75-057 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

With regard to quality of maintenance; 913 (22.7%) were rated good, 2400 (59.7%) as fair, and 705 (17.6%) were classified as poor. Units rated as good under premise rating constituted 1014 (25.2%) of the total; fair, 2281 (56.8%); and 723 (18~) poor. Using the assigned scores for each of the various categories, multiplying by the number of units in that category, and then dividing by the total of 4018 units we can obtain the average or mean score for the major factors of Age, Life Expectancy, Quality of Maintenance, and Premise Rating. The average score in each major factor was age at 1235, life expectancy at 1.84, maintenance quality at 1.95, and premise rating at 1.93. In order to state something overall about the problems of housing aea whole for the entire number of units surveyed regardless of geographical location or distribution, we may use the math- ematical method discussed under SURVEY CRITERIA to make some generalizations. Longevity (combination of Age and Life Expectancy) would be a score of 3.19 indicating a low mid-range longevity expect- ation. The Overall Parcel Rating score (combination of Main- tenance and Premise Rating) would be 3.88 or fair category. Hypothetically this would result in an overall Housing Stock Condition Rating of fair. Even though remembering that these areas were initially surveyed because of indicated severity of housing and socio-economic problems, the overall results would indicate that the majority of the units can be suitable for ade- quate human habitation." This is not meant to downplay or dis- tort the fact that numerous units could not meet the minimum visual standards of housing quality with approximately one out of six falling into the categories of ten years or less life expec- tancy and poor in quality of maintenance and premise rating. Fur- ther the surveys were based on relative housing quality and the rating of minimum standards for habitation. Except for one target area (Delhi Area in the Southeast), all showed a decrease in the number of units and population. The comparison of target area owner occupied unit values and contract rents with the census tract(s) averages in which each target area was located showed results which were initially anticipated. Each target area had both lower values and lower rents than their respective census tract(s). In each target area the percentage of units with 1.01 persons or more per room exceeded the per- centage for the census tracts in which they were located, a mea- sure of the extent of overcrowding. In general, the population per household was relatively stable for target areas with only minor decreases. The bulk of target area units were single family homes with most multiple unit structures confined to du- plexes and some trip~exes. Larger families or more persons per ho~-ehold were the rule for most target areas with some exceptions in the central corridor area where homes had been converted to multiple units or boarding houses. 000120