|
<br /> RENHR OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS
<br /> 50%
<br /> ,,%1 ~
<br /> G
<br /> Z
<br /> , "
<br /> '0% .
<br /> Z ~
<br /> 35% 0 0
<br /> " 0
<br />~
<br />" ~ .
<br />Z 30% " "
<br />0 0
<br />0 0 "
<br />. 25% . 0
<br />0 ~ v
<br />"
<br />Z 20%
<br />.
<br />v
<br />" 15%
<br />.
<br />.
<br /> 10"'<'
<br />
<br />TABLEj
<br />
<br />RENTER OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS BY RENT LEVEL
<br />
<br /> Shooks!:vn Tolol City
<br />Rent (in cl,:,lh-,) D,U.'s Percent D,U.'s Percent
<br />o - 39 137 4.0% 392 2.2%
<br />,,- 59 451 13,3% 1,134 6,3"k
<br />60- 79 939 27.7% 2,n4 15,4%
<br />80- 99 920 27.1% 3,079 17.1%
<br />100-119 488 14.4% J 6,662 36.9%
<br />120-149 342 10.1%
<br />150-199 51 1.5% 2,767 15.3%
<br />200+ 4 0,1% 589 3,3%
<br />NoCo.h Rent " 1.8% 650 3.6%
<br /> "'" 100,00/0 18,047 100.1%
<br />Vacant for Rent 210
<br />Total Uni.s 3,"~
<br />Source: 1970 Census of Populotionond Housing
<br />
<br />
<br />ReNT (IN DOLlARS)
<br />
<br />~ 34 -
<br />
<br />SOC~C-IfCOiNIOIW9C CllIIAIlACTUIISTIICS
<br />
<br />Population ond economic rl-:7lo, be.:ouse of i" inherently persooQI nolure,
<br />is very sensitiv" todeol witf, oncl is generally not readily ovoiloble on
<br />Q SITlolI onolYlis oreo basis such as the CensuS blockor the o\sessor 's
<br />blo<:k which were used os 0 doto b.Jse for housing information. Neverthe-
<br />less it is importanttQ include this'<ype oFmoteriol as Inp<.Jt lathe evoluo-
<br />tion ofo neighbvrhood Of group of neighborhoods such a. the Shook's Run
<br />sl"dyareo.
<br />
<br />Th.. .ource for most so<:io-economicdato in Colorado Springs is the 1970
<br />Cemus.14 Unfortunolely, many of the cen"". troct bvundaries, which ore
<br />th" smallesldola base ovailable, do not coincide with the boundaries cho.en
<br />forlhe Shook's R"n study areo. For this rea,on, the data presenled below
<br />will not be exc!"sively Shook's RU<l dalo, G""erol irnpressionsandonoly.is
<br />to be pursued shou!d nevertheleSl be volid since neighbarhoodconditions -
<br />particularly socio""<'lconomic condi.ions -don't tePld to for", in potterns
<br />demarcotedby inherllntly arbifrory map lines. Ralhllr, Ihey Form in more
<br />or IlIssnebulouspoltllmsondlheb()slonecould hope lor would be to
<br />idePltify tMse Foctors thot iPlfluenca 0 ~ignlficont section of the study orea.
<br />
<br />Specific stotistica I doto Is tabulot"d in the 1970 cen~u' do<=u""ents ond M'
<br />been excerp'"d from Ihem for anolysi. p"rposes; they won't berep"oled
<br />hereexeeplostheyrelotetoporlic"larconclu,ionsthctoreplesented.
<br />Th..purpo.e ho.been 10..val"oIe Ihe dQto from Ihe perspective afattempt-
<br />ingla "ndllrstond the .odol and economic rnok""p of the Shook's Run oreo
<br />vi. 0 vi,lh" genllrol cCfldit10n oflhe ctty 0.0 whole.
<br />
<br />The 10101 population oflhe Shook". Run sludyareo i.estimaledot between
<br />16,OOOond19,OOOpe"oos. This_lcco"nh for betwwn 120nd14percent
<br />of the city's 1970 pOfA'lotian of 135,060 and is ir'l ke"piPlg with the dwell-
<br />'Plg una count mentioned ear!ier ",hich approximates 13 percent of the
<br />city's 1970 totol.
<br />
<br />
<br />Fran that poi"r, how...ver, Ihll sloti.ti" for the ,tudy area b..gin to diverge
<br />from the nOrm. for the city and a Foltllm becomes "pparent that lend. to
<br />repeal itself. In the categories cf.osen for evoluolion -minority concen-
<br />.ratlon,po;:>ulotionindepend"ntogegroup.ng., ed"colionol level ,
<br />:'o.~,;ency, unllmj::doymcn! !eve!., income level, and a"",lebl!;ty of e"to-
<br />rnobiletromportolion-wilh few8:<ceplians, Ihe clln.us Irach 01 Ihe
<br />,0"lherly end of the Shook's Run study orlla end tho,e "bulling Ihe cllol,,,1
<br />~"'sinen diltrict exhibit .1snificant dllvietion, from th.. Mrm. ond Iho.e
<br />
<br />., 35 ~
<br />
|