.1

35.2

26

1 23

2 19

8

20

7.1

184

39.5

75

00

1,67

2 1,

240

663

713

279

53.5

39

.1

670

574

65

31

43

6.1

527

42.5

76

00

1,89

8 1,

467

772

879

343

52.6

39

.0

840

668

116

56

39

4.4

587

40.1

88

00

4,00

8 3,

084

1,64

2 1,

774

701

53.2

39

.5

1,66

8 1,

400

189

76

90

5.1

1,31

0 42

.5

8900

3,

793

2,95

7 1,

604

1,66

3 65

0 54

.2

39.1

1,

622

1,36

9 18

8 65

41

2.

5 1,

294

43.8

90

00

4,93

4 3,

874

2,11

3 2,

161

857

54.5

39

.7

2,09

2 1,

584

388

120

60

2.8

1,71

3 44

.2

1030

0 87

9 66

2 36

2 38

0 15

3 54

.7

40.1

37

2 32

7 31

14

8

2.1

282

42.6

10

400

2,88

4 2,

167

1,09

4 1,

309

458

50.5

35

.0

1,22

7 1,

060

105

62

67

5.1

858

39.6

10

500

4,14

3 3,

279

1,73

9 1,

937

750

53.0

38

.7

1,88

2 1,

532

265

81

51

2.6

1,34

2 40

.9

1110

0 49

9 38

7 20

5 22

2 80

53

.0

35.9

21

5 17

2 28

13

6

2.9

165

42.6

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

25,3

76

19,5

82

10,4

32

11,3

20

4,36

9 53

.3

38.6

10

,849

8,

919

1,39

4 52

7 42

5 3.

8 8,

262

42.2

C

ity

482,

872

369,

853

201,

080

222,

393

92,5

92

54.4

41

.6

212,

144

172,

901

25,4

75

13,1

63

9,62

1 4.

3 14

7,46

0 39

.9

1960

Cen

sus

Maj

or O

ccup

atio

n G

roup

Maj

or In

dust

ry

M

anuf

actu

ring

TRA

CT

Pro

fess

iona

l M

anag

ers

Cle

rical

and

Kin

dred

S

ales

C

rafts

men

, For

emen

, ki

ndre

d O

pera

tives

, ki

ndre

d P

rivat

e H

ouse

hold

S

ervi

ce

wor

kers

La

bore

rs

Not

repo

rted

Con

stru

ctio

n To

tal M

fg.

Met

al

Indu

strie

s M

achi

nery

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Equ

ip.

7400

6

9 38

14

42

52

3 34

41

23

14

76

15

19

3

7500

65

25

12

0

39

94

155

23

82

38

28

35

208

52

61

19

7600

16

0 72

17

5

29

129

144

6 86

16

23

47

24

0 34

53

15

88

00

146

70

335

15

6 24

9 34

1 15

22

7 76

54

74

53

0 60

11

2 22

89

00

171

59

394

85

23

8 39

6 20

13

3 81

45

76

52

1 68

14

8 28

90

00

369

190

421

23

3 26

7 27

1 8

194

73

66

103

525

48

108

22

1030

0 30

13

93

32

61

68

6 42

15

11

18

12

7 13

42

10

10

400

74

60

290

82

21

5 26

0 15

13

1 49

51

57

44

0 76

84

23

10

500

202

139

410

18

0 28

9 31

6 51

17

1 56

68

56

54

1 52

16

7 32

11

100

27

20

50

23

33

28

1

20

5 7

10

60

7 13

5

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

1,

250

658

2,32

5

872

1,61

8 2,

032

148

1,12

0 44

9 37

6 49

0 3,

268

425

807

179

City

28

,100

14

,984

46

,795

17,4

66

24,2

90

32,9

85

3,60

2 23

,390

8,

297

12,2

35

9,11

8 51

,770

6,

497

11,2

68

1,66

8

- 59

-

1960

Cen

sus

Maj

or In

dust

ry (c

ont.)

M

anuf

actu

ring

R

ailro

ad &

R

ailw

ay

Oth

er

Tran

spor

tatio

n C

omm

unic

atio

ns, U

tiliti

es

& S

anita

ry

Who

lesa

le

Trad

e E

atin

g &

Drin

king

Pla

ces

Oth

er R

etai

l Tr

ade

Bus

ines

s an

d R

epai

r P

rivat

e H

ouse

hold

s O

ther

Per

sona

l S

ervi

ces

TRA

CT

Oth

er D

urab

le

Goo

ds

Food

and

Kin

dred

Pr

od.

Text

ile a

nd

App

arel

Pr

int,

Pub

lishi

ng

Oth

er

Non

dura

ble

74

00

9 13

3

6 8

11

9 6

17

18

31

4 3

13

7500

17

26

9

16

7 17

36

17

25

27

75

22

23

23

76

00

29

45

12

35

14

20

29

8 57

17

11

3 32

6

24

8800

13

3 96

31

55

17

38

85

44

64

63

23

1 61

22

51

89

00

83

80

45

31

19

69

64

57

110

31

206

40

20

49

9000

76

58

26

11

8 37

60

53

77

13

7 48

27

8 54

8

29

1030

0 21

12

7

13

5 7

9 9

18

13

52

11

6 16

10

400

81

56

4 64

40

23

57

31

67

40

14

0 35

15

38

10

500

73

109

23

48

20

48

106

66

93

39

296

60

51

29

1110

0 9

10

3 8

4 7

10

6 14

6

30

6 2

6 Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

531

505

163

393

170

299

459

321

602

302

1,45

2 32

6 15

6 27

9 C

ity

9,55

9 8,

247

3,47

7 5,

359

4,18

4 4,

704

6,20

1 5,

991

12,4

76

6,92

9 27

,181

6,

411

3,91

7 7,

645

1960

Cen

sus

Maj

or In

dust

ry (c

ont.)

H

ospi

tals

E

duca

tiona

l O

ther

P

rofe

ssio

nal

Pub

lic A

dmin

. O

ther

Indu

strie

s TR

AC

T

7400

7

6 11

9

27

7500

36

38

11

30

46

76

00

53

71

41

23

59

8800

81

56

28

82

15

7 89

00

95

49

60

91

84

9000

10

5 21

7 98

13

9 16

1 10

300

10

16

9 16

34

10

400

38

48

31

41

126

1050

0 60

11

1 68

12

2 13

6 11

100

7 9

13

12

16

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

49

2 62

1 37

1 56

6 84

6 C

ity

9,92

1 12

,833

10

,946

9,

177

26,8

20

1970

Cen

sus

E

mpl

oym

ent S

tatu

s

TRA

CT

Pop

ulat

ion

Per

sons

16+

yr

s Fe

mal

es 1

6+

yrs

Labo

r Fo

rce

Fem

ales

in L

abor

Fo

rce

% P

op. 1

6+ is

Fe

mal

e %

Labo

r For

ce is

Fe

mal

e E

mpl

oyed

P

rivat

e w

age

and

sala

ry

wor

kers

G

ov't

Wor

kers

S

elf-

empl

oyed

U

nem

ploy

ed

%

Une

mpl

oyed

N

ot in

Lab

or

Forc

e %

Not

in L

abor

Fo

rce

7400

50

3 38

1 20

4 25

1 11

8 53

.5

47.1

23

6 20

7 15

14

15

5.

8 13

0 34

.2

7500

1,

520

1,11

4 61

2 72

2 32

8 55

.0

45.4

68

3 57

9 91

13

30

4.

2 39

2 35

.2

7600

1,

870

1,33

3 73

6 79

8 33

0 55

.2

41.4

77

1 63

3 11

8 19

27

3.

4 53

6 40

.2

8800

4,

154

3,06

0 1,

720

1,85

1 85

3 56

.2

46.1

1,

788

1,43

3 28

9 63

63

3.

4 1,

208

39.5

89

00

3,67

7 2,

759

1,49

4 1,

583

682

54.2

43

.1

1,53

6 1,

262

223

51

43

2.7

1,17

6 42

.6

9000

4,

755

3,57

9 1,

991

2,06

5 86

2 55

.6

41.7

2,

024

1,64

8 31

1 65

35

1.

7 1,

514

42.3

10

300

1,09

2 78

5 44

6 43

5 20

1 56

.8

46.2

41

7 33

8 56

22

18

4.

2 35

1 44

.7

1040

0 2,

783

1,96

3 1,

066

1,17

9 47

0 54

.3

39.9

1,

127

983

128

16

45

3.8

784

39.9

10

500

4,44

1 3,

404

1,80

2 2,

069

829

52.9

40

.1

2,01

5 1,

576

389

50

50

2.4

1,33

5 39

.2

1110

0 49

7 37

8 20

8 22

9 3,

406

55.1

1,

485.

7 21

9 18

1 32

16

9

4.1

148

39.3

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

25,2

93

18,7

56

10,2

80

11,1

81

8,07

9 54

.8

72.3

10

,816

8,

840

1,65

2 33

0 33

6 3.

0 7,

575

40.4

C

ity

434,

408

331,

084

184,

420

204,

543

94,1

61

55.7

46

.0

196,

325

156,

330

32,2

60

7,26

3 7,

711

3.8

126,

541

38.2

1970

Cen

sus

Maj

or O

ccup

atio

n G

roup

M

ajor

In

dust

ry

TRA

CT

Pro

fess

iona

l M

anag

ers

Sal

es

Cle

rical

and

K

indr

ed

Cra

ftsm

en, F

orem

en,

kind

red

Ope

rativ

es, e

xc.

Tran

spor

t Tr

ansp

ort e

quip

O

per.

Labo

rers

S

ervi

ce

Wor

kers

P

rivat

e H

ouse

hold

C

onst

ruct

ion

Man

ufac

turin

g

Tran

spor

tatio

n C

omm

unic

atio

ns,

Util

ities

, San

itatio

n

- 60

-

Tota

l Mfg

. D

urab

le G

oods

7400

26

15

16

49

32

46

8

7 34

2

9 73

48

6

6 75

00

46

7 43

16

3 99

11

4 22

45

13

9 6

32

183

137

33

29

7600

15

2 66

59

22

3 61

90

51

14

47

3

28

187

122

39

28

8800

25

9 73

10

5 49

3 21

5 20

0 78

94

22

8 40

76

41

6 31

3 79

36

89

00

194

81

68

412

187

234

69

74

211

6 82

38

3 27

0 71

51

90

00

401

160

124

455

244

199

90

61

270

20

70

396

249

126

57

1030

0 31

7

11

124

87

72

13

18

48

6 23

11

4 85

21

8

1040

0 10

3 79

69

24

9 16

1 13

0 58

35

22

9 11

75

23

9 16

8 81

25

10

500

320

153

119

517

262

202

55

111

266

10

118

438

296

112

47

1110

0 36

15

12

66

26

20

12

7

24

1 12

51

31

13

7

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

1,

567

655

626

2,75

1 1,

374

1,30

8 45

6 46

6 1,

496

104

525

2,48

0 1,

719

582

294

City

32

,415

12

,730

12

,762

49

,179

21

,044

23

,064

6,

498

8,15

1 28

,361

1,

808

8,21

0 40

,327

25

,354

7,

872

5,96

5 19

70 C

ensu

s M

ajor

Indu

stry

(con

t.)

TRA

CT

Who

lesa

le

Trad

e R

etai

l Tr

ade

Fina

nce,

Insu

r., R

eal

Est

ate

Bus

ines

s an

d R

epai

r P

erso

nal

Ser

vice

s H

ealth

se

rvic

es

Edu

catio

nal

Ser

vice

s O

ther

Pro

f. &

re

late

d P

ublic

A

dmin

istra

tion

Oth

er In

dust

ries

All

Wor

kers

74

00

15

41

8 8

20

18

6 18

4

4 24

3 75

00

53

123

29

12

34

74

31

13

35

0 68

6 76

00

29

149

39

43

23

66

58

45

30

7 78

9 88

00

101

300

73

77

91

213

124

99

88

15

1,83

9 89

00

107

288

71

66

64

126

90

49

85

3 1,

532

9000

17

5 33

4 95

86

64

19

7 19

3 13

3 70

28

1,

943

1030

0 31

51

29

25

24

32

11

19

19

8

428

1040

0 74

16

5 53

68

45

10

7 68

49

58

20

1,

110

1050

0 15

1 33

4 92

11

9 55

15

1 18

5 79

13

4 0

1,93

1 11

100

10

42

17

11

5 20

13

6

13

1 21

0 Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

746

1,82

7 50

5 51

5 42

6 1,

004

778

510

536

86

10,7

12

City

11

,899

32

,706

14

,069

10

,472

9,

031

16,8

02

17,4

26

10,5

84

8,36

3 2,

599

190,

528

1980

Cen

sus

E

mpl

oym

ent S

tatu

s

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Pop

ulat

ion

Per

sons

16+

yr

s La

bor F

orce

Fe

mal

es 1

6+

yrs

Fem

ales

in L

abor

Fo

rce

% P

op. 1

6+ is

Fe

mal

e %

Labo

r For

ce is

Fe

mal

e E

mpl

oyed

P

rivat

e w

age

and

sala

ry

wor

kers

G

ov't

Wor

kers

Sel

f-em

ploy

ed

Une

mpl

oyed

%

U

nem

ploy

ed

Tota

l Fe

d. G

ov't

Stat

e G

ov't

Lo

cal G

ov't

C

oope

r (01

6)

3,93

8 3,

194

2,05

7 1,

735

1,01

3 54

.3

49.2

1,

980

1,59

8 33

4 61

18

1 92

48

70

3.

4 H

iaw

atha

(033

) 5,

627

4,67

5 2,

747

2,43

0 1,

352

52.0

49

.2

2,60

7 1,

987

479

141

137

201

129

140

5.1

How

e (0

36)

7,24

1 5,

887

3,80

9 3,

170

1,75

0 53

.8

45.9

3,

661

2,81

3 70

0 11

8 21

6 36

6 14

8 14

8 3.

9 Lo

ngfe

llow

(045

) 5,

355

4,36

9 2,

849

2,38

0 1,

331

54.5

46

.7

2,76

0 2,

066

544

150

170

224

150

84

2.9

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

22,1

61

18,1

25

11,4

62

9,71

5 5,

446

53.6

47

.5

11,0

08

8,46

4 2,

057

470

704

883

475

442

2.4

City

("Th

e A

rea"

) 37

0,95

1 30

6,28

9 20

0,62

1 16

4,73

1 95

,486

53

.8

47.6

19

0,72

7 14

7,90

0 34

,183

5,

615

13,5

60

15,0

08

8,45

2 9,

713

3.2

% C

ity T

otal

s in

Lo

ngfe

llow

6.

0 5.

9 5.

7 5.

9 5.

7

5.

8 5.

7 6.

0 8.

4 5.

2 5.

9 5.

6 4.

6 -0

.7

1980

Cen

sus

Maj

or O

ccup

atio

n G

roup

Indu

stry

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Not

in L

abor

Fo

rce

% N

ot in

Lab

or

Forc

e M

anag

eria

l and

P

rofe

ssio

nal

Tech

nica

l, S

ales

& A

dmin

. S

uppo

rt S

ervi

ce

Occ

upat

ions

P

reci

sion

Pro

d., C

raft,

R

epai

r O

pera

tors

, fab

ricat

ors,

la

bore

rs

Con

stru

ctio

n M

anuf

actu

ring

Tran

spor

tatio

n C

omm

unic

atio

ns &

Pub

lic

Util

ities

W

hole

sale

Tr

ade

To

tal

Mfg

. D

urab

le

Goo

ds

C

oope

r (01

6)

1,13

7 35

.6

617

678

257

164

259

91

390

272

149

40

115

Hia

wat

ha (0

33)

1,92

8 41

.2

616

948

397

293

353

164

412

263

157

37

151

How

e (0

36)

2,07

8 35

.3

802

1,36

3 52

3 30

9 65

1 17

3 70

3 50

4 21

9 75

15

6 Lo

ngfe

llow

(045

) 1,

520

34.8

61

1 87

6 35

5 32

9 54

8 12

6 57

2 44

5 14

5 20

19

4

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

6,66

3 36

.8

2,64

6 3,

865

1,53

2 1,

095

1,81

1 55

4 2,

077

1,48

4 67

0 17

2 61

6

- 61

-

Tota

ls

City

("Th

e A

rea"

) 10

5,66

8 34

.5

50,0

74

66,4

78

30,0

25

15,7

72

27,5

44

7,10

6 33

,736

22

,777

8,

976

4,01

1 9,

111

% C

ity T

otal

s in

Lo

ngfe

llow

6.

3

5.3

5.8

5.1

6.9

6.6

7.8

6.2

6.5

7.5

4.3

6.8

1980

Cen

sus

Indu

stry

(con

t.)

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Ret

ail

Trad

e Fi

nanc

e, In

sura

nce

& R

eal

Est

ate

Bus

ines

s an

d R

epai

r P

erso

nal,

Ent

erta

inm

ent,

Rec

. S

ervi

ces

Hea

lth s

ervi

ces

Edu

catio

nal

Ser

vice

s O

ther

Pro

fess

iona

l &

rela

ted

Pub

lic

Adm

inis

tratio

n A

ll W

orke

rs

Coo

per (

016)

29

2 11

6 75

43

22

2 22

4 14

0 83

1,

939

Hia

wat

ha (0

33)

463

196

127

122

322

177

121

153

2,55

0 H

owe

(036

) 62

6 27

4 18

7 72

45

7 29

8 20

8 20

1 3,

532

Long

fello

w (0

45)

484

175

123

140

319

187

110

155

2,67

8

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

1,86

5 76

1 51

2 37

7 1,

320

886

579

592

10,6

99

City

("Th

e A

rea"

) 32

,037

15

,093

10

,742

9,

329

20,5

47

18,6

72

12,8

59

7,80

8 18

3,68

9 %

City

Tot

als

in

Long

fello

w

5.8

5.0

4.8

4.0

6.4

4.7

4.5

7.6

5.8

1990

Cen

sus

E

mpl

oym

ent S

tatu

s, P

erso

ns 1

6+ y

rs.

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Pop

ulat

ion

Per

sons

16+

yr

s La

bor F

orce

Fe

mal

es 1

6+

yrs

Fem

ales

in L

abor

Fo

rce

% P

op. 1

6+ is

Fe

mal

e %

Labo

r For

ce is

Fe

mal

e E

mpl

oyed

P

rivat

e w

age

and

sala

ry

wor

kers

G

ov't

Wor

kers

Sel

f-em

ploy

ed

Une

mpl

oyed

%

U

nem

ploy

ed

Tota

l Fe

d. G

ov't

Stat

e G

ov't

Lo

cal G

ov't

C

oope

r (01

6)

3,70

8 3,

045

2,18

3 1,

514

1,03

0 49

.7

47.2

2,

095

1,56

9 40

9 66

19

1 15

2 11

2 88

2.

9 H

iaw

atha

(033

) 5,

759

4,85

6 3,

051

2,43

5 1,

523

50.1

49

.9

2,89

1 2,

283

440

114

140

186

168

155

3.2

How

e (0

35)

7,10

8 5,

380

3,74

9 2,

925

1,86

2 54

.4

49.7

3,

533

2,72

3 58

8 86

18

2 32

0 21

7 21

6 4.

0 Lo

ngfe

llow

(044

) 5,

023

4,28

4 2,

873

2,25

1 1,

349

52.5

47

.0

2,71

3 2,

059

514

70

203

241

140

160

3.7

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

21,5

98

17,5

65

11,8

56

9,12

5 5,

764

51.9

48

.6

11,2

32

8,63

4 1,

951

336

716

899

637

619

3.5

City

36

8,38

3 29

8,97

9 20

6,47

7 15

5,56

4 97

,397

52

.0

47.2

19

2,50

8 15

1,89

7 29

,275

4,

566

11,7

29

12,9

80

11,0

36

13,7

81

4.6

% C

ity T

otal

s in

Lo

ngfe

llow

5.

9 5.

9 5.

7 5.

9 5.

9

5.

8 5.

7 6.

7 7.

4 6.

1 6.

9 5.

8 4.

5 -1

.1

1990

Cen

sus

Indu

stry

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Not

in L

abor

Fo

rce

% N

ot in

Lab

or

Forc

e M

anag

eria

l and

P

rofe

ssio

nal

Tech

nica

l, S

ales

& A

dmin

. S

uppo

rt S

ervi

ce

Occ

upat

ions

P

reci

sion

Pro

d., C

raft,

R

epai

r O

pera

tors

, fab

ricat

ors,

la

bore

rs

Con

stru

ctio

n M

anuf

actu

ring

Tran

spor

tatio

n C

omm

. & P

ublic

U

tiliti

es

Who

lesa

le

Trad

e R

etai

l Tra

de

To

tal

Mfg

. D

urab

le

Goo

ds

Coo

per (

016)

86

2 28

.3

808

576

287

133

268

67

333

211

67

32

74

265

Hia

wat

ha (0

33)

1,80

5 37

.2

734

1,17

6 32

5 23

3 41

3 87

52

8 32

1 24

0 78

17

1 41

5 H

owe

(035

) 1,

631

30.3

1,

087

1,16

3 47

7 33

0 44

8 12

9 58

7 39

3 20

0 41

18

1 46

1 Lo

ngfe

llow

(044

) 1,

411

32.9

75

0 89

7 42

5 22

6 40

0 13

8 35

8 23

4 91

85

15

1 48

3

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

5,

709

32.5

3,

379

3,81

2 1,

514

922

1,52

9 42

1 1,

806

1,15

9 59

8 23

6 57

7 1,

624

City

92

,502

30

.9

61,1

79

65,2

94

30,1

42

12,2

17

22,5

58

5,73

7 27

,195

16

,110

8,

813

3,57

3 8,

217

32,8

53

% C

ity T

otal

s in

Lo

ngfe

llow

6.

2

5.5

5.8

5.0

7.5

6.8

7.3

6.6

7.2

6.8

6.6

7.0

4.9

1990

Cen

sus

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Fina

nce,

Insu

r., R

eal

Est

ate

Bus

ines

s an

d R

epai

r P

erso

nal,

Ent

er.,

Rec

. S

ervi

ces

Hea

lth s

ervi

ces

Edu

c. S

ervi

ces

Oth

er P

rof.

&

rela

ted

Pub

lic

Adm

inis

tratio

n A

ll W

orke

rs

C

oope

r (01

6)

131

99

84

323

233

257

110

2,04

4 H

iaw

atha

(033

) 18

9 15

6 12

3 34

2 12

5 30

5 11

7 2,

872

How

e (0

35)

255

257

140

489

334

300

135

3,50

1 Lo

ngfe

llow

(044

) 12

9 17

1 13

3 36

8 26

5 19

6 97

2,

672

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

704

683

480

1,52

2 95

7 1,

058

459

11,0

89

City

15

,370

13

,579

10

,521

20

,444

18

,280

20

,748

6,

001

188,

558

% C

ity T

otal

s in

4.

6 5.

0 4.

6 7.

4 5.

2 5.

1 7.

6 5.

9

- 62

-

Long

fello

w

2000

Cen

sus

E

mpl

oym

ent S

tatu

s, P

erso

ns 1

6+ y

rs.

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Pop

ulat

ion

Per

sons

16+

yr

s La

bor F

orce

Fe

mal

es 1

6+

yrs

Fem

ales

in L

abor

Fo

rce

% P

op. 1

6+ is

Fe

mal

e %

Labo

r For

ce is

Fe

mal

e E

mpl

oyed

(Tot

al

Pop

.) P

rivat

e w

age

and

sala

ry

wor

kers

G

ov't

Wor

kers

S

elf-

empl

oyed

U

nem

ploy

ed

%

Une

mpl

oyed

N

ot in

Lab

or

Forc

e %

Not

in L

abor

Fo

rce

Tota

l

Coo

per

3,44

8 2,

850

2,17

5 1,

545

1,11

5 54

.2

51.3

2,

125

1,63

5 35

0 13

5 50

1.

8 67

5 23

.7

Hia

wat

ha

5,30

4 4,

140

3,05

1 2,

165

1,46

5 52

.3

48.0

2,

825

2,22

0 47

5 13

5 17

0 4.

1 1,

145

27.7

H

owe

6,87

8 5,

500

4,22

5 2,

870

2,15

5 52

.2

51.0

4,

000

3,01

5 71

0 27

0 23

0 4.

2 1,

275

23.2

Lo

ngfe

llow

4,

972

4,11

5 3,

125

2,13

5 1,

515

51.9

48

.5

2,93

5 2,

280

385

255

190

4.6

995

24.2

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

20,6

02

16,6

05

12,5

76

8,71

5 6,

250

52.5

49

.7

11,8

85

9,15

0 1,

920

795

640

3.9

4,09

0 24

.6

City

38

2,61

8 30

6,37

8 22

0,79

0 15

3,44

9 10

4,08

7 50

.1

47.1

20

7,89

0 16

7,92

2 28

,815

10

,730

12

,778

4.

2 85

,588

27

.9

% C

ity T

otal

s in

Lo

ngfe

llow

5.

4 5.

4 5.

7 5.

7 6.

0

5.

7 5.

4 6.

7 7.

4 5.

0 -0

.3

4.8

20

00 C

ensu

s In

dust

ry

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Mgm

t., P

rofe

ssio

nal &

R

elat

ed

Ser

vice

O

ccup

atio

ns

Sal

es a

nd o

ffice

oc

cupa

tions

C

onst

., ex

tract

ion

& m

aint

enan

ce

Pro

duct

ion,

tran

sp.,

and

mat

eria

l m

ovin

g C

onst

ruct

ion

Man

ufac

turin

g

Who

lesa

le

Trad

e R

etai

l Tra

de

Tran

sp. &

War

ehou

sing

, and

ut

ilitie

s In

form

atio

n

Tota

l Mfg

. D

urab

le G

oods

Coo

per

1,07

0 29

5 51

0 95

15

5 75

20

0

50

120

95

100

Hia

wat

ha

1,19

0 35

0 74

0 19

5 35

0 12

0 29

0

75

325

135

130

How

e 1,

710

520

1,09

0 22

5 44

5 13

0 42

0

125

460

260

130

Long

fello

w

930

620

815

190

375

170

385

30

35

0 14

0 11

0

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

4,

900

1,78

5 3,

155

705

1,32

5 49

5 1,

295

0 28

0 1,

255

630

470

City

85

,409

33

,771

53

,357

10

,025

25

,045

6,

844

22,4

39

5,

393

22,0

76

9,75

8 7,

402

% C

ity T

otal

s in

Lo

ngfe

llow

5.

7 5.

3 5.

9 7.

0 5.

3 7.

2 5.

8 #D

IV/0

! 5.

2 5.

7 6.

5 6.

3 20

00 C

ensu

s In

dust

ry

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Fina

nce,

Insu

r., R

eal

Est

ate

Prof

., sc

ient

ific,

mgm

t., a

dmin

. & w

aste

m

gmt.

Edu

c., H

ealth

and

Soc

ial

Ser

v.

Arts

, Ent

er.,

Rec

., A

ccom

mod

atio

n, &

Foo

d S

ervi

ces

Oth

er S

ervi

ces

Pub

lic

Adm

inis

tratio

n A

ll W

orke

rs

Coo

per

220

240

665

120

150

80

2,11

9 H

iaw

atha

18

0 38

5 72

5 18

0 17

5 11

0 2,

770

How

e 35

5 45

0 96

5 36

0 17

0 16

5 3,

925

Long

fello

w

175

260

760

305

200

45

2,86

0

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

930

1,33

5 3,

115

965

695

400

11,6

74

City

17

,929

28

,446

47

,442

22

,867

10

,672

6,

187

203,

951

% C

ity T

otal

s in

Lo

ngfe

llow

5.

2 4.

7 6.

6 4.

2 6.

5 6.

5 5.

7 In

com

e D

ata

1950

Cen

sus

Inco

me

in 1

949

(Lon

gfel

low

)

Le

ss th

an

$500

$5

00 to

$99

9 $1

,000

to

$1,4

99

$1,5

00 to

$1

,999

$2

,000

to

$2,4

99

$2,5

00 to

$2

,999

$3

,000

to

$3,4

99

$3,5

00 to

$3

,999

$4

,000

to

4,49

9 $4

,500

to

$4,9

99

$5,0

00 to

$5

,999

$6

,000

to $

6,99

9 $7

,000

to

$9,9

99

$10,

000

or

mor

e N

ot

Rep

orte

d M

edia

n In

com

e Tr

act 7

4 18

19

28

16

26

33

40

26

20

18

18

10

13

-

17

$3,0

38

Trac

t 75

42

25

23

23

46

59

97

78

34

38

53

36

46

6 19

$3

,435

Tr

act 7

6 47

8

16

19

31

55

97

70

86

55

90

74

31

19

12

$4,0

34

Trac

t 88

89

52

70

103

136

146

155

207

127

85

131

52

9 9

56

$3,3

33

Trac

t 89

45

70

50

50

110

165

185

190

140

100

175

120

95

5 40

$3

,697

Tr

act 9

0 11

0 65

45

50

11

0 85

13

0 17

0 14

5 13

0 18

5 16

0 11

5 75

35

$4

,078

Tr

act 1

03

25

7 16

28

18

32

53

38

25

23

18

15

18

-

12

$3,2

99

Trac

t 104

75

45

35

60

70

70

13

5 75

10

0 10

5 11

5 45

35

5

20

$3,4

81

- 63

-

Trac

t 105

35

50

60

65

60

80

14

5 22

0 12

5 10

5 19

5 10

5 65

25

15

$3

,892

Tr

act 1

11

6 4

4 3

9 13

20

18

11

8

19

9 15

4

5 $3

,845

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

492

346

347

418

616

737

1,05

7 1,

092

813

666

998

625

443

149

230

$3,5

89

City

19

,160

15

,095

12

,965

13

,635

16

,705

16

,445

20

,575

16

,920

14

,070

10

,160

14

,990

8,

455

9,50

0 5,

735

10,5

00

$3,0

78

1960

Cen

sus

# Fam

ilies

M

edia

n In

com

e

19

70 C

ensu

s Fa

mili

es

Fa

mili

es &

Unr

elat

ed In

divi

dual

s 19

80 C

ensu

s

Fam

ilies

Fa

m. &

Unr

el. I

ndiv

.

Med

ian

Inco

me

Mea

n In

com

e M

edia

n In

com

e M

ean

Inco

me

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Fam

ilies

H

ouse

hold

s

Trac

t 74

163

$5,3

73

$4,6

76

Tr

act 7

4 $9

,750

$1

0,64

2 $6

,259

$7

,572

M

edia

n In

com

e M

ean

Inco

me

# H

ouse

hold

s M

edia

n In

com

e M

ean

Inco

me

Trac

t 75

456

$5,7

77

$4,9

36

Tr

act 7

5 $9

,360

$9

,746

$7

,304

$7

,804

Coo

per

$21,

842

$24,

504

1,63

3 $1

8,40

2 $2

0,78

7 Tr

act 7

6 52

0 $6

,819

$5

,777

Trac

t 76

$10,

794

$11,

845

$8,1

49

$9,2

40

H

iaw

atha

$2

0,72

6 $2

2,57

6 2,

245

$16,

237

$19,

024

Trac

t 88

1,05

6 $6

,186

$5

,115

Trac

t 88

$9,7

97

$9,7

71

$7,1

08

$7,4

88

H

owe

$20,

456

$22,

833

3,04

8 $1

6,32

0 $1

9,40

0 Tr

act 8

9 1,

053

$6,6

57

$5,7

55

Tr

act 8

9 $9

,494

$9

,705

$8

,240

$8

,497

Long

fello

w

$19,

233

$19,

711

2,37

2 $1

4,70

7 $1

6,50

5 Tr

act 9

0 1,

439

$6,9

75

$6,2

08

Tr

act 9

0 $1

0,34

4 $1

2,22

3 $8

,669

$1

0,31

2

Trac

t 103

23

4 $6

,341

$5

,460

Trac

t 103

$9

,380

$1

0,86

4 $7

,944

$8

,990

Trac

t 104

81

9 $6

,393

$5

,770

Trac

t 104

$1

0,03

9 $1

0,08

9 $8

,610

$8

,712

Trac

t 105

1,

244

$6,6

01

$5,9

95

Tr

act 1

05

$11,

273

$12,

779

$9,5

84

$10,

887

Tr

act 1

11

142

$7,0

81

$6,4

41

Tr

act 1

11

$11,

206

$12,

117

$9,1

32

$10,

259

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

7,12

6 $6

,497

$5

,763

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

$9

,918

$1

0,97

8 $8

,195

$8

,976

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

$2

0,59

1 $2

2,40

6 9,

298

$16,

279

$18,

929

City

12

1,18

1 $6

,401

$4

,716

City

$9

,960

$1

1,12

7 $6

,243

$7

,855

City

$1

9,73

7 $2

2,50

9 16

2,17

1 $1

4,35

1 $1

7,77

5 19

90 C

ensu

s

20

00 C

ensu

s

N

EIG

HB

OR

HO

OD

Fa

mili

es

Hou

seho

lds

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Fam

ilies

Hou

seho

lds

M

edia

n In

com

e M

ean

Inco

me

# H

ouse

hold

s M

edia

n In

com

e M

ean

Inco

me

Med

ian

Inco

me

# Hou

seho

lds

Med

ian

Inco

me

Mea

n E

arni

ngs

Coo

per

$33,

417

$39,

436

1,59

2 $3

1,97

7 $3

7,31

5

Coo

per

$56,

250

1,62

0 $5

0,68

8 $5

7,04

1 H

iaw

atha

$3

8,59

1 $4

3,75

0 2,

381

$33,

146

$36,

601

H

iaw

atha

$5

7,46

4 2,

375

$43,

912

$54,

911

How

e $3

5,38

2 $3

8,97

2 2,

908

$28,

606

$33,

607

H

owe

$54,

116

3,07

5 $4

5,27

0 $5

1,74

3 Lo

ngfe

llow

$2

9,47

9 $3

0,58

7 2,

433

$22,

965

$26,

412

Lo

ngfe

llow

$4

2,70

4 2,

320

$34,

156

$40,

627

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

$3

4,40

0 $3

8,18

6 9,

314

$30,

292

$33,

484

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

$55,

183

9,39

0 $4

4,59

1 $5

1,08

1 C

ity

$32,

998

$40,

903

160,

531

$25,

324

$33,

245

C

ity

$48,

602

162,

382

$37,

974

$52,

245

Mea

ns o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

to W

ork

Dat

a 19

60 C

ensu

s

Mea

ns o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n

1970

Cen

sus

Priv

ate

Aut

o

Bus

W

alke

d W

orke

d at

H

ome

Oth

er

Pr

iv.

Aut

o/C

arpo

ol

Rai

lroad

B

us

Wal

ked

Oth

er M

eans

W

orke

d at

H

ome

Not

Rep

orte

d

D

river

P

asse

nger

Tr

act 7

4 14

7 0

51

39

1 2

17

Tr

act 7

4 11

6 45

48

24

5

6 Tr

act 7

5 39

0 2

128

94

7 3

29

Tr

act 7

5 36

3 96

13

0 87

7

3 Tr

act 7

6 54

6 0

183

35

11

3 30

Trac

t 76

487

101

173

19

4 5

Trac

t 88

1,11

8 0

315

121

22

27

50

Tr

act 8

8 1,

136

258

270

136

23

16

Trac

t 89

1,08

7 4

362

64

16

21

28

Tr

act 8

9 1,

004

184

243

55

34

12

Trac

t 90

1,50

9 4

370

101

8 21

32

Trac

t 90

1,20

3 35

6 26

8 64

39

13

Tr

act 1

03

232

0 78

33

4

1 12

Trac

t 103

26

6 60

73

21

2

5 Tr

act 1

04

819

0 25

8 57

9

19

40

Tr

act 1

04

677

130

220

64

5 14

Tr

act 1

05

1,31

5 0

356

63

25

40

36

Tr

act 1

05

1,37

0 23

7 20

6 60

51

7

Trac

t 111

14

9 0

43

11

3 2

4

Trac

t 111

13

2 27

28

14

4

4 Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

7,31

1 10

2,

143

617

107

138

278

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

6,75

3 1,

494

1,66

0 54

4 17

4 86

C

ity

123,

832

142

44,1

12

22,8

83

2,04

6 4,

659

10,1

57

C

ity

102,

912

23,8

21

35,7

50

21,0

05

4,05

4 2,

952

- 64

-

1980

Cen

sus

Mea

ns o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Priv

ate

Aut

o

P

ublic

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

% P

ub.

Tran

spor

tatio

n W

alke

d %

W

alke

d W

orke

d at

H

ome

% W

orke

d at

H

ome

Oth

er M

eans

%

Oth

er M

eans

D

rove

A

lone

%

Dro

ve

Alo

ne

Car

pool

%

Car

pool

C

oope

r 1,

157

59.7

32

1 16

.6

314

16.2

90

4.

6 16

0.

8 41

2.

1 H

iaw

atha

1,

550

60.8

31

8 12

.5

545

21.4

62

2.

4 47

1.

8 28

1.

1 H

owe

2,07

5 58

.7

677

19.2

58

7 16

.6

94

2.7

48

1.4

54

1.5

Long

fello

w

1,44

5 54

.0

542

20.2

41

9 15

.6

229

8.6

19

0.7

24

0.9

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

6,22

7 58

.2

1,85

8 17

.4

1,86

5 17

.4

475

4.4

130

1.2

147

1.4

City

93

,025

50

.6

28,1

50

15.3

39

,964

21

.8

16,4

46

9.0

2,93

6 1.

6 3,

168

1.7

1990

Cen

sus

Mea

ns o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

D

Priv

ate

Aut

o

P

ublic

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

% P

ub.

Tran

spor

tatio

n W

alke

d %

W

alke

d W

orke

d at

H

ome

% W

orke

d at

H

ome

Oth

er M

eans

%

Oth

er M

eans

D

rove

A

lone

%

Dro

ve

Alo

ne

Car

pool

%

Car

pool

C

oope

r 1,

434

70.2

30

0 14

.7

163

8.0

56

2.7

41

2.0

50

2.4

Hia

wat

ha

2,02

0 70

.3

363

12.6

33

1 11

.5

40

1.4

83

2.9

35

1.2

How

e 2,

424

69.2

52

3 14

.9

363

10.4

59

1.

7 93

2.

7 39

1.

1 Lo

ngfe

llow

1,

571

58.8

39

4 14

.7

390

14.6

17

2 6.

4 58

2.

2 87

3.

3

Long

fello

w C

omm

unity

To

tals

7,

449

67.2

1,

580

14.2

1,

247

11.2

32

7 2.

9 27

5 2.

5 21

1 1.

9 C

ity

113,

703

60.3

19

,837

10

.5

30,2

14

16.0

14

,798

7.

8 5,

754

3.1

4,25

2 2.

3 20

00 C

ensu

s

C

omm

utin

g to

Wor

k

N

EIG

HB

OR

HO

OD

P

rivat

e A

uto

Pub

lic T

rans

port

atio

n W

alke

d

Wor

ked

at H

ome

Oth

er M

eans

D

rove

A

lone

%

Dro

ve

Alo

ne

Car

pool

%

Car

pool

% P

ublic

Tra

nsp.

%

Wal

ked

% W

orke

d at

Hom

e %

Oth

er M

eans

C

oope

r 1,

500

70.8

26

0 12

.3

165

7.8

4 0.

2 12

0 5.

7 70

3.

3 H

iaw

atha

1,

965

70.9

32

0 11

.6

250

9.0

55

2.0

125

4.5

55

2.0

How

e 2,

740

69.8

49

0 12

.5

375

9.6

85

2.2

135

3.4

100

2.5

Long

fello

w

1,79

5 62

.8

455

15.9

37

5 13

.1

70

2.4

90

3.1

75

2.6

Lo

ngfe

llow

Com

mun

ity

Tota

ls

8,00

0 68

.5

1,52

5 19

.1

1,16

5 10

.0

214

1.8

470

4.0

300

2.6

City

12

5,58

3 61

.6

23,1

32

18.4

29

,681

14

.6

13,4

88

6.6

6,93

6 3.

4 5,

131

2.5

Cou

ntry

of O

rigi

n D

ata

1940

Cen

sus

Sel

ecte

d* C

ount

ry o

f Birt

h, F

orei

gn-B

orn

Whi

te

TRA

CT

Pop

ulat

ion

Whi

te, T

otal

N

egro

/Bla

ck

Fore

ign-

Bor

n W

hite

E

ngla

nd &

W

ales

S

cotla

nd

Irela

nd (N

. and

F.

S.)

Nor

way

S

wed

en

Den

mar

k G

erm

any

Pol

and

Cze

chos

lova

kia

Aus

tria

Rus

sia

Finl

and

Rum

ania

Ita

ly

Asi

a (c

ontin

ent)

7400

97

3 96

6 5

126

3 3

1 31

43

7

10

1 4

3 1

1 1

1 1

7500

1,

770

1,74

4 26

30

6 9

1 5

82

121

11

20

2 16

10

3

8 0

1 -

7600

2,

098

2,09

8 -

289

6 -

1 59

14

3 14

18

2

10

5 2

2 3

2 -

8800

4,

272

4,19

2 79

63

5 15

6

5 17

8 26

0 40

35

3

22

9 3

4 1

8 -

8900

4,

415

4,41

5 -

667

20

2 6

171

326

44

29

5 6

6 1

3 2

2 1

9000

5,

446

5,43

8 6

713

22

1 2

156

322

61

38

3 20

10

3

1 2

5 -

1030

0 1,

000

994

5 12

2 3

1 2

25

46

13

7 1

1 3

3 1

0 1

- 10

400

3,25

8 3,

248

9 48

2 11

4

3 15

0 17

4 41

28

0

18

7 3

2 2

8 -

1050

0 4,

543

4,54

0 -

612

20

6 3

162

257

29

33

3 18

17

2

5 3

12

- 11

100

440

439

- 52

1

1 1

14

22

3 3

1 1

1 1

- -

- -

Long

fello

w

Com

mun

ity

28,2

15

28,0

75

130

4,00

4 11

0 26

29

1,

028

1,71

3 26

3 22

1 21

11

6 70

21

27

14

40

2

City

49

2,37

0 48

7,09

9 4,

646

64,1

49

1,97

2 78

7 95

4 11

,777

19

,244

2,

010

4,43

3 3,

637

1,50

3 1,

564

4,48

1 91

7 1,

099

702

836

1940

Cen

sus

- 65

-

TRA

CT

Can

ada-

Fren

ch

Can

ada-

Oth

er

Mex

ico

7400

1

6 6

7500

3

10

0 76

00

1 11

-

8800

3

23

- 89

00

5 22

-

9000

3

44

- 10

300

4 6

- 10

400

12

10

- 10

500

3 24

-

1110

0 0

2 -

Long

fello

w

Com

mun

ity

35

158

6 C

ity

836

4,61

4 18

9 19

50 C

ensu

s

S

elec

ted*

Cou

ntry

of B

irth,

For

eign

-Bor

n W

hite

TRA

CT

Pop

ulat

ion

Whi

te, T

otal

N

egro

/Bla

ck

Fore

ign-

Bor

n W

hite

E

ngla

nd &

W

ales

S

cotla

nd

Irela

nd (N

. and

F.

S.)

Nor

way

S

wed

en

Den

mar

k G

erm

any

Pol

and

Cze

chos

lova

kia

Aus

tria

Rus

sia

(U.S

.S.R

.) Fi

nlan

d R

uman

ia

Italy

74

00

915

909

5 77

3

0 0

18

25

2 6

1 3

1 1

1 1

0 75

00

1,81

9 1,

782

32

195

5 1

2 51

69

10

12

2

17

5 1

5 0

0 76

00

2,00

6 2,

003

- 23

0 7

- 1

49

113

11

10

2 3

2 1

2 2

- 88

00

4,14

2 4,

026

117

509

11

5 7

141

183

33

29

5 18

9

2 2

1 6

8900

4,

198

4,19

7 -

501

8 1

4 12

2 24

7 22

17

6

10

9 4

6 -

2 90

00

5,40

5 5,

400

3 53

8 12

4

4 12

4 20

9 58

35

3

18

7 2

- 1

4 10

300

986

981

5 98

2

2 1

23

35

6 4

1 3

2 1

1 1

1 10

400

3,12

7 3,

122

5 31

6 8

5 4

91

114

24

9 1

11

2 3

2 -

8 10

500

4,71

4 4,

709

- 50

4 10

6

3 13

0 20

3 33

25

2

22

9 3

4 1

11

1110

0 51

7 51

7 -

42

1 1

1 11

17

2

3 -

- 1

- -

- -

Long

fello

w

Com

mun

ity

27,8

29

27,6

47

166

3,01

2 67

25

27

76

1 1,

216

201

149

24

105

47

19

24

7 32

C

ity

521,

718

513,

250

6,80

7 48

,862

1,

550

581

699

8,56

8 13

,442

1,

520

3,33

0 2,

915

1,34

7 1,

110

3,63

8 77

0 68

4 56

5 19

50 C

ensu

s

TRA

CT

Asi

a (c

ontin

ent)

Can

ada-

Fren

ch

Can

ada-

Oth

er

Mex

ico

7400

1

1 4

3 75

00

0 3

7 -

7600

4

2 10

-

8800

-

5 26

1

8900

2

1 27

-

9000

2

3 29

-

1030

0 2

1 7

- 10

400

- -

13

- 10

500

2 3

19

- 11

100

- -

2 -

Long

fello

w

Com

mun

ity

13

19

144

4 C

ity

408

515

3,84

8 18

0

- 66

-

1960

Cen

sus

Cou

ntry

of O

rigin

, For

eign

Sto

ck

TRA

CT

Pop

ulat

ion

Fore

ign

Sto

ck

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Ire

land

N

orw

ay

Sw

eden

G

erm

any

Pol

and

Cze

chos

lova

kia

Aus

tria

Hun

gary

U

.S.S

.R.

Italy

C

anad

a M

exic

o A

ll O

ther

& N

ot

repo

rted

7400

66

7 16

3 4

3 28

57

24

4

7 6

1 0

0 7

1 95

75

00

1,67

2 52

0 7

8 11

4 15

4 78

13

35

10

0

7 3

22

0 15

9 76

00

1,89

8 73

8 9

21

170

270

53

10

40

22

3 23

2

20

0 12

9 88

00

4,00

8 1,

396

39

63

367

439

178

28

38

19

12

7 11

71

5

127

8900

3,

793

1,49

7 53

35

33

9 53

7 96

20

70

29

16

12

0

85

28

177

9000

4,

934

1,93

3 87

17

45

3 70

1 22

3 26

54

37

8

12

20

119

4 17

2 10

300

879

278

14

3 59

78

39

5

13

6 2

4 2

14

0 12

9 10

400

2,88

4 1,

097

39

19

242

333

169

11

70

29

4 10

0

45

0 12

6 10

500

4,14

3 1,

597

48

25

438

536

129

28

74

24

12

26

16

71

0 17

0 11

100

499

166

10

4 35

52

17

5

6 4

1 1

2 11

0

188

Long

fello

w

Com

mun

ity

25,3

76

9,38

4 31

0 19

8 2,

245

3,15

7 1,

006

149

407

185

59

103

56

465

38

1,47

2 C

ity

482,

872

151,

053

5,79

1 3,

146

27,3

65

35,9

61

19,8

19

8,56

2 4,

424

3,25

3 1,

022

7,32

9 2,

032

11,8

60

690

19,7

99

1970

Cen

sus

Cou

ntry

of O

rigin

, For

eign

Sto

ck

TRA

CT

Pop

ulat

ion

Fore

ign

Sto

ck

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Ire

land

S

wed

en

Ger

man

y P

olan

d C

zech

oslo

vaki

a A

ustri

a H

unga

ry

U.S

.S.R

. Ita

ly

Can

ada

Mex

ico

Cub

a O

ther

A

mer

ica

All

othe

r &

N.R

. 74

00

503

110

3 2

43

9

11

43

7500

1,

520

370

4 7

60

51

3 42

18

9

10

17

3

146

7600

1,

870

521

4

127

87

40

16

53

19

4 88

00

4,15

4 1,

055

43

6 29

0 10

4 15

36

44

6

18

7 49

15

42

5 89

00

3,67

7 1,

048

36

16

399

101

20

46

10

12

6

37

55

310

9000

4,

755

1,53

9 35

12

61

0 14

1 7

58

81

12

6

63

63

451

1030

0 1,

092

232

16

81

22

5

3 12

3

8

12

71

10

400

2,78

3 67

8 7

19

7 69

6

48

5

20

54

272

1050

0 4,

441

1,40

0 26

9

539

145

21

49

49

27

49

13

35

43

8 11

100

497

192

6 1

40

14

3 3

2 3

3

10

2 44

Lo

ngfe

llow

C

omm

unity

25

,293

7,

146

180

53

2,38

5 74

2 60

29

9 27

2 48

12

3 40

33

5 86

0

68

2,39

4 C

ity

434,

408

103,

800

3,86

6 1,

785

23,3

36

12,3

47

5,68

0 3,

039

2,43

2 62

2 3,

653

1,39

5 8,

315

665

293

1,10

0 35

,272

longfellow community population and housing ... · longfellow community population and housing...

Documents